Quoteas you know there is an immense danger of explosion with these reactors
Only if they work, Robert. Only if they work.
Mizuno reports increased excess heat
-
-
THH: Either reactor could be retested with external checking and calorimetry and the level of assurance in these world-changing and disruptive results would greatly increase. I can't see why Mizuno would be against that?
Jed: Why would he be "against that"? Whatever made you think he has not done that? What scientist would not do that? Did someone tell you he is against that, or did you just make it up out of whole cloth? You are a strange person, making up stuff like that.
This is not conducive to a useful conversation. Whatever makes you think I think Mizuno has not done that? I am not making assumptions. It has not yet happened (with results as in the paper) or we would have heard. Anyone skeptical (even IH) validating those results would be a major thing and I doubt it would be secret. I refer you to my post above for the types of documented checks that would be needed (I don't claim this is a perfect list, but it is a start). Anyway your response here makes me hope this can happen - a lot quicker and more sure than others trying to replicate.THH
-
Quote as you know there is an immense danger of explosion with these reactors
Only if they work, Robert. Only if they work.
SOT,, there is zero danger of explosion...
I can reiterate the calculations..
the virtual vacuum means that the reactor implodes when it melts
-
Quote
SOT,, there is zero danger of explosion...
It all depends on the speed and intensity of thermal runaway. There is nickel mesh in the reactor which can vaporize given enough energy fast enough. And there is air all around so fire is another hazard. If it works of course, as I noted. But I am getting more and more convinced that many of the proponents aren't really convinced it will. PS: there's no vacuum once the heat from a hot spot, as on the mesh for example, melts a hole in the wall. Does that stop the reaction? Maybe. But it's an unknown reaction!
-
business as usual
PS: there's no vacuum once the heat from a hot spot, as on the mesh for example, melts a hole in the wall
I guess its not business as usual which is what SOT maintains others think
pure meaningless rhetoric.
this is not business as usual..
There is nickel mesh in the reactor which can vaporize given enough energy fast enough.
Calculations? SOT???
or empty rhetoric.. hot air?
-
I don't know how to calculate the temperature and pressure rise during thermal runaway of a fusion reactor. I have neither the background nor the data. I doubt that you do inasmuch as the rate and quantity of energy release are both completely unknown. I suggest you check out what happens to overloaded or overheated lithium ion batteries as a first run. With the potential output of the reaction completely unknown, you can't guess how high it can go. But you're not doing the work, that I know of. The concern is for those who are.
-
With the potential output of the reaction completely unknown, you can't guess how high it can go
There is nickel mesh in the reactor which can vaporize given enough energy fast enough
BP of Nickel = 2732C
MP of Nickel =1453C
MP of 316ss reactor=1371-1399C
After the reactor melts at 1400C and implodes .. it is very difficult to vaporize the unmelted nickel at 1300C higher temperature.
That's only my guess.
-
Display More
BP of Nickel = 2732C
MP of Nickel =1453C
MP of 316ss reactor=1371-1399C
After the reactor melts at 1400C and implodes .. it is very difficult to vaporize the unmelted nickel at 1300C higher temperature.
That's only my guess.
Actually the boiling point of nickel will be much lower in a strong vacuum.
Roughly 1800 C at 100 Pa, I think.
-
nickel will be much lower in a strong vacuum
The stainless steel melts before the nickel boils..
the pressure rapidly becomes atmospheric in the 6 litre reactor volume
-
The excess heat does not appear to correlate with loading. At higher loading is actually anti-correlated. This is the opposite of all previous cold fusion experiments. I was astounded by this. Mizuno was sanguine. He thinks he can explain it. He thinks that high loading reduces the effect because it impedes adsorption in the interface between the two metals. It reduces flux. He said that when you are loading a palladium or nickel lattice, you want high loading, but not in this case, “presumably because the adsorption at the internal interface or the Pd-Ni mixed layer is the simplest Langmuir type. . . . If the deuterium concentration in the interior is high, the reaction at the interface or in the two-mixed metal layer will drop due to a slight inhibition of the adsorptive power.
Exactly the conditions required to create Rydberg Matter of hydrogen. And yes RM is fully compliant with Storms' NAE-in-cracks-or-surface concept as well with his two-steps electronic-nuclear model of LENR. But hey most people working in LENR don't know what RM is and don't care to read what conventional physics and surface science say on the subject. Mainstream physics has rejected LENR for reasons we all know here too well, but the LENR community should not do a similar mistake and neglect what conventional science says in related fields. Unfortunately bridges between the two are lacking. My favorite article in the field of LENR is the one by Lipson et al in Phys Rev B, 2005, precisely because it creates a bridge between the two. BeautifuI science. I strongly recommend to read this article again in view of Storms theory and Mizuno R20 experiment. Here is the DOI:
-
US Secretary of Navy
Concentration of isotopic hydrogen by temperature gradient effect in soluble metal
-
Exactly the conditions required to create Rydberg Matter of hydrogen. And yes RM is fully compliant with Storms' NAE-in-cracks-or-surface concept as well with his two-steps electronic-nuclear model of LENR. But hey most people working in LENR don't know what RM is and don't care to read what conventional physics and surface science say on the subject. Mainstream physics has rejected LENR for reasons we all know here too well, but the LENR community should not do a similar mistake and neglect what conventional science says in related fields. Unfortunately bridges between the two are lacking. My favorite article in the field of LENR is the one by Lipson et al in Phys Rev B, 2005, precisely because it creates a bridge between the two. BeautifuI science. I strongly recommend to read this article again in view of Storms theory and Mizuno R20 experiment. Here is the DOI:
Perhaps more useful (because more detailed) is the 2016 Syed et al:
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1608/1608.01774.pdf
This paper appears not to have been peer-review published anywhere: a bit surprising given content. Maybe I've just not found it?
A comprehensive review (Cornell) gives some context
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1905.06693.pdf (Under evaluation for publication Physics Reports 2019)
The existence of two different tetra- or octa-hedral absorption sites for hydrogen may be related to old [441] and more recent [442] reports of superconducting phases in PdH with very high-Tc (300 and 62 K, respectively). In view of metastable superconducting phases recently observed for other hydrides, it is possible that given the small energy difference between O and T site occupations, slow or rapid quenching from the high-T phase may stabilize different a phase with substantial T occupations, with improved superconducting properties. However, recent first-principles calculations [443] indicate that a full occupation of tetra-sites is detrimental for superconductivity, since it decreases the electron-phonon coupling with H-derived modes, which is at odds with previous studies. A quite peculiar aspect of PdH is the existence of an inverse isotope effect: isotope substitution of H with deuteriumresults in an increase of Tc up to 11 K in PdD[387]. The inverse isotope effect has been related to a strong anharmonicity of the phonon modes, which is also suggested by resistivity, photoemission, inelastic neutron scattering and tunneling experiments [444, 445, 446, 447, 448].
Only recently the complicated physics of PdH was put on firm grounds by first-principle calculations of phonon frequencies and electron-phonon coupling which include the anharmonic phonon contributions non-pertubatively. These calculations which permitted to reconcile severe discrepancies between theory and experiments in the structural stability and thesuperconducting properties [208]. In particular, the inclusion of anharmonic corrections on the phonon spectrum strongly renormalizes frequencies of optical branches, yielding a much better qualitative agreement with experiments and stabilizes the lowest acoustical branch, which is predicted to be unstable at the harmonic level. More importantly, anharmonic corrections correct the severe overestimation of the superconducting Tc found by harmonic calculations – Tc is reduced from 47 K (harmonic) to 5.0 K for PdH and 6.5 K for PdD (anharmonic). Calculations including phonon anharmonicity correctly reproduce the anomalous inverse isotope effect observed by experiments, although the calculated value of the isotope coefficient, α=0.38, is about 50% lower than the experimental one[208]. The remaining quantitative differences may be related to Coulomb effects, which in Ref. [208] were treated with an empirical pseudopotential and not on a first-principles ground or from anharmonic effects on the deformation potential, which was also disregarded. Both types of effects may be relevant also in other hydrides. -
Transient High-Temperature Superconductivity in Palladium Hydride
Griffith University 2016
-
-
-
... and indeed:
"A preparation of such samples is either possible in suitable
electrochemical conditions or in high pressure gaseous
hydrogen, being in contact with the sample investigated. The
electrochemical charging is simple and cheap, but not always
well controlled. The electrode potential of the charged palladium
sample is of little importance, as clear non-equilibrium
conditions are present at the electrode surface, and therefore,
the electrode potential has practically no direct correspondence
to equilibrium conditions. Such conditions can be realized only,
if gaseous hydrogen (deuterium) of knowntemperature and pressure
is available. But the realization requires high pressures of
gaseous hydrogen and complicated devices, whereby any contact
of the gaseous hydrogen phase with steel elements has to be
avoided. The achievement of 1:1 stoichiometry in the Pd samples
is possible at 25 ◦C at hydrogen gaseous pressures above
12 kbar [6].
The curve representing the Pd:H ratios as a function of hydrogen
pressure is flatting near the 1:1 atomic ratio and, therefore,
the achievement of overstoichiometric 1:1 samples, richer in
hydrogen contents, is a rather difficult task. This means, that
the crucial requirement in Tripodi et al.’s intentions to work
with overstoichiometric samples is even in high pressure conditions
of gaseous hydrogen not realistic. But on the other
hand, one has to raise the question, if such “overstoichiometric”
high concentrated samples are really interesting from the point
of view of superconductivity? Rather discouraging are in this
respect the results of hydrogen concentration increase realized
by implantation technique [7], whereby locally H:Pd ratios of
1.2 were achieved. However, the implantation technique enables
to increase the transition temperature, this increase was never
higher than 10K [8].
It is known [9], that in the temperature range 1.5–9K the
critical temperature is a linear function of hydrogen activity.
An extrapolation to 298K gives the logarithm of hydrogen
fugacity equal to about 160, thus, a pressures not accessible in
experiments. In other words – remembering that the character
of dependence may change at higher temperatures – the high
temperature palladium hydride superconductor seems to be very
doubtful.
Summing up, one has to state that recent Tripodi’s papers
[1–3] do not represent new, interesting information, and the
overoptimistic “revelations” are far from realities."
See Baranowski note at DOI: 10.1016/j.jallcom.2006.07.082 and Tricomi answer at
http://www.lnf.infn.it/divric/…(2009)%20L6-L8%20(15).pdf
Anyway, Tricomi/Mckubre outcome although doubtful and without consequences except Griffith U is far less questionable than Albertini's highly appreciated hydrargirium transform
-
Perhaps more useful (because more detailed) is the 2016 Syed et al:
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1608/1608.01774.pdf
Both papers are only loosely related. The paper you cite is about PdH whereas the one by Lipson is about a new condensed phase of H at dislocation cores present at the Pd:PdO interface. IMHO only the latter is interesting in view of Storms model and recent Mizuno R20 experiment.
-
with regard to superconductivity, I suggest rather a dynamic process to avoid resistivity.
Electric current (electrons movement) is disturbed by lateral spin current which cross all current lines within the lattice.
You really have to remove ( as you can..) spin current (helped by a magnetic fields?) in order to produce a very anisotropic "electron flux".
Electrons trajectories would become strictly helical to respect superconductivity spin value.
Metallic or non-metallic alloys remain a "static" solution, but it would be necessary in this case to be able to stabilize lattice's shape by diamond-shaped patterns, with 3 or 4 different materials (atom diameter differences) , already difficult to achieve by current technology .
DF
-
-
Mizono did not have a good answer to Question 8 above (heat after death).
In most of his papers, the graphs only show data while the heater remains on. It would be very informative to cycle the heater on and off (once an hour or day or week depending on how long to reach steady state). That would show the impulse response. Much could be learned from the time constant, shape of the curve, and power peaks especially if the same is done at similar power levels on the control.
