MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

  • Thanks- I suspect that your Gamma bump might be a cosmic ray - we have seen some very potent ones from time to time - enough to drive 8 Geigers in various parts of the lab crazy simultaneously.

  • Alan Smith No, the geiger is running for years in the same lab and it never reacted in this way. I believe I can reproduce it but I don't feel comfortable to irradiate myself. The geiger might be unable to measure what it is actually and if it is really burst many counts can be ignored.


    If anything, I am sure this is due to pressure event in the reactor. Or this would be coincidence with probability 1:10^10 I guess. There was no delay between.


    Few minutes ago there was spontaneous pressure spike followed by another gamma burst of same range, followed by temperature increase by few °C.

    It is very slow, but temperature is still rising and also there are temperature changes not seen during calibration.

    I mean temperature is steady or going down by 1°C for prolonged period and then for example after 30 minutes there is sudden increase and it stays at the level.

  • That sounds very promising. Perhaps- when you are ready - switch off the heater and take a cooling curve- watch it like a hawk between 350 and 400C, As for the geigers, twice background, even 10x background is nothing to worry about unless you are there for a long long time. No more gammas than you would see on a long-haul flight.

  • I would like to know how to resolve my Palladium problem since I am almost certain it is reason for very poor results. Simply my imagination of rubbing was very, very different. I think that all previous steps during preparation were of almost zero importance since mesh surface was shiny after rubbing. And weight of the mesh actually decreased noticeably.

  • I am at 180W now. The temperature is still rising. I can't say we have excess heat. But I can say the temperatures are higher beyond error than during calibration.

    Temperature inside the core (heater temperature) is 675°C 677°C now. It should be 652°C or less which mean there is +23°C difference.


    So, if I understand correctly, you are doing isoperibolic calorimetry based on the temperature in the reactor. Right? This could be a problem because the type of gas and the gas pressure will affect the temperature inside the reactor. It does not usually affect it as much as you are seeing, in my experience, but a person would have to do extensive modeling to confirm that. Is the type of gas, the pressure, and the temperatures very similar to the calibrations? That would be good.

  • JedRothwell Yes, you are very right. Calibration was done with internal parameters same or as close as possible to the fueled run. To make a proper approximation of results I made calibration on multiple pressure levels and at power levels from 50 - 200W with 10W steps. Also with extremes to be able to guess how internal pressure will influence results and to minimize false conslusion.

    There was Deuterium during calibration too.

  • I am measuring 3 temperatures all the time:

    1. reactor shell the hottest point - IR Camera

    2. reactor shell end cap - center point - IR Gun

    3. reactor core - heater - thermocouple


    All 3 temperatures were above calibration. Still I dont want to make any conclusion.

  • I am measuring 3 temperatures all the time:

    1. reactor shell the hottest point - IR Camera

    2. reactor shell end cap - center point - IR Gun

    3. reactor core - heater - thermocouple


    All 3 temperatures were above calibration. Still I dont want to make any conclusion.


    I prefer air-flow calorimetry, but that sounds pretty good. If all three indicate there is excess heat, and the heat is about the same magnitude from all three, that is a good sign. Measurements 1 and 2 will not be affected by the type of gas or gas pressure, after the temperatures stabilize.


    Measuring heat by several different methods, at different places, is a good idea.

  • Maybe it is too big.

    If you mean ... the actual size..


    the calorimeter could be made smaller.. are there any dimensions?


    assuming the reactor is 0.6m long.. I get volume= ~0,5 m3... SA = ~4 m2


    this compares to Mizuno's 0.2 m3 and 2 m2

    "

    In a usual test, the input power of the blower is 5 W, so the wind speed is 4 m/s.

    Since the air outlet sectional area is 4.4 × 10−3 m2, air volume of about 1.6×10-2m3/s passes through the interior of the box.

    Since the volume of the box is 0.21 m3, if the air volume by the blower is 0.03 m3, the air in the box is replaced every ~13 seconds.

  • Few minutes ago there was spontaneous pressure spike followed by another gamma burst of same range, followed by temperature increase by few °C.


    Desireless : Are you willing to run a gamma spec in parallel? With the Theremino software you can run endless 10'' or 20'' short spectra that can identify the time and peak gammas. This would be very helpful to identify the reaction type.


    If you can spend some money, then a Beryllium vacuum tight window (4000$) will give you a clear sight on all radiation inside the reactor.


    In my opinion, based on the knowledge we have, running the Mizuno style experiment without a gamma monitor will be almost fruitless as you will most likely need 1000 years to identify the critical parameters by doing blind runs. Spikes are a sign that a better reaction might be possible, if you can add the missing element but which? The gammas will tell it.