And this lead to essentially re-inventing the muffler.
I slid the 125 mm ID SS pipe over the 65 mm ID outlet-with-a-12 cm-gap contraption, insulated (spaced, centering) the ends of the larger tube (maybe 5 cm wide) around the 65 mm tube, sealed the 70 to 125 mm radius openings with tape, and perfect smooth air now comes out the 65 mm outlet.
In other words, I think that a cheap 2 1/2 inch performance muffler can be stuck onto the blower fan and it will give easy-to-measure smooth air.
And this lead to essentially re-inventing the muffler.
I slid the 125 mm ID SS pipe over the 65 mm ID outlet-with-a-12 cm-gap contraption, insulated (spaced, centering) the ends of the larger tube (maybe 5 cm wide) around the 65 mm tube, sealed the 70 to 125 mm radius openings with tape, and perfect smooth air now comes out the 65 mm outlet.
In other words, I think that a cheap 2 1/2 inch performance muffler can be stuck onto the blower fan and it will give easy-to-measure smooth air.
Can you post a sketch of this please.
Thanks
Can you post a sketch of this please.
Thanks
Here are a couple of photos.
Please excuse the rough work, but it was a long series of tests to get to the end result. It can be cleaned up now that the prototype is good.
The white cardboard tube is a 2.5" mailing tube from Staples. It has a layer of bubble wrap around it at the blower end.
.
The Hot Wire anemometer shows substantially higher air velocity at the outlet when at ambient temperature rather than when heat soaked in the outlet tube at the heated temperature.
The mass of air should be a tiny bit higher at ambient compared to the heated temperature, but I doubt it is measurable.
How hot is it?
The mass of air should be a tiny bit higher at ambient compared to the heated temperature, but I doubt it is measurable.
How hot is it?
It seems to be about 0.2 m/s difference at Normal vs Standard at 3.5 m/s, which is about 40 L/min . With the previously uneven outlet air profile it was hard to really measure it well, but I have a spreadsheet that does the conversions.
I think it might mostly be the internal reference temperature for the hot wire, rather than the actual air mass difference calculations that throws things off more than 0.2 m/s. If the reference temperature is wrong, the power to heat the hot wire is calculated incorrectly, then the reported airflow is wrong. It takes a while for the probe tip to warm up (and cool down).
Before and after traverse measurements.
(The specific sites are not matched, but each traverse is a sequence of 8 points in both columns).
|
65 mm 14 C |
65 mm with “muffler” 14C |
|
2.76 |
2.4 |
|
4.65 |
3.47 |
|
3.37 |
3.7 |
|
4.01 |
3.8 |
|
2.79 |
3.53 |
|
2.88 |
3.48 |
|
3.31 |
3.37 |
|
3.33 |
3.17 |
|
3.58 |
3.34 |
|
5.20 |
3.63 |
|
4.45 |
3.66 |
|
4.32 |
3.74 |
|
2.57 |
3.72 |
|
2.95 |
3.74 |
|
3.54 |
3.47 |
|
3.44 |
3.15 |
|
3.83 |
2.87 |
|
4.24 |
3.47 |
|
3.75 |
3.43 |
|
3.55 |
3.53 |
|
2.50 |
3.66 |
|
2 |
3.78 |
|
2.55 |
3.58 |
|
2.88 |
3.23 |
|
2.26 |
3.17 |
|
3.15 |
3.74 |
|
3.46 |
3.78 |
|
3.55 |
3.8 |
|
3.21 |
3.53 |
|
3.8 |
3.47 |
|
4.37 |
3.41 |
|
4.71 |
3.07 |
|
Average |
Average |
the muffler appears to have flattened the curve... Yoku dekimashita.. as they say in Sapporo
it will give easy-to-measure smooth air.
Regarding the burnishing process used in Mizuno-type experiments, I've been wondering if one shouldn't just look at the Mohs hardness, which defines scratch resistance against other materials in the same scale, in a sliding motion which would be similar to what burnishing does. Hardness scales like Vickers or Brinell refer to the resistance of the material against indentation with a standard load acting perpendicularly on the surface.
Below is some data, also with reference to tests I have been doing recently against oxidized substrates:
| Compound | Mohs |
| Nickel | 4.0 |
| Palladium | 4.5–5.0 |
| Bunsenite (NiO) | 5.5 |
| Hematite (Fe2O3) | 5.0–6.0 |
| Eskolaite (Cr2O3) | 8.0–8.5 |
On the Mohs scale, Nickel and Palladium are relatively close together with Ni lower on the list, so burnishing Pd on it might not necessarily work well depending on surface treatment—which I think is also what many people have pointed out from replication attempts.
Oxides formed on the surface will easily be harder.
Maybe “fluff” the Pd up by severely loading it with D2 or H2? That might not exactly soften the burnishing piece, but it could be close to something like that.
I think it was partially melted by quenching 「焼き入れ yakiire -- also translated "unannealed"] (because unlike steel, palladium becomes soft when quenched). It can be heated in air with a gas burner. . . .
Okay, Mizuno told me you should definitely do this. Expose it to the flame to soften it, so that more of it adheres to the nickel.
Maybe “fluff” the Pd up by severely loading it with D2 or H2? That might not exactly soften the burnishing piece, but it could be close to something like that.
If it's a flammable solid like many other hydrides (e.g. TiH2) it could produce expensive fireworks from the energy provided by the rubbing action. I tried looking for safety data sheets online but apparently nobody sells ready-made PdH/PdD.
If it's a flammable solid like many other hydrides (e.g. TiH2) it could produce expensive fireworks from the energy provided by the rubbing action. I tried looking for safety data sheets online but apparently nobody sells ready-made PdH/PdD.
I was thinking fluff it up by loading, degas, and then it would be sort of like soft Pd
or maybe fine Pd-Ni powder brushed then sintered on...
Loading enough hydrogen so that beta-PdH (or D) forms and then unloading the piece could possibly make it more likely to break into tiny fragments under the local pressure and temperature of the burnishing process and get more easily deposited, although it would have to be tried in order to make sure. Pd is indeed known to lose structural integrity after getting loaded with hydrogen to high compositions.
My idea was in a way similar, in that the addition of slight amounts of abrasive material in the burnishing process would too help removing small amounts of Pd which would get more easily permanently deposited on the Ni substrate. And, surface oxides removed from the substrate in the same process would also act like abrasives.
Or at least, that's how I rationalize my own observations using cheap materials. Without a good electronic microscope or actual testing it's difficult to tell for sure if these ideas in practice actually work as intended.
Display MoreLoading enough hydrogen so that beta-PdH (or D) forms and then unloading the piece could possibly make it more likely to break into tiny fragments under the local pressure and temperature of the burnishing process and get more easily deposited, although it would have to be tried in order to make sure. Pd is indeed known to lose structural integrity after getting loaded with hydrogen to high compositions.
My idea was in a way similar, in that the addition of slight amounts of abrasive material in the burnishing process would too help removing small amounts of Pd which would get more easily permanently deposited on the Ni substrate. And, surface oxides removed from the substrate in the same process would also act like abrasives.
Or at least, that's how I rationalize my own observations using cheap materials. Without a good electronic microscope or actual testing it's difficult to tell for sure if these ideas in practice actually work as intended.
I would place a thin layer of Pd on top of the Ni mesh, place between two plates (probably titanium or tungsten, but it probably could be any high strength steel) and press together in a hydraulic press. One would certainly get both micro fractures and extreme melding (not melting) of the two metals. Easy to do and if it works, very easy to replicate with a fair amount of precision.
(This high pressure could possibly concur with Mr. Tarasenko's theories about LENR in the deep earth. 
)
If the substrate where Pd is applied could be in the form of a sheet instead of a mesh, effective cold working techniques could be more easily employed. One could for example use a manual rolling mill, like some LENR researchers (e.g. John Dash) have also done in the past. For added randomness, perhaps hard inclusions like industrial diamonds and so on could be introduced between the two or more sheets of metals arranged similarly to what you suggested using a Ni mesh, and the process repeated several times after folding the resulting sheet over itself as it gets stretched in the process.
(This too to be added to the "to be tested" list)
Mesh could also be cold rolled.
I have some atmospheric pressure differential sensors coming, probably in a week or so.
In the meantime I have the BME280 Sensor for absolute static pressure, humidity and temperature in the outlet, and a test pitot tube plumbing going in.
The idea is to generate real-time air velocity measurements, which should be reliable since the airflow is now stabilized.
.
I received a lecture bottle of D2 from the source recommended by @j9381
After relocating the gas manifold and the usual search for plumbing leaks, I'm now able to fill the cell with good control and little waste.
Here's a look at the gas, showing 99% A=4 (D2) and about 1% of unknown contaminant at A=6. Any ideas what that could be? Maybe a measurement artifact.
Anyway, one step closer to getting it right...watch for MR2.4 Wed.
It is tritium T2 a.e.m.=6
