Deuterium Energetics Limited

Dr Richard

Similar works...

Power boost

Liviu Popa-Simil, former Los Alamos National Laboratory nuclear engineer and founder of private research and development company LAVM and Claudiu Muntele, of Alabama A&M University, US, say transforming the energy of radioactive particles into electricity is more effective.

The materials they are testing would extract up to 20 times more power from radioactive decay than thermoelectric materials, they calculate.

Tests of layered tiles of carbon nanotubes packed with gold and surrounded by lithium hydride are under way. Radioactive particles that slam into the gold push out a shower of high-energy electrons. They pass through carbon nanotubes and pass into the lithium hydride from where they move into electrodes, allowing current to flow.

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/a…lectricity/#ixzz6bC3Oev18

Quote from Dr Richard

So combining the CNT's storage capacity with that of Pd or Ni would be an interesting experiment?

There are many unresearched things about CNT's

Very recent research shows how a microwave oven + FeAl oxides can make CNT's plus hydrogen from plastic waste

"We use microwaves together with abundant and inexpensive iron-based catalysts as microwave susceptors

to initiate the catalytic deconstruction process.

The one-step process typically takes 30–90 s to transform a sample of mechanically pulverized commercial plastic into hydrogen and (predominantly) multiwalled carbon nanotubes.

A high hydrogen yield of 55.6 mmol g1plasticI is achieved, with over 97% of the theoretical mass of hydrogen being extracted from the deconstructed plastic.

The approach is demonstrated on widely used, real-world plastic waste."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41929-020-00518-5

https://www.nature.com/article…rrer=www.newscientist.com

video https://static-content.springe…9_2020_518_MOESM2_ESM.mp4

Quote from RobertBryant

CNTs are a very active research area

...and that it is why it is hard to believe that no one has stumbled over the effect earlier - multi walled carbon nano tubes + water = nuclear reaction? Or did I get something wrong?

Like metal lattices, (modified) CNTs have capabilities of storing Hydrogen.

Question is whether CNTs play a role in converting Hydrogen into Ultra Dense Hydrogen. I would not cancel out that option.

I recall someone posting a rumor that also Norront Fusion Energy is or has been looking into CNTs to further improve their conversion process, but I can't find that posting elsewhere in this forum for the moment.

Quote from gerold.s

why it is hard to believe that no one has stumbled over the effect earlier -

somebody should have thought before 2020 that you can use a microwave oven to make HDPE into CNTs

maybe they did.. but the experimentation to actually do it probably involves a few years of trial and error

what you see in the Nature article is the final product

the best I can do is to use an sandwich toaster to make fake flowers.. even that takes some trial and error.

Quote from Rob Woudenberg

whether CNTs play a role in converting Hydrogen into Ultra Dense Hydrogen.

CNTs have been found to contain traces of catalyst used in their manufacture..., Fe, Ni and C..

but maybe there is a long range spin effect.from the carbon electrons

definitely above my pay grade ... but 1- 2 eV doesn't seem to be enough..

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.5291.pdf

There was no doping of the mwcnts. The cnts were made to a spec, mainly average length and average diameter, mwcnts being the targeted morphology. We took pains to clean any tramp materials from the cnts. All cnts were boiled in nitric and hydrochloric acids, and washed in hydrofluoric (I think some were boiled as well, but it was difficult). They were then washed in DI water. Since they were primarily intended for water 'filters' that was the end of the pre-processing.

Problems arose when the filters were put on test during the day (100% testing), and left pressurized but not subject to flow overnight. The next day, when testing was restarted, we noted the flow rate was markedly less initially, but climbed back to normal flow rates after a while. I was tasked with finding out what the problem was.

With the clear filter housings a mass of gas bubbles was apparent, visible on the surface of the cnt filter. I began by isolating elements present in the filter. The simplest test combined cnts and the same water used during testing. Gas bubbles formed a blanket over the cnts overnight. The vessel was a flask with a tapered ground glass seal, with a mating glass valve as a seal. Nothing fancy. My intention was to do a 'pop' test at the valves exit. When I did so, I got the (actually unexpected) pop, but it also unseated the valve.

I had a quad ms, but it was unable to see hydrogen, either H or H₂. It really only became reliable at mass 4. I did not have a Geiger counter, and wasn't there yet, mentally, to think I would need one. I talked my dentist out of ten x-ray film packs (the water-tight white plastic things they used to put in your mouth, very uncomfortable). I took two 50ml beakers, placed 10mg of the 'cleaned' cnts in each, and about 20-25ml of D₂O in each. There was a semi-elaborate setup, but in essence I put one film pack under each beaker on a 2x4 piece of pine, and left it overnight. I put the rest of the packs in my desk (about 300m from the experiment). The next day I brought the two 'exposed' packs and two 'unexposed' packs to the dentist, had them developed, with the result that two packs were exposed and two were not. We repeated this a fair number of times (maybe thirty, it's in the log). Had to buy the rest of the packs, the dentists was open handed only to a point.

That was all in the early Fall of 2005. Both samples still exist. I know one has never been replenished with D₂O. I wanted to see how long it would keep emitting. MWCNT's retain hydrogen, apparently for at least 15 years, as the sample I have is still emitting. It resides in a block of lead, and is checked periodically. I have not exposed that sample to anything more energetic than room lighting, and twice direct sunlight. Emissions increase (double) in direct sunlight.

I do know that exposing the cnts to energetic photons produced neutrons, which essentially broke the cnts to carbon mush; not cnts any more. I used a 254nm UV lamp. Electrical fields (AC and DC) seem to limit the life of these deuterated cnts. Strongish magnetic fields (2-3T) attract cnts. Do not let the magnet come in contact with the cnts; it will become a permanent condition (non-geological timeframe). mwcnts immersed in CCl₄ behave interestingly, particularly when those same magnets are applied to the exterior of the vessel.

I hope this answers some questions, and prompts more.

Oh, I left out one thing; the dissociation of water. At the time, I only knew of one mechanism, electrolysis. The only problem was that required an electrolyte and current. Since we did not apply a current between two electrodes (although some kind of electrolyte might have been present inadvertently), that one seemed not to be a good fit. I later learned about radiolysis while we were duplicating the tests eight months later at LLNL. That left ionizing radiation. We could measure helium being produced, we had deuterium, so the emissions implied alpha particles were being generated, and hence gamma-rays. Also, the D₂O self-warmed. If you weren't careful, you could lose all of the liquid D₂O quite promptly. We thereafter focused on gas phase D₂.

Good to know. We sent out all of the samples in their various iterations to a lab to do characterizations of the emissions. Early on, after the film test, we bought a He₃ neutron detector, a nice Ortec Gamma/X detector, a Canberra MCA, and all the associated gear. A week or so into data collection, we had an energetic 'event' that killed almost everything. We were using a 50mg cnt sample and relatively strong lights (photo-shoot floods) for illumination, and taking as many pictures as we could. It was a major setback. I was burned badly. It is why I emphasize 1mg of cnts.

jfloan173 : Would it be possible for you to briefly summarize what happened with the discovery of Seldom Technologies between 2005 and current date? It seems it was abandoned for quite some years and it has been revived recently?

Quote from Rob Woudenberg

jfloan173 : Would it be possible for you to briefly summarize what happened with the discovery of Seldom Technologies between 2005 and current date? It seems it was abandoned for quite some years and it has been revived recently?

Certainly. First point to be made was that the project was never abandoned. It was throttled both by the fact that we were self-funding, and by our inability to get the USPTO to understand that it didn't use electrolytes (they insisted we had to) and that we weren't using electrical stimulation. Because it flew in the face of all known physics, it couldn't exist. We have spent a fortune trying to get them to understand that is was a new approach. We are still going through the appeals quagmire, but believe we will prevail.

2006 was spent largely with continuing work at LLNL. This was liquid phase D₂O in with cnt's a lab there, then electrically stimulated cnts with DC, pulsed DC, and AC.

2007-2008, and maybe some part of 2009 was spent doing gas phase experiments in another lab in Oregon. The gas phase experiments were much more difficult and equipment-centric. There, the objective was to see if we were producing He. We got the data over a period of some months, and we were producing Helium. All the equipment was stolen, which was a major loss.

From then until 2017 or so, efforts were focused on what would comprise a practical reactor design; it's controls; starting and stopping the reaction, making sure it was safe, etc. A lot of work, thousands of hours.

This lead to a reappraisal of the approach, and several deep design iterations. We are four generations past the initial concepts and tests, +/-.

Of course, I cannot discuss this further until we are protected. This is intended to be a product, not an academic exercise.