I just have a simple question, was there ever a single LENR device that generated at least 1 kW of energy outside of Mills' hydrino stuff? Not just a sudden burst or unreproducible devices.
Working LENR device ever made?
-
If you mean instantaneous bursts of power of that magnitude, perhaps there's none that was ever deemed to be independently reproducible (from the top of my head Mizuno's Pd rubbed on Ni mesh so called R20 reactor that is claimed to have produced 3 KW heat), but cumulative excess heats of Mega Joules has been recorded in some experiments.
-
If you mean instantaneous bursts of power of that magnitude, perhaps there's none that was ever deemed to be independently reproducible (from the top of my head Mizuno's Pd rubbed on Ni mesh so called R20 reactor that is claimed to have produced 3 KW heat), but cumulative excess heats of Mega Joules has been recorded in some experiments.
You didn't understood me right. I specifically asked NOT about bursts. But a continuous output of at least 1 kj/second, which is 1 kW.
-
I specifically asked NOT about bursts. But a continuous output of at least 1 kj/second, which is 1 kW.
How long is a burst, by your definition? Some people would say a burst is a few seconds. Others say 24 hours, or 3 months. The term is not rigorously defined. I have never heard of a cold fusion heat release that lasts only a few seconds. The shortest ones I can think of lasted for hours. Would that be a burst?
In this paper:
https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/PonsScalorimetra.pdf
Pons refers to a "heat burst" shown in Figs. 5a, 5b and 5c. It lasts 18 days. The power is stable for days at a time at around 2 W. Would you call that a burst or continuous?
Along the same lines, is Australia an island or a continent?
-
You didn't understood me right. I specifically asked NOT about bursts. But a continuous output of at least 1 kj/second, which is 1 kW.
Ok, then the only contender would be Mizuno, with the caveat that the reproducibility in general has been limited, and at those power levels no one has published results besides Mizuno (Mizuno claims 1 kW and up to 3 kW outputs from his R20 experiments). Here is the paper presented by JedRothwell at ICCF 22.
-
Controversially, I’m gonna say the answer to the OP question is “no”.
Feel free to posit otherwise.
Most LENR experiments would fail catastrophically with 500 W of excess heat for more than a moment (ie: flames in under a minute!). -
Yes, Andrea Rossi with his 1 MW system in 2011 🤣
-
https://drive.google.com/file/…QQWy87SIMXjPa913CWS3/view Да есть, учитесь...
-
Controversially, I’m gonna say the answer to the OP question is “no”.
Feel free to posit otherwise.
Most LENR experiments would fail catastrophically with 500 W of excess heat for more than a moment (ie: flames in under a minute!).That is rather sad.
-
From an article by Steve Katinsky, in #146 of Infinite Energy Magazine (July/August 2019)
https://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue146/KatinskyNagelIE146.pdf
Quote from Steve KatinskySoon after the U.S. made its decision to undertake the Manhattan Project, the first human-made nuclear chain reaction took place at the University of Chicago. The Chicago Pile-1 (CP-1), a developmental nuclear reactor constructed and operated by Enrico Fermi and his team, went critical in an experiment they conducted on December 12, 1942. It ran for 4.5 minutes at about 0.5 watts. Further testing was mostly at 0.5 watts.
The first full-scale nuclear reactor after the CP-1, Hanford B, was designed to operate at 250,000,000 watts (250 MW) thermal, a power level over 250 million times that of Fermi’s test reactor. Construction of Hanford B began only four months after CP-1 went critical, and its construction was complete 18 months later. Hanford B was later operated at levels above 2000 MW (over two billion times that of Fermi’s test reactor) with the only major modification being an increase in its cooling water capacity.
The article is mostly talking about the need for large scale cooperation. However, the above quote actually highlights what was physically achievable, by having a theoretical model that was both useful and accurate enough to allow engineers to design a reactor that would still function at a much larger scale than the original Chicago Pile. In that particular case, they also had the money and resources to go ahead and build it.
I'm quite fond of quoting the George Box aphorism: "All models are wrong, but some are useful". But there is an implied corollary that some models, as well as being wrong, are actually useless, and a hindrance to progress - since they cannot be relied upon for any further design activities. Even if you have the money and resources, you cannot scale-up a device if you can't actually design it. Unfortunately, we seem to have been stuck at this stage for over 30 years.
-
That is rather sad.
The physical feasibility, or not, of handling the amount of total heat and temperatures claimed for a device is a useful tool to sort out some of the more fantastic (literally) designs offered by inventors.
I spent some time a few years ago testing some designs and adding sudden extra heat (secondary heat coil, etc) and most designs failed almost instantly by cracking or melting down.
I have built test devices that were up to 1800 W and 1500 C that handled a fair bit of heat abuse, so it is more of a design plan problem rather than a materials problem. It can be done.
Most real LENR experiments, however, are simply not made for such high power levels. -
The physical feasibility, or not, of handling the amount of total heat and temperatures claimed for a device is a useful tool to sort out some of the more fantastic (literally) designs offered by inventors.
I spent some time a few years ago testing some designs and adding sudden extra heat (secondary heat coil, etc) and most designs failed almost instantly by cracking or melting down.
I have built test devices that were up to 1800 W and 1500 C that handled a fair bit of heat abuse, so it is more of a design plan problem rather than a materials problem. It can be done.
Most real LENR experiments, however, are simply not made for such high power levels.Can you describe your method of achieving LENR?
-
That is rather sad.
I do not think so. The power level makes no difference. This is a physics experiment. The only thing that matters is the signal to noise ratio. With a good calorimeter, a 2 W reaction produces a higher signal to noise ratio than a 50 W reaction would in a poorly designed calorimeter. You can have more confidence in the 2 W result. Look at Fig. 5a in the paper I referenced above:
https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/PonsScalorimetra.pdf
The heat burst causes the temperature to rise from 32°C to 44 - 48°C. This is measured with an array of 5 thermistors (Thermometrics Ultrastable Thermoprobes). They all measured the same temperature to within 0.005°C. There is no question the temperature rose by ~13°C. That is a gigantic signal to noise ratio with these thermistors. It is 1,200 times the minimum temperature they can measure.
The ~13°C temperature rise is caused by ~2 W of excess heat, as shown in the calibrations. 2 W may not seem like much, but it is a lot with this instrument. If it were 5 or 10 W, the water would boil. Which it does when they give it a heat pulse to drive it into high heat production. Or when they calibrate with high input power. It goes from isoperibolic to phase change calorimetry.Measuring a kilowatt with a lab bench scale calorimeter is a pain in the butt. It is dangerous. The signal to noise ratio is probably not as good as it is with this 2 W reaction. It serves no useful purpose from the scientific or technological point of view. People who would find it more convincing do not understand experiments. The only quality that matters is control. Once you have control over the reaction, you can scale it up to a kilowatt, or a megawatt.
-
I just have a simple question, was there ever a single LENR device that generated at least 1 kW of energy outside of Mills' hydrino stuff? Not just a sudden burst or unreproducible devices.
This is an excellent question and the short answer is no. I assume you mean on a long duration run is the excess heat constant wave or pulsed wave to put it into electrical output terms?
The answer to that is there are several experimentalists who have achieved constant wave on lower power levels. However, for the complete duration of many tests, there has been a net gain on energy or COP>1. The issue is when the excitations reach certain levels in/on the atomic structure, it goes through phase shifts which can increase the phenomenological reaction rate or decrease it depending on how the reaction (excited substrate) sites are engineered.
Examples of material changes can be but aren't limited to Curie temperatures, material phase shifts, and isotopic shifts into other elements which have been reported.
Hopefully, that helps answer your question. -
Can you describe your method of achieving LENR?
I made no LENR. I simply tested some common designs and hit them with an electrically-powered burst of heat (100 to 350 W typical) by flipping a switch on to a Kanthal coil inside a device.
Most cylinder type designs fail very quickly with an extra kick of heat. 350 W doesn't bother much a 1300 W design unless it is already maxed out but it sure wrecks a < 500 W design quickly. If the heat were more localized, it would be a quicker failure. If the heat cannot be evacuated at least as fast as it comes in... that's it.
Trying some quick tests like this before going active experiment can prevent some dangerous surprises. It's not easy to watch a calorimeter whirring away for hours and days. It has to be safe enough to leave for a while. A thermal breaker is a good idea where it can shut off power if things get too hot to handle.
-
Simplistic answer to a simplistic question ..No.
However most research is not aimed at a simplistic question..
eg Takahashi at al
they seem to be focussed on duration and W/kg
Current max output = 0.342x 245= ~83W with the CNZrr variant
-
Measuring a kilowatt with a lab bench scale calorimeter is a pain in the butt. It is dangerous.
I doubt whether Takahashi's super accurate calorimeter is built to handle 1KW
maybe 200W max?
-
My improved Mizuno-like air flow calorimeter so far has had up to 420 W inside, and that heats the air by 32.5 C, so at STP the inside of the box is over 50 C. Another 350 W would raise the temperature an additional 28 C. 80 C isn’t too hot, but it’s a bit structurally worrisome inside a foam box full of incandescent lamps.
Edit: This version of the calorimeter can record a sudden heat burst in less than 4 seconds (it only reports data every two seconds, but updates all data columns as fast as the program can do a check data loop. (Arduino). Basically a simple C++ program looks at all data channels in series and records the information it finds into an array, then looks to see if the next two-seconds increment is less than something like 150 ms away. If it is, it saves all the stored data in the array at that moment onto an SD card with a time stamp. It might miss a two-second update write every 5000 readings or so due to a data reading hiccup but the time check advance period can be tuned to avoid dropouts. (Adding several extra MAX6675 type thermocouple amplifiers than can only be read with a 250 ms delay between often causes hiccups). The temperature channel data are outputted by RS232 every second, each channel sequentially, from a separate multichannel thermocouple data logger into the main logger, which is looking for and decoding temperature channel words from the RS232 connection each loop. The thermocouple data logger updates it’s channels about every half second and then loads words into the buffer (9600 baud) so the main program scoops them out as fast as it finds anything there. The SD card data from the main program can be compared to the independent SD card temperature data from thermocouple data logger the by time stamps, (both synchronized to a laptop before beginning) which allows a bit better resolution than either log individually, as well as cross-corroborating the temperature data. The thermocouple data logger has a common cold junction for a set of 4 matched thermocouples, and can do several types of thermocouples and RTDs so it is better than just thermocouples each with their own kit amplifier. A couple of single thermocouples with amplifiers are also used for redundancy and testing various things without messing with the important channels.
Doubling the air flow rate should approximately double the heat handling capacity of a mass air flow calorimeter but at the expense of equally halving the sensitivity (W per delta T). -
My improved Mizuno-like air flow calorimeter
I'd like to make a Seebeck calorimeter a la Storms maybe with a spare Arduino
12W capacity should be a good start..
but I may forgo the classic homesoldered 1000 thermocouple version
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEhowtomakea.pdf
they seem to be focussed on duration and W/kg
Current max output = 0.342x 245= ~83W with the CNZrr variant
What is your W/kg of fuel
-
Display More
I'd like to make a Seebeck calorimeter a la Storms maybe with a spare Arduino
12W capacity should be a good start..
but I may forgo the classic homesoldered 1000 thermocouple version
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEhowtomakea.pdf
What is your W/kg of fuel
There have been some real nice Seebeck calorimeters built in the past couple of years. It is tempting for me to build one.
My original point was to test Mizuno’s calorimeter. Then I made it better.More to the point, I made it easy to duplicate without a large amount of skill or money, which I always aspire to, because I believe that much of the science that can be made accessible should be so people can try it and see it for themselves without undue hardship. I try and work through and solve the hard parts so it isn’t so hard for the next person.
