Franck reports a video of Tom Darden at 2017 UNC Clean Tech Summit
I could not see it, but the summary raise my interest.
I remember that previously Darden talk of 6 out a dozen that were promising.
When are we going to stop talking about princesses and princes of cold fusion as well as the underworlds who likes them rather than technology.........?
THHuxleynew basically nailed it.
It seems that there are a fair number of Europeans here, so I think it might be helpful to touch on the role of the court in this trial. For simplicity, I'm going to be grossly oversimplifying most of the points, so this should be taken as a rough outline, not a detailed explanation.
Most of the nations in Western Europe (the UK and Ireland being the major exceptions) have legal systems that have their roots in the Napoleonic legal reforms; these reforms, in turn, took heavy inspiration from the Code of Justinian. The role of the courts in these systems can be broadly described as inquisitorial, with the idea being that the judge is there to actively seek out the truth. It is common for a judge in one of these legal systems to take a very active role in questioning witnesses, etc. My understanding is that it is not unusual for courts in these systems to seek independent expert advice in a case.
The common law nations (basically England and former colonies - US included) are an adversarial system, with roots in the king's role (originally in person, later delegated) as an arbiter of disputes. In an adversarial system, each side presents its evidence and arguments to the court (which includes the judge and jury). Courts in adversarial systems tend to take a more passive (and listening-based) role in the process. Judges and juries may sometimes ask questions of witnesses, but that will typically be in a supplemental role, seeking clarification of points already brought out by the lawyers.
So there are probably places where the judge could order independent testing or evaluation of the technology, but the USA is not one of them. The judge's discretion is much more limited, as are the possible options. The parties have set out their claims. The judge narrowed those claims in preliminary proceedings. The jury will rule on each of the remaining claims after listening to all evidence and deliberating as a group to determine how to best interpret the evidence. Their ability to rule, however, is limited to ruling on the specific claims in front of them. They have no ability to go beyond that scope.
Thank you for your quick reply now 4 options:
Rossi is a crook and loses is trail
Rossi is a crook but win !
IH are crook then loses their trail
IH are crook and win.
What should happen for lenr field following these 4 hypothesis ?
As i'm not an expert i ask "all experts here" to light up my understanding. (Dewey and others).
Is it possible that the judge decides a third way ? For example, plan an Independent expertise on Rossi technology to check validity ?
I expect that a court must have a horror of deciding in a hurry, even if both parties are pressing to defend their cause ? No ?
David Fojt . That is some how a beautiful picture! . What an amazing structure.
First of all, thank you for your paper shared. It's confirm that microwaves helps to stabilize plasma ( as for Rossi's technologies ?)
2th: we read also existence of H+ clusters as Wyttenbach understanding.
At 20 nm I think it is much finer detail and structure than the nano carpets I was considering which have threads about 200 nm diameter and are arranged quite orderly as an array of nano wires. In fact the production method is a known way to make nano wires...
I think your structure is more organic looking and some how more beautiful and also structurally more intriguing as a consequence. It's structure scale 20 nm is fascinating. I understand the 200 nm nano wires in the nano carpets have a grooved appearance so I wonder if this fine structure on their surface resembles yours or alternatively if they can be made to have your structure on the surface?
Picture I shared is already a 100-nm thick surface on a silicon substrate in this case.
I'm not a MH thermal engineer but if I understand right I think at scales as small as 20nm if thermally isolated the local effects of thermodynamics and kinetics of sorption can become more much pronounced than for larger structures I wonder if this can some how enhance the H+ production at the surface? Of if that its production is independent of thermal aspects of sorption considerations.
H + are wedged between nano wires...
If ionization is playing a part in the H+ (Or excited H) production wouldn't this necessarily mean some metal ions are also likely emitted? If so could this play a role in the kinds of Hydrogen Clusters production suggested by Xiang's publication in the above post? If so could those structures generate the kinds of phenomena suggested by Axil... Especially if the plasma is dense and subsequently becomes thermalised and reaches the kinds of high temperatures Axil has been mentioning above.
It is not really a plasma, just entrapped H +, sometimes zirconia's substrate melts with 50W under electrolysis.
axil David Fojt i find your current line of discussion quite intriguing. I'm very curious where it leads. I'm not sure if you are aware of it but I recently Found this very interesting and extremely rich in information publication on "charged induced enhancement of hydrogen adsorption for hydrogen storage materials" by someone called Xiang Sun.
It contains over 190 pages of really good clear data and information including very good background and clear development of his ideas and results.
I was very impressed by this publication and couldn't help thinking a lot of his observations could be applicable to LENR...
I was initially chasing the thermodynamics and kinetics of sorbtion as a route the the thermal aspects of LENR especially for very small particles less than a um..
But If I understood right from this particular study the very hot part comes from thermalisation of the initial "cool" Hydrogen plasma in the glow discharge at atmospheric pressure rather than in the electrodes themselves. This heating of the plasma to very high temperatures apparently happens very rapidly. Interestingly I understand he could control the temperature rise to sustainable manageable values with out burn out by applying the microwaves... I need to look deeper I think to better understand this.
Of particular interest for your interesting discussion I think are the sections Hydrogen clusters... normally these are very low temperature phenomena when only hydrogen is involved... But when they include a metal ion they can occur at high temperatures in excess of 3000 K if I understood right... infact if I understood right they could be very applicable to the metal Plasmas I think Axil has been discussing elsewhere. Also Xiangs discussion on enhanced Hydrogen adsorption that takes advantage of these phenomena looks quite interesting I think.
The Metal Hydrides experiments he performed do seem quite similar in nature to those performed for LENR. Especially those where glow discharge is observed. I'm quite curious if he observed LENR effects in his experiments without realizing it or even looking for it.
Would applied changing magnetic field cause charge effects to occur in Nickel particles I wonder and if so could they impact hydrogen sorption?
Incidentally on a different but possibly related topic have Nickel nanocarpets been considered and tested in LENR devices?
They have been studied for their super hydrophobic properties which is interesting in some ways... But more relevantly I could not find any thing on their use for hydrogen storage etc.
I'm curious about them for a number of reasons:
1. each fiber has very narrow diameter in the nano meter/ sub micrometer range, they are individually rough, they are densely packed but aligned and separated.
If LENR stimulates activity on adjacent sites due to radiation or ion emission or something from the surface it seems to me this geometry and arrangement is optimum for that.
2. since the are connected to a common surface perhaps that could be used for electrical connection to allow the carpet to be used as a cathode or anode for glow discharge, or to allow electrical or thermal energy harvesting from the LENR, or to allow some kind of thermal control through thermal conduction. Or even allow charge enhanced hydrogen sorbtion as discussed above.
3. Being Nickel they have magnetic properties that may be useful for stimulation etc but could also be exploited to move and align the fibers to some useful effect... maybe.
Well just thought I'd mention this incase it's useful for LENR.
I wonder if they can adsorbe hydrogen or other gases effectively and or if the retain their carpet structure if coated in a mono layer of carbon.... or lithium....
Axil regarding the nano threads... Have you considered nano carpets?
I'm not sure if the individual threads are narrow enough they are about 200nm diameter I think but the arrangement seems intersting to me...
It seems to me the fact these nano threads could have a common back plate it might be possible to use this for direct control of the process on the threads as well maybe bring advantages for glowdischarge formation due to the multiple threads acting as spikes if used as a cathode or anode as well as the more obvious electrical/thermal conduction.
These nano carpets are quite easily produced from electroplating using an alumina template and then devolving the template to leave the nano threads and carpet.
StephenC, did you talk about this ?
Yes, i suggest this type of 20nm structure i made, could stabilize some H+ entities.
This is really from this size we see something interesting.
We don't talk here about hydride inside lattice because a lattice is a compound of stabilized H ( hydrides) and free H+ as for P&F.
Just H+ part is interesting because when they are released from the lattice XH appaers.
Another way should be to do thems directly outside lattice so this type of "carpet" helps this process.
Holmlid has explained that metalized hydrogen is a superatom where the positive charge carriers are located in the center of the crystal and the negative charged carriers are located in a cloud orbiting around the positive center.
This metalized structure is an example of HOLE superconductivity. Protons are the holes and they are superconducting.
Your explanation Axil makes sense because during a simple electrolysis we saw a big flash onto nanostrutured nickel.
This is close we see in this paper. Something happens close/under 20 nm, it's like a border for new theories.
In case of this paper, structured H+ entities are stabilized because trapped inside lattice ( electron cloud).
Then when H+ entity leaves the lattice by reaching metallic layers border, we see XH but not a lot because everything is entrapped, so moving too slowly outside the lattice to reach high XH.
Therefore, we did and outside lattice's trap stabilized by current ( potential difference) between still 20 nm structures, as well as it's running well now...!
Axil, how you suggest the mecanism to keep stabilized theses objects ?
How they could initiate Lenr ?
Zephir let's have a look" upstairs" what i wrote..
You talk about : https://www.google.fr/search?q…_AUIBigB&biw=1366&bih=648
I suggest you have to understand the meaning of "stacking fault energy" to go away.
Piantelli i think, never shared XH results therefore you are right it's a part of a succesful process.
i think the dynamic of lenr location is more important than just the location itself.
By dynamic i talk about special polarisation both EM field.
what's about metallic oxide cavities ? as iron oxide for example ? both its have an high curie point .
In a general way, I can not always say relevant things therefore I try to raise the level by talking about things other than the muddle around IH/Rossi which is feeding unfortunally too much thread, i think..
The hexagonal structure of graphite, iron oxide, mica and other materials with stacked crystal structures produce vortex spin based formations driven by the Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya Interaction as a spin based filter or magnetic lensing effect producing spin-transfer torque in materials when exposed to perpendicular magnetic anisotropy.
This magnetic vortex production is why mica, graphite, and quartz play a role in LENR reactor materials...ie Rossi's wafer.
For an indepth discussion about this issue see
Here is how spin is formed into a vortex structure
Axil sorry, i couln't share your understanding.
You talk about special nucleus behavior like a lot of people therefore i suggest rather special electron trajectories which should induce high magnetic field.
By this way, coulomb barrier should be weakened in some areas.
This is in relation in fact for example with Groszek's work who Alan shared papers.
Foil discharges follows same rules also, or globally what we call as picochemistry.
I can't give more details of this theory because it's still under construction...tweaking.
I expect that Einstein rules could do a role in Lenr,but, in few words what's happen at universe's size could be righ at lenr size.
We should have to best understand how is exactly the border between baryonic matter and non baryonic matter ( EM ground).
I must continue to swallow more aspirin to go away in my speculations..
According to these interesting papers, bloggers should still believe that it's enough to load nickel's lattice and wait, to watch LENR.
This is not the case, as nickel is so difficult to load into the bulk.
However, its structure is close to palladium.
It is proven that cracks would be important. Palladium alloyed with silver seems to work better too.
In fact, palladium / silver alloys or nickel / cobalt alloys prevent structural defects called "slipping and twinning". Go to Google " pictures" to better understand.
It is in relation with so called 'stacking fault energy'.
These defaults, "slipping and twinning" prevent, in fact, the free circulation of another type of defects which moves inside lattice ( voids). Yes these voids "move" according to thermal or mechanical constraints.
Engendering brutal mechanical constraints should one day allow one to make lenr bombs, following my understanding.
What should happen finally in the case of P & F ?
The lattice is electrochemically loaded, it has been found by a lot of papers that almost 2 hydrogen atoms per palladium atom are required to trigger LENR.
In fact, one of the two hydrogen atoms sticks to each atom of palladium, such as a hydride in the famous alpha and beta phases. This "neutralizes" the palladium lattice.
The second hydrogen atoms (H +) slips between the palladium atoms inside lattice.
At this stage, this is not yet enough to initiate LENR reactions.
One might think that lenr appear when these H + fall into an atomic voids/vacancy.
I expect exactly the opposite.
In fact, since these gaps are mobile, it must be understood that the interstitial lattice is fully charged with H +.
The analogy would be a chair that is abruptly removed under the person sitting on it.
So when the gaps move, a vacuum/void is quickly created locally that is "filled" roughly by the 6 H + surrounding it. At this stage LENR occurs.
I suggest this vacuum is an analogy of an external surface, so at this stage these 6 H + roughly should recover 6 electrons.
This quick and local movement of these electrons creates a strong electromagnetic field which makes the job to trigger LENR.
In conclusion, with crystal lattice help , it is indeed the local EM field which would create LENR reaction.
Threat perception from Planet Rossi is part of their topsy-turvy kingdom and ongoing mis-information campaign. It is interesting how organized it all is. A friendly heads-up to stay clear of what is shaping up to be a solution to an obvious problem remains just that. All claims from Planet Rossi require an opposite interpretation filter. May their mistakes continue!
friendly heads-up or not friendly heads-up, therefore i would like to know why IH army needs LenrForum for some communication/just bashing ?
Second point never you answered me about my older question.. did IH tested Ecat HT ?
Because in the case of Florida's trial we only talked about Ecat low T°.
Good thread since a long time....
Personally i don't understand why him and his friends need to spend so much time here for Rossi's bashing even if Rossi were a croock..?
After all, he has the money to afford the best lawyers.
We already seen in USA, ( For example Strausskhan's case) this is lawyer's rate you pay which "creates" the truth ultimately...
Thetruemonty I advise you to stay student ... and to keep an angelic vision of things.
Nickelates share many similarities with cuprates (in history the nickel ores were often confused with these copper ones), but we should keep on mind, it's just a proposal and the nickel compounds tested aren't actually superconductive. The layered perowskite structure isn't everything for superconductivity - the presence of hole atoms (highly oxidized atoms within structure attracting electrons) is also important there. With compare to copper(3+) oxidation state the nickel(4+) state is way less potent in making holes stripes and it attracts electrons in lower extent. We can see, that trilayer structure is not sufficiently negentropic, the working superconductors have way more layers between hole planes The physicists should learn how to do it from people, who already produce room temperature superconductors (1, 2) rather than to reinvent wheel.
Thank you to share your interesting knowledges.
If i have well understood, more layers means higher critical temperature ? Therefore if we follow link you added, its talks just about 20 K as difference by Pb added ?
Could we do a general rule ?
A new LOMAX Is born today....
Kevmolenr wrote a multitude of comments on my posts. Taking some of his points out of order…
“Kirk wrote 1 paper, right?”
If that were only true… That’s what I wanted to do. Just a little paper telling the CFers “Hey, you guys missed this…” Then they’d initially say “No way”, but after some serious consideration, they’d say “Hmmm, maybe so. We’d better look into this…” But that’s not what happened. Instead in 2004 (two years after my 1st paper was published) Szpak, Mosier-Boss, Miles, and Fleischmann called my stuff ‘difficult to understand’. So I wrote another try at it in reply. Then in 2006 (6 years after Storms first saw my objections) Storms wrote a rebuttal claiming what I proposed could never happen. So I wrote another reply explaining why his reasons were wrong or irrelevant. Then in 2009 Marwan and Krivit published this article that I responded to with criticisms in 2010, and a group of 10 CF authors (including Marwan, Storms, Miles, McKubre, Hagelstein, Mosier-Boss) said this “random Shanahan CCSH” thing was ridiculous. Problem was that “Shanahan” never said “random”, the group of 10 did. (That’s known as a strawman.) Now I would have written another reply to that, but I asked the editor first, and he refused to publish anymore (reasons unspecified). He wouldn’t request an Erratum to disassociate my name from the “random CCSH” thing either. I did submit a manuscript to Phys. Lett. A, which was rejected because they didn’t want to publish more “CF” papers. So, I gave up on publishing as it took up too much time, and wrote the whitepaper I referred to instead.
Several related comments:
"That's 153 replications he's trying to undo. That's quite the tall order. I doubt his finding is significant enough to do it, or otherwise we would have been hearing more about it these last 15 years.”
“You came out with your hypothesis after all those papers so the onus should be on you to back-apply your approach.”
“It's your theory so you should take ownership of it. Back-apply your hypothesis to a few of the best replications and someone will take notice.”
Shanahan wrote: “The upshot is that they don’t rebut my ATER/CCS mechanism.”
Kev: “Then set up your own website where you take down every replication using your mechanism. And sell space heaters & electrocalorimeters. There's thousand dollar bills on the ground, just pick them up.”
Some of the points I note from the above comments (and others I haven't quoted):
Kevin misses the fact that I think there is NO TRUE EXCESS HEAT.
Kevin thinks it my job to correct prior workers mistakes and, apparently, republish their work for them.
Kevin thinks I want to make a ‘name’ for myself.
Kevin thinks I haven’t taken ownership of my theory/hypothesis/proposal.
Given that I think there is no true excess heat, I certainly am not going to make space heaters or any amount of money from this. I could care less about making a ‘name’ in this field. I of course would like to attain some recognition in my field, which I think I have done to a small extent VIA MY OTHER PUBLICATIONS. In fact, my CF field pubs detract from my 'name'. And Kevin, defending my ideas IS taking ownership.
“And yet there are 153 papers that seem to disagree with his stance. Perhaps Kirk should prove how brilliant he is and write his own retort to those 153 papers. There are other papers too, ones that aren't peer reviewed, etc.“
“Kirk should have been a busy man these past 15 years but instead he wants guys like us to do his busywork.”
Ungrateful little ‘sot’ aren’t you. I point out to you that 148 of 153 references precede my 1st publication, meaning that their results were incorporated into my proposals, and aren’t likely to change that. And then I go on to show why 4 more are also likely to be unhelpful. And I end with pointing out I critiqued that last one left, and you say *I* want *You* to do *MY* homework??? I think the applicable term is ‘cheeky’ (Alan?).
“My impression from reading a bunch of the papers in LENR-CANR library (and asking for more) is that Kirk's hypothesis doesn't stand up.”
Read them again. Start with a good understanding of what I propose is the problem.
“It was basically ignored, as far as I can tell. That makes him not too bright, because if he has the SOLUTION to this LENR thing, he could have generated tons of data, material, money, and interest by selling chemically based space heaters. I would buy one, just to be able to play with it.”
As noted above, I find it highly unlikely that any true excess heat source has been discovered. So your “SOLUTION” doesn’t exist to my mind. Yes I was ignored, and as THH kindly points out that’s disappointing. I have said it more strongly. I believe it is the primary signature of pathological science. The Cfers have withdrawn from the normal publish-critique-refine cycle that defines modern science.
"but Shanahan claims to know why these experimentalists see such high COP in their cells. If it's purely chemical and can generate an appearance of a COP>6, it would make a fantastic new addition to our energy ecosystem. If what he's saying is true, he is sitting on a gold mine.”
Actually, I don’t talk about COPs usually. I talk about apparent excess power signals, which are often discussed somewhat inaccurately as ‘excess heat’. And once more, they are artifacts of the data analysis methodology. No true excess energy source present as far as I can see.
“That is kinda one indication that this effect is real, if it shows up in other experimental cells than just PdD calorimeters. I gather your hypothesis of error does not apply to the other mixed cells.”
The fact that multiple researchers got ‘bumps’ in their excess power curves is what led me to want to consider the possibility that they were real. It was only partial replication, but it held the promise of someday being fully reproducible (still unrealized). If true, it represented a safety problem for me and my coworkers. My specific ATER/CCS proposal is for F&P-type electrolysis cells, and thus does not apply to other experimental apparati. I recall you mentioned the Patterson Power Cell previously. That is a modified F&P setup, but I believe the modifications induced a new set of errors that dominated. If those could be eliminated there might be a residual CCS problem as well. Calibration constant shifts, if they occur, will induce apparent excess heat in other apparati. There, the excess could be positive or negative, depending on what causes the shift. In F&P cells, calibration is always done with an ‘inactive’ electrode, which means that anything that causes heat to shift to the electrode area will give positive excess heat signals. Thus the calibration methodology gives only positive excess heat signals. And all of this never negates other error mechanisms, such as for example, thermocouple degradation in the Rossi case.
“Would it be something you could state categorically that the larger the COP, the larger the error and the more expectation we should have had of these experimenters to see their error?”
As THH has noted, the ATER/CCS problem has some built in limitations. This is why it should have been easy to disprove, especially for “high COP” cases. The CFers should still have all the data from all their prior work, with some reasonable exceptions allowed of course. All they need to do is trot out the case that shows the CCS problem is not relevant to their results. We’re still waiting for that to happen.
Instead they have attempted to discredit the ATER part of my proposal, usually with very weak argumentation and no real data. They even resorted to the “random Shanahan CCSH” fallacious argument to try to do so. What that seems to show of course is a.) they have no data that can’t be explained away by CCS, and b.) they refuse to accept the idea they might be wrong in invoking “LENRs”.
KLS wrote: “That is a typical CFer (cold fusion researcher or cold fusion engineer (the last as per Gene Mallove)) illegitimate tactic. The idea that LENRs are present is about the only thing that links these divergent experimental setups, and they shouldn’t be linked like this until they are actually shown separately to have LENRs present. That has not been done.”
And Kevin responded:
“That is valuable scientific data that you should publish to the community as a whole.”
What’cha been smokin’ dude? That’s just basic science. If some guy waves a magic wand around and says I just did xxx, are you going to fold that into your thinking about xxx? No, you’re going to say “That didn’t measure up to normal scientific standards and I can’t use it.” Substitute “LENR in an arc” as well as “LENR in a chicken” for xxx. The conclusion remains the same. No incorporating any experiment until it has been shown to be valid.
KLS wrote: “An interesting side note from the discussion we had (email) was that Miles admitted he has never read my papers. I have to wonder how he can know they are ‘wrong’ when he hasn’t.”
Kev wrote: “Interestingly enough, I believe it was hyper-critical Jones who said the same thing about LENR papers.”
Jones? Not Steve Jones, originator of the ‘other CF claim’. Parks has been quoted saying something to that effect, and it is obvious many of the people involved in critiquing the CF field early on didn’t keep up after the first DOE review. So yes, in their cases, the same applies which is part of why I decided to take a look at it starting in 1995.
A couple of others wrote:
AlainCo: “My advice to Kirk Shanahan, is that like all people who work on LENR because their have observed it and think it is a nuclear phenomenon, he try to amplify the phenomenon, characterize it, and why not make money with it.”
Do you think I hadn’t thought of this? Silly boy! I just can’t think of a way to capitalize on a hydrogen/oxygen recombiner configured as an F&P cell. I mean you split the water and then immediately reform it? Why?
There have been proposals for example to place Pt wire in the top of nuclear reactor containment structures to recombine any released hydrogen before it blows up and ruins the containment, and while that makes sense and is a very passive way to do it, I can’t see putting an F&P cell up there and keeping it running would be of benefit…
Zephir_AWT: “Results with palladium are way more reliable.”
David, I am considering dead volume and compaction as two separate issues. In general, I control the pressure with a back pressure regulator. I am not closing it off and heating which could cause the pressures to be extreme. The only reason that it seems that this experiment's tube fractured was from a plug that prevented the gas from escaping quickly enough.
Separately, is there an issue for LENR itself where the fuel should be spread out more thinly in the reactor tube? This could be for getting the heat out. As I posted to StephenC above, if the LENR outputs low energy photons, and the fuel is too compacted, then the photons could go into heating the fuel, whereas if the fuel is more sparsely loaded, the photons could be absorbed in the reactor tube. This could prevent local over-heating of the fuel.
Finally, you can have a big background , be clever then telling bullshits (Hagelstein), i'm agree with you about how XH is released.
I'm really surprised by diameter of Rossi's core ? It seems too small if you focus strongly on pictures, rather 10 mm diameter for myself..?
According to my undertanding dead volume and compaction are the same problem.
I suggest very very small amount is the way. after calculation following Rossi's patent , we have ( by volume ) around 5% Ni , almost the same for Al then 90% LI.
Like that LI helps to easily separate each Ni grain.
From my tests, it need about 1/3 - 1/2 free space in tube if use lithium + Ni, depends Li amount. It expand heavilly when attack alumina. Fill tube like D-letter.
Even with much of free space it may crack when cools down - keep it hot (300C or more) if run long tests.
Iron / SS steel fuel capsule inside tube may help, H2 shields it from oxidation so it can be thin. I have not tested capsule. I think it is posible to do vacuum without metal Li and use lithium carbonate as lithium source (it is alumina compatible 1000C+) (Metal Li works as vacuum pump)
According to your setting, what was maximum pressure you reached ? How you drive it ?
Yes, I have that paper. The biggest issue with SS is not the Li or the hydrogen permeation, it is oxidation at high temperature from the outside. SS may be OK if the outside of the tube is bathed in argon. However, I do not think the Kanthal for the heater coil would be happy bathed in argon - it needs oxygen to keep from eroding. The Kanthal loses oxygen when hot and needs to be soaked in oxygen continuously to replenish the oxide being lost.
1. The Kanthal's guy, told us that it was necessary to mount it beyond 1200 °, at least 1 second to ensure its later reliability, that's all. I'm not aware therefore about what is involved in the case of your oxide explanation.
2. About compaction, you are right finally... By dead volume you understand now that it is too small.
3. How avoid compaction ? It depends also about how your "fuel"reaches a "certain" dynamic.
4. Take care about tube sizing because diameter of core should be in direct relation with level of EM stimulation.
Good luck for next run !
David, I have not had this problem before with LAH. This problem only occurred when the metallic Li was added. I am going to dissect and look for weakening from the inside. My past experiment plan was to use a SS tube. The SS tube was found to oxidize completely through - from the outside - when it was heated in air to over 1000°C. If I was running experiments below 600°C, the SS tubes would be a good choice. If the SS tube were really thick, it might work OK to higher temperature. My understanding is that Li will also attack SS. What is reported to work best with Li is a pure iron tube, but pure iron is nearly impossible to find.
I have just disassembled the system and removed the reactor tube. It has a spiral fracture around the tube that leaked out the gas. Here are a couple of photos:
Bob, according this paper we already have seen, Ferritic SS seems better against Lithium than austenitic SS. It should be better also against leaks. It may be necessary to use ticker tubes..
For my understanding a part of H2 from LAH should be transfered up to pure Li. Unfortunally during this stage a lot of H2 are also deposited onto Nickel. Nickel has a buffering role and slows down the transfer to Li. This is why i prefer use directly LIH which is the final target finally. I suppose LIH is less corrosive than pure Li.
To add, the Li power remains in relation with quantity you put in your tube, depending of your dead volume..
Bob, as reactor seems to go quickly under 1bar absolute ( still at low T°), maybe a SS tube should be better in this case ? Even if will leak a few at this pressure/temperature ? In all cases it should be more reliable.
You blame the victim for the crime. A German woman I knew many decades ago claimed that Poland was a much responsible for starting World War II as Germany was. What you say makes just about as much sense as that.
I am a Polish origin then a name from Czech origin (Like Me356), so I am a perfect criminal ..
More seriously, I was bored tonight and had nothing to say too, I'm told that I will find someone like me tonight ..
Moved from this thread. Eric
i suggest if pressure try to move during this run, you should adjust by adding a few more pure Li again.
About your dead volume, which balance represents the fuel (if it was in bulk) VS total volume ?
It was announced last night that IH will not be hosting the upcoming ICCF after all. It seems the burden of fighting with that despicable crook has taken the wind out of their sails for now.
The conference is still expected to be in the US, host is yet to be announced.
Leave the pretended wicked quiet without knowing the really true truth. Every truth is not like in American movies with the good on one side and the nice on the other ..There is a bit of good, bad and ugly in each of us. Also true for Rossi, also true for IH.
Did you read the Penon report? I cannot imagine how any person with a junior high school level of knowledge could read that report and conclude that the E-Cat technology works.
The report is here:
Dear Jed Rothwell,
You seems aware about lot of things, so i have never spent time to separate wrong from no wrong about Rossi/IH fight.
In the case of Rossi's Florida's run, are we talking about the low temperature Ecat ? If, yes, has IH tested the Ecat HT, a day, and with what results ?
So far so good! If it was easy anyone could do it. What's next?
No ! Because ingrédients are simple but difficult to understand how they run..this is why it is not good to mix everything whithout a good understanding. In Parkhomov's case he used mullite as reactor's tube so it was nibbled by heating then released silicon Inside the mix.
Silicon for example is well know to increase equilibrium level. In few words by SI added you will release faster H2 from Li............
I don't think it is necessary to avoid the LAH to limit the pressure, just regulate it (to exhaust) above the desired maximum pressure. If you use LiH instead, you just won't get as much gas. Interestingly, it seems A. Parkhomov's latest experiments have been showing XH without any Li at all and with the same carbonyl Ni powder he has been using. I think a report is coming on this at Asti. I think Me356 has also said that the Li was not needed. If the Li is not needed in the reaction, perhaps it would be better to eliminate the Al which will cause the Li to not wet to the Ni (argument to use pure LiH as you suggest). I believe Me356 also said that the Al detracts from the XH.
Bob, both Alexander and Me356 told about XH then nothing..I just said that Me356 told interesting things in relation with hydrides, no more. Using LIH is just to avoid H transfert stage from LAH. Sorry i'm not agree with what you explain about Carbonyl Ni and no need of Li therefore may be i'm wrong. Al is used to drive height of equilibrium, no more. We must discover all things about equilibrium balance.
Hi David. The pressure could get high - to >1000 PSIA if all of the H2 was released from the hydride. However, what really occurs is that as the pressure goes up, and at a given temperature, an equilibrium is reached, and all of the H2 is not released from the hydride. While I haven't run and experiment that would let the pressure go up to that high pressure equilibrium, I cite the !Bang experiment that had no regulator - it exploded. What I saw in this experiment is that a lot of gas was initially released and I had the pressure limited to 90 PSIA by back pressure regulator venting. After the pressure fell below 90 PSIA, the valve was completely closed and all of the remaining pressure change was caused by absorption.
Hi Bob, i know about pressure you will reach if all H2 is released therefore in your case its remains relatively low, what parameters you considered ? Do you know that just few % of H2 could be quickly released from LAH or LIH ? Height where equilibrium is reached is directly in relation with dead volume and relative percentage of mixture. About Bang experiment, this subtle team released so fast LAH with too small dead volume if you compare for example with Shonsheng, then no added any pure Li to transfer H2. We can criticize Me356 but he said a lot of truth about hydrides behavior. Now you understand that it should be better to avoid the first LAH stage that you describe by using only LIH and Al, powder also of course..
Next update in time:
It is strange how the pressure went to 0 by 600°C, then shot up at 700°C as the LiH and Al melted. Then the pressure rose rapidly and dropped like a rock at 750°C with no other event - the valve has been closed (regulating at 90 PSIA) since above140°C. That precipitous fall in pressure was not the valve opening - it is still set to regulate at 90 PSIA. At 1000°C, the regulation pressure will be set to 9 PSIA, but the expectation is that the pressure will already be at or below this value.
Bob have you calculated the maximum pressure you could reach with powder's quantity you fill in relation with dead volume then without any event also ?