Posts by Ascoli65

Quote from JedRothwell

No, this is not rational. It is impossible. There is no liquid in the powder. Nothing to dry off. They spend days heating it high temperatures in air, and then in a vacuum, to ensure there is no liquid, and no oxygen.

But there is bound oxygen in the powder put inside the reactor chamber, as stated by Takahashi and coauthors in their presentation to JCF20. This oxygen is bound to the metal atoms of the PNZ (or CNZ) powder, as well as to the Zr atoms of the zirconia beads, by forming oxides. I don't think that this bound oxygen can be removed from the PNZ powder by the treatment you mentioned. So, IMO, it is still there when the H (or D) gas is introduced at high pressure in the RC, causing the metals to be reduced as explained in the already cited paper from Edar & Kramer (1), so causing the formation of water inside the RC.

This hypothesis doesn't seem so irrational to me. Maybe this jpeg could help in summarizing its basis.

(1) https://www.uni-muenster.de/im…/eder/papers/b109887j.pdf

Quote from Alan Smith

In the conclusions of the paper presented at JCF-20 it is stated ;-

'Excess thermal power reached at the level of 200 W/kg-sample continuing for several weeks or more, by the elevated temperature interaction of either D-gas or H-gas and Ni-based binary nano-composite powders supported in zirconia flakes.'

IMO, these conclusions are highly disputable, as the rest of the paper. There is no reason to assume the production of any power in excess with respect to conventional sources.

Quote

I think that heat output, in a very low pressure D2 environment goes beyond the modest effects recorded in Ascoli65's link :- https://www.uni-muenster.de/im…/eder/papers/b109887j.pdf Effects which were produced in experiments specifically designed to trigger oxidation/reduction effects and involved 'flowing hydrogen' at (presumably) BarG.

The tests at Kobe University were run exactly at this range of pressure. See Tables 1 and 2 of Takahashi's paper: 0.5 MPa corresponds to 5 bar.

So, the introduction of hydrogen inside the reactor chamber could have generated around 20 g of water by reduction of the metal oxides formed during the calcination process. This mass of water is enough to explain the behavior of temperatures recorded during the heat up phase of the test runs.

Quote from Shane D.

When someone betrays that trust -even one time, his motives thereafter always have to be suspect.

If you are referring to me, please tell me, on what occasion did I betray your trust?

Quote from JedRothwell

Ascoli's claim that the powder is wet is wrong for the following reasons:

1. There are several papers about the powder gas loading technique, by Takahashi, Arata and others. None of them says there is water in the powder.

In the case of the last Takahashi's paper under discussion the problem (a big one) is for the authors of that work, not mine.

Quote

2. The powder is calcined for 180 hours in an electric oven, in ambient air, at 450 deg C. (p. 2) "Calcined" means "to heat (something, such as inorganic materials) to a high temperature but without fusing in order to drive off volatile matter or to effect changes (such as oxidation or pulverization)." The whole point is to eliminate any water or other volatile material.

But, as just reported in my previous comment and by admission of Takahashi et al., re-calcination has the effect to heavily oxidize the powder, increasing its weight of about 5%, due to the extra oxygen tied to the metal atoms of the powder.

Quote

3. The powder is then baked at 450 deg C under vacuum "to meet the final RC pressure of less than 1 Pa." (p. 2) If there were liquid left in it, it would not fall to such low pressure.

The liquid water presumably forms after this step, ie at the beginning of the elevated temperature (ET) runs, when H (or D) is introduced in the reactor chamber (RC) and reduces the heavily oxidized metal powder. This water remains trapped inside the volumes of RC and connected pipes during all the #M-N runs with M=1 (ie those performed after the first baking), being reabsorbed as liquid during the weekend suspensions of the ET runs. This water can be eliminated only by a second baking, provided that it is performed under evacuation condition, as it was done during the CNZ sequence presented at JCF20 (see page 22 of (1)). This is probably the reason why the TC4 plateau disappeared from the CNZ7rr#2-2 run (see page 34 of (1)), while it was present in the CNZ7rr#1-2 run (see page 31 of (1))

Quote

4. The cells are sealed, and run at high temperatures. If there were water in them, it would vaporize and probably fracture the cell. The pressure is measured in this and other experiments. It does not rise.

I didn't see any pressure graph in the last Takahashi's paper or in the corresponding JCF20 presentation.

Some pressure graphs are included in the ICCF22 presentation (2). The graph at page 16 shows that the reactor pressure (Pr) spikes at the end of the TC4 plateau. At that point, Pr drops and the storage tank (ST) pressure (Ps) suddenly rises from 0.3 to 0.5 MPa, probably due to an emergency opening of the valve located between the RC and the ST (see page 6 of (2)).

(1) https://www.researchgate.net/p…_of_Nano-Metal_and_HD-Gas (JCF20 presentation)

(2) https://www.researchgate.net/p…_of_Nano-Metal_and_HD-Gas (ICCF22 presentation)

Quote from JedRothwell

Where on earth did you get the idea that the powder is wet? Wet with what?!?

There are many clues suggesting that the powder is wet.

1^st clue – The plateau along the TC4 curves is more than a clue, it's a strong evidence that a pure substance is involved in the process, as well known to any chemist or physicist, and even to high-school students.

2^nd clue – The substance presents in the reactor chamber (RC), whose boiling determines the TC4 heating plateau, is water (or heavy water), of course! The confirmation comes from the values of the boiling point in the PNZ and CNZ tests, whose initial gas fill pressures were 0.468 and 0.564 MPa respectively (see Table 1 and 2 of paper (1)). The TC4 temperature for a PNZ test was about 136.92 °C (see the bottom left graph on Figure 1 of paper (1)), while it was about 149.62 °C for a CNZ test (see the bottom left graph on page 36 of the presentation (2)). These values are in good agreement with the boiling points of water at those pressures.

3^rd clue – The presence of water inside the RC could be easily explained as the consequence of the reduction of oxides: This fact is well known, for instance, by those who work with zirconia (ZrO2):

4^th clue – As a consequence of the re-calcination treatment, the initial charge PNZ (or CNZ) powder inside the RC is heavily oxidized. The weight of powder increases of 4.87% due to the oxidation caused by the calcination process (see page 5 of the presentation (2)). Considering that the PNZ net weight in the RC is 438 g, an oxigen mass of 21.3 g is tied to the metals of the fine powder, whose complete reduction could form up to 24 g of water.

5^th clue – This water mass is in agreement with the duration of a typical TC4 plateau. In the first PNZ test, for example, it lasts about 25 minutes (see Figure 2 of paper (1)). Assuming that the lower temperature of the boiling water drains about 10% of the total heating power (140+95 W), the available heat would be 35,250 J (= 23.5 W * 1500 s). This energy is sufficient to vaporize 16 g of water, considering that the latent heat of evaporation of water at 140°C is about 2160 J/g.

(1) https://www.researchgate.net/p…_of_Nano-Metal_and_HD-Gas (JCF20 paper)

(2) https://www.researchgate.net/p…_of_Nano-Metal_and_HD-Gas (JCF20 presentation)

Quote from JedRothwell

The calorimeter in this paper shows variations in the start-up of the reaction. Figure 1 top left shows the heat increasing as the temperature reaches 300 deg C.

The increase in the heating rate measured at about t=9:35 by RTD1 and RTD2 is easily explained by the drying off of the PNZ powder at the lower levels of the reactor chamber (RC). No need to invoke any anomalous heating due to an imaginary nuclear reaction triggered at whatsoever temperature level.

At the beginning of the test, the powder is very wet, so the heating rate is slower. As temperature rises above the boiling point, the water evaporates starting from the bottom of the RC, where the cartridge heater is located. Subsequently, the dry powder heats at a higher rate.

The strong initial wetness of the metal powder can also easily explain the flattening of the TC4 curve starting from about t=10:00. Note that 140 °C is close to the saturation temperature of water at the pressure of the gas inside the RC.

Quote from Wyttenbach

We discussed it last summer. Most likely its magnetic cooling either from H*-H* going back to H-H what can be a strong kinetic reaction or from an other nuclear magnetic moment taking over energy.

This effect is nothing new as said. We did see it also but in dense powder the delta T is much smaller than in a gaseous atmosphere.

The only point that can be discussed is whether the event causes an induced current in the TC or directly cools down the end of the pipe.

So you turned about one ton of kerosene into CO2 just to discuss with Takahashi how attributing his TC4 temperature fluctuations, which can be easily explained as ordinary cooling events caused by air conditioning of his lab at Kobe Univ., to weird magnetic cooling phenomena involving mysterious H* atoms. Very cool indeed!

Anyway, as reported by RobertBryant (1), Takahashi said that "it is a silly idea if people are imaging non-exising air-conditioning of Kobe U MHE facility. The MHE cabin is precisely air-conditioned by Spindol AC to be 25 plus minus 0.1 deg C". You did report instead that "No fan is even close to the reactor...." (2). Who is wrong?

Quote

I completely understand when lost people like Ascoli need a Vodka to understand the weird phenomena of LENR....

Maybe you are right on this point.

Tell me how many bottles are needed to start feeling excess heat and seeing asterisks everywhere!

(1) The NEDO Initiative - Japan's Cold Fusion Programme

(2) The NEDO Initiative - Japan's Cold Fusion Programme

Quote from Wyttenbach

H*-H* can react with iron or molybdenum as Dufour did show in Asti. If H*-H* sucks out about 500eV to reform H-H then this leads to a strong surface cool down.

Gas inlet does not mean that it is active! Anyway only a few nanogram would be needed to supplement production... Usually heat flows from the hotter part to the cooler and forms a gradient. Only if your name is Ascoli65and your eyes are behind a curtain of Vodka you may have the imagination that negative heat flows inward....

Read again my interpretation of the down peaks reported by Takahashi et al. (*), please. They can be easily explained by cooling events of the H(D) gas pipe caused by the air jet coming from the AC unit nearby. The colder air cools the hot gas pipe, which in turn cools the even hotter upper flange of the reactor chamber. Ordinary physics: heat flows from hotter to colder parts. Moreover, the cooling rate caused by the AC jet impinging on the bare gas pipe is compatible with the usual values of heat transfer coefficient by forced convection at moderate air speed (**).

Only TC4 is affected by this cooling effect because it is the only thermocouple which is glued to a component (the upper flange or the nearby gas pipe) which, from a thermal point of view, is weakly coupled with the rest of the reactor/calorimeter assembly due to the probable presence of a insulating o-ring placed between the upper flange and the rest of the reactor chamber. Consequently, TC4 is the only thermocouple which is very sensitive to the temperature of the external portion of the H(D) gas piping, which in turn is periodically subjected to be cooled down by the air jet blown by the AC unit, when it is on.

Btw, what's about your claim that "No fan is even close to the reactor...." (1). Are you still of the same idea?

Quote

We also see TC fluctuations in active phases. Nothing special in LENR. But Takahashi sees a spectacular large fluctuation only in the case of an anomalous heat event.

Takahashi was a live long teacher of physics at Tohoku - university , quite popular in Japan - and has over 30 years LENR background. Trolls with primary school background only see their flat screen if....

LENR background includes F&P's "1992 boil-off experiment", whose claim about an alleged extraordinary excess heat production (more than 150 W of unknown nuclear origin!) can instead be easily explained by having erroneously taken foam for liquid, as anyone with primary school background can see by just watching the F&P video on his flat screen (***). Provided his brain is not flat as well.

Now, almost 30 years after ICCF3 held in Nagoya, where the F&P's video was presented for the first time (and the long teacher of physics was one of the 300 watchers), it happens that a sequence of temperature fluctuations, easily explained by ordinary cooling effects caused by the on-off operation of an AC unit, are claimed to be caused by AHEs of nuclear origin. Nothing special under the CF/LENR sky!

(*) The NEDO Initiative - Japan's Cold Fusion Programme

(**) The NEDO Initiative - Japan's Cold Fusion Programme

(***) Clearance Items

(1) The NEDO Initiative - Japan's Cold Fusion Programme

Quote from Wyttenbach

One more fart... Try it with more Vodka...

It stopped exactly at the end of the anomalous heat peak... How do you know when people head home...

18:30 (6:30 pm) is a good time to go home after a working day started before 9 am. The sun also sets at around that time in Kobe on September 19, a Wednesday in 2018, and the temperature drops rapidly in the evening at that latitude: https://www.timeanddate.com/we…istoric?month=9&year=2018

Do you want to revolutionize work habits and the sun cycle, in addition to nuclear physics?

Prosit!

Quote from Wyttenbach

The long year forum's hot fusion (ITER) LENR troll simply outpours his vodka fantasies driven by the hope to stop LENR...

This figure (runs 1,2) shows the TC4 fluctuations and here Takahashis comment:

In Fig.4, we show temperature evolution data for the #1-2 burst event. Obviously, the behavior of TC4 is very strange with many oscillatory down-spikes. In our previous paper [8], we made speculation that the TC4 flat-and oscillatory evolution was due to transient local balance in endothermic H-absorption and desorption.

However, it was wrong. From our succeeding experiments with CNZ7r and PNZ10r of re-calcined samples, we have reached the confirmation of “strong H(D)-gas turbulence effect” under locally strong AHE occurrence, which made drastic underestimation of excess thermal power by using data at TC1 and TC2, due to causing strong distortion of temperature distribution of the C-system.

The inside reactor temperature is over 300C the outside 22C. This large fluctuation did confirm the local H*-H* condensation as it's range was 7 times larger than usual (see fig.7 run (3,4)).

Display More

The curves you posted derive from the row data shown in Figure 4 of the JCF19 paper (1).The TC4 fluctuation end at 18:30 in the evening when people went home and turned off the AC cooling.

As for Figure 7 (2), the only thing it confirms is that anger makes you blind: the temperature scale is on the right side and the RTD_average value is about 350 °C, ie greater than the 300 °C you mentioned.

(1) https://www.researchgate.net/p…_by_CNZ7_Sample_and_H-Gas

(2) https://www.researchgate.net/p…-Metal_and_HD-Gas_revised

Hi anonymous,

Quote from anonymous

I've seen this before in a different setting. It's to be expected unless extremely controlled exterior temperatures and constant or zero airflow are are used, by, for example, enclosing the exterior of the rig in a water jacket that is kept at as constant of a temperature as possible by a thermostat. Almost all labs have some kind of HVAC connection to keep the inside environment at habitable temperatures and humidity, and almost all labs have one or more exterior walls, windows, or roofs that couple the exterior environment, diurnal solar heating and night time radiation cooling, and convection into the rig's experiment room.

What can be very helpful is if the AC unit and its fan blower unit on/off times are registered in the collected data so that the obvious change in external air convection can be at least noted on the charts if not (through extreme calculation gymnastics) filtered away. One idea is to cool off or heat the room before the experiment starts, then turn off the HVAC for the data collection period, collection room temperature as part of the experiment, and leave the door closed with the room empty during the data collection period, so that only free convection and radiation would occur.

All this is a real pain in the behind and is essentially a type of experimental noise, lowering the signal to noise ratio. That is why the ideal experiments need signals so large that you can drive a 18 wheeled truck through it -- so that the estimation of the environmental effects can be grossly simplified with minimal calculation work, without significantly lowering the probability that the positive result was experimental error.

Your considerations are quite reasonable. However, if the purpose of an experiment is to demonstrate something, the ones we are talking about are already perfect: state of the art, best equipment, prestigious institutions, large team of long experienced testers, some of whom are on top of the CF/LENR field from the beginning, 30 years ago.

The last month presentation at JFC20 (1) and the one presented at ICCF22 (2) include many slides in which a sequence of downward peaks in the TC4 curves are claimed to be caused by AHEs of nuclear origin. IMO, these peaks are more simply explained by the effect of the on-off cycling of the AC unit located just above the test apparatus (*).

All the arguments, pros and cons, are on the web. Look at them carefully and draw your conclusions.

(1) https://www.researchgate.net/p…_of_Nano-Metal_and_HD-Gas

(2) https://www.researchgate.net/p…_of_Nano-Metal_and_HD-Gas

(*) The NEDO Initiative - Japan's Cold Fusion Programme

Quote from Wyttenbach

I recommend Ascoli to read the most actual paper before dispersing more brain farts:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336554536 For JCMNS ICCF22

If you cannot find the correct TC4 placement then please ask for help.., also if you can't see were the cooling runs...

Actually, the most actual paper is not the one mentioned by you, but its revised version (1). At page 6, it reads "TC4 (gas inlet/outlet point of RC upper flange) temperature" and, as shown in Figure 1, the thermocouple is probably glued on the steel tube welded to the RC upper flange. This tube comes out from the calorimeter and is subject to be cooled by the air jet coming from the AC unit.

Btw, what's your last position on the presence of an AC unit inside the Kobe cabin?

(1) https://www.researchgate.net/p…-Metal_and_HD-Gas_revised

Quote from Alan Smith

And the surface area of that foam-lagged pipe is?

The foam-lagged pipe is not the one I'm referring to. It is foam-lagged because it contains the BT400 coolant.

I'm referring to the H(D) piping which comes out of the reactor aligned with its axis, the one with a black valve handle in open position.

Mine is a rough estimate, just for evaluating the order of magnitude of h. So to decouple it from the actual dimensions (length and diameter) of the gas piping, the calculation is carried out on a superficial basis, ie with reference to a unit area of 1 cm2, eventually converted into m2.

Quote from Wyttenbach

50 Watt excess energy with e.g. 100 Watt input in a room larger than 5x5x5 meters... The presence of 4 people did increase the room temperature by 0.02 degree.

Now we see a 100C delta inside a screened/isolated steel cylinder that occurs within seconds.

I propose Ascoli to just do some basic kitchen work (experiments) with his stove to acquire some beginners knowledge of heating/cooling techniques.

I propose he heats his stove with an enclosed steel pipe and tries to cool it down by 100C using an outgoing mass flux...

The other solution is to drink another bottle of wine. (Sorry Vodka..)

Display More

The following JPEG contains my answer.

Quote from Alan Smith

Everybody here.

Fine. And could you help me reconcile what reported by Wyttenbach (1) "No fan is even close to the reactor..." and what claimed by Curbina (2) "air conditioning that by all means is there purposefully to enhance the level of control of the experiments"? I'm not able to imagine an air conditioner without a fan and, considering its dimensions, everything in the Kobe's cabin is close to the reactor.

(1) The NEDO Initiative - Japan's Cold Fusion Programme

(2) The NEDO Initiative - Japan's Cold Fusion Programme

Quote from Alan Smith

Ascoli65 Yes, I do know Takahashi - but Wyttenbach was recently at his laboratory and discussed ambient temperature control with the team there - which kind of refutes your argument. Also, the AC unit you are obsessed with appears to be un-plugged. Possibly there is foam in the wall socket?

The foam was in the F&P's cells during their "1992 boil-off experiment" (*).

Regarding his recent visit to Takahashi's lab, Wyttenbach wrote (1): "He is actively cooling the whole lab with a precision of 0.0001C!" Can you tell me how it is possible to actively cool the whole lab by a different way than operating an AC unit? Furthermore, the use of air conditioning during these tests has been just claimed by Curbina (2): "air conditioning that by all means is there purposefully to enhance the level of control of the experiments and not to the contrary effect." Who is telling the truth?

As for the unplugged plug, well, the purpose of a plug is to be plugged in a wall socket and the last photograph was taken in November (northern hemisphere, temperate latitude).

(*) Clearance Items

(1) The NEDO Initiative - Japan's Cold Fusion Programme

(2) The NEDO Initiative - Japan's Cold Fusion Programme

Quote from Alan Smith

The photograph mentions 2012,,,, ETA - the legacy AC unit appears not to be plugged in.

2012 is mentioned on the slide, not in the photograph. The date imprinted in the photo is November 8, 2017 (2017/11/08).

As highlighted in my JPEG (*), the slide was presented at ICCF21 in June 2018 and its title specifies that the photo shows the situation of the lab since 2012, when, presumably, the left calorimeter of the former twin MHE setup was moved to Tohoku University. As revealed by the pending cable and plug appearing in the upper right corner, the AC unit was still in the Kobe cabin at the end of 2017 and the same photograph is currently shown on the ResearchGate page describing the Takahashi's lab (1). There is no reason to think that the AC unit has been removed, also because the slide reports that it was dedicated to control the room temperature and I don't know any other way to perform this function.

Anyway, you started this thread by bringing to the attention of L-F readers the latest results from Takahashi, who, I guess, knows you very well. So it would be a good idea, if you ask him if the AC unit shown in the former photographs is still in place and was used to control the room temperature of the cabin during the tests, whose results were reported in his JCF20 presentation.

(*) The NEDO Initiative - Japan's Cold Fusion Programme

(1) https://www.researchgate.net/lab/Akito-Takahashi-Lab

Quote from Alan Smith

The photograph is dated 2011. Things might have changed a little (or a lot) since then. Hence the photograph is misleading in the current context.

The following JPEG shows much more recent photographs of the Kobe lab.

The AC unit was still there.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

At the moment it is a bit tricky for me to test the effect of cooling the box exterior, even with the air gap removed between the bubble wrap and acrylic, because my shop is currently about 9 C, and the heater (not used for these experiments) is an IR unit.

Conversely, heating the exterior could act similarly but oppositely to cooling the exterior.
However, I don’t see how this escapes notice of the inlet thermocouple. At 10 C, my inlet thermocouple increases by 0.1 to 0.2 C just from me being within 4 m of the calorimeter.

OK, now I better understand your situation. Did you ever published a photo of your experimental setup?

Anyway, the base room temperature is not a problem and not even the cooling or heating of the box. Heating and cooling of a warmer than air component by a fan heater (not an IR one) or an AC unit cause the same response, the component cool down! See what happened during the INFN test in 2012 (*). The only important thing to replicate is the increase of the air speed around the experimental setup, in your case the box, therefore a simple fan is more than sufficient.

As for the inlet temperature to the box, it has no or just a minimal influence on the estimate of the output power. The main variations are on the outlet temperature and, IMO, its value is strongly influenced by the air speed around the box.

(*) The NEDO Initiative - Japan's Cold Fusion Programme

Quote from Alan Smith

4 posts moved from here to 'Clearance Items'. Reason, they contained misleading information and/or were somewhat off topic.

I don't understand why you moved my post (*), which was showing the position of the AC unit inside the Kobe cabin. It is the answer to the Wyttenbach's post, in which he stated that "No fan is even close to the reactor...". This latter was the real misleading information and it is still in place!

The cabin was, and still is, actively cooled, as confirmed by Wyttenbach himself a couple of weeks ago:

So during his visit, the AC unit was still there, presumably in the same position shown in the photo posted by JedRothwell in January 2018 (1). That is just above the calorimeter. About one meter from the H(D) gas pipe which is directly welded to the upper flange of the reactor!

(*) Clearance Items

(1) Research Team in Japan Reports Excess Heat - (Nissan Motors among otheres)