can Verified User
  • Member since Jan 20th 2017

Posts by can

  • The Playground

    Quote from andrea.s

    Could you shed some light on this post? I see Cary is where LaGatta operates (or will, when OSHA's directions are fulfilled). What is the Philadelphia story? And does anybody know how much IH and Cherokee invested in HRMI? The incorporation document mentions 100000 shares worth $ 0.001 each : I suppose it is more than these 100 bucks.


    I don't know about this Philadelphia story but I'm aware that people from what used to be called the "Cincinnati group", who attempted using radioactive elements in their LENR experiments (like for example thorium), eventually all passed away, at least from what I've been told (I haven't specifically researched about this).

  • Rossi Replication Technology

    Alan Smith

    This is what you've already publicly posted that I've read and saved:


  • Rossi Replication Technology

    Quote from Alan Smith

    There are two key areas involved in replication, fuel preparation and EM stimulation. This is TBH, true in a way of Pd/D work too. Careful preparation of the palladium and equally patient work on the fuel is part of it. I'm very busy at the moment, but I'll try to collect my thoughts and such small amounts of information I have and put them in here.


    Is it information that you've already posted on LENR-Forum or is there more that you haven't yet? I've saved such posts but haven't assembled them in a coherent document yet.

    Also, I'm not sure if it would be nice to dump them all in one place without prior permission.

  • MFMP: Automated experiment with Ni-LiAlH

    Quote from Alan Smith

    Perhaps, but more likely an inverter system, as used to drive AC motors at variable speeds.


    From the attached document below:


    Quote

    В первых опытах электроэнергия для разогрева реактора бралась непосредственно из электросети с использованием тиристорного регулятора.


    В дальнейшем применялся трансформатор с переключающимися обмотками. Переключение как ручное, так и автоматическое с использованием регулятора, управляемого сигналом термопары.


    Google translation


    Quote

    In the first experiments, the electric power for the heating of the reactor was taken Directly from the power grid using a thyristor regulator.


    In the future, a transformer with switching windings was used. Switching both manual and automatic using a regulator controlled by a thermocouple signal.


    So both interchangeably?

  • MFMP: Automated experiment with Ni-LiAlH

    @David Fojt

    This is in-topic.


    Now that you make me remember, some Parkhomov replications had stainless steel in them. For example, besides the fuel capsule(s), notably the GlowStick GS5.2 and GS5.3 experiments had stainless steel filler rods (I don't recall why they've been used instead of alumina). So, if temperatures were cycled around the austenite transition point of the steel used (SS316 in this case), or perhaps even just with a temperature gradient along at least part of the length of the rods, some sort of H-breathing action within the material may have occurred.


    I guess it cannot be excluded that these steel parts inside the cell may have contributed to some of the anomalies reported during those experiments.

  • MFMP: Automated experiment with Ni-LiAlH

    @David Fojt 

    (maybe this off-topic is getting a bit too long for Bob Higgins?)


    There is a discontinuity in hydrogen solubility at the gamma-iron phase (austenite) transition point.


    http://www.iei-world.org/pagine/congress/19/13/img_02.jpg

    http://www.iei-world.org/pagin…ess/19/congress_19_13.asp


    So I guess one could design the material so that this transition temperature is decreased (~0.8% carbon content according to the other graph), and arrange the experiment so that temperatures change around that point to promote this sort of breathing effect that you mention.


    From what I remember from past experiments for steel there is a kind of threshold temperature after which hydrogen diffuses out markedly more rapidly than at lower temperatures; it's probably associated with this transition point.

  • The Playground

    Quote from Eric Walker

    I wish the software showed which admin moved a post.


    From my point of view the main issue is that moving posts makes linking (for example for later reference, etc) difficult, as the post number and/or location changes after this operation. It hasn't specifically affected me yet, but it has others.

  • MFMP: Automated experiment with Ni-LiAlH

    @David Fojt

    I think now I understand what you were referring about.

    http://i.imgur.com/cojuBHW.png


    About Piantelli and stainless steel, in the 1995 patent there is an example where it's used:


    Quote

    Example 3

    On a 90 mm long bar with a diameter of 5 mm, made of AISI 316 steel which has been tempered at 400°C to eliminate internal stresses, natural hydrogen (D/H = about 1/6000) was made to adsorb with the method of immersion into acid solution and then both immersion in gaseous environment at the absolute pressure of 600 mbar [...]

  • MFMP: Automated experiment with Ni-LiAlH

    Quote from BobHiggins

    I am not sure I believe this. Once the LiAlH4 decomposes and subsequently melts, it becomes a frothy, foamy liquid. We have seen that the insides of the reactor tubes (horizontal for heating) have the coating of the LiAlH4 film around the entire circumference of the tube, essentially uniform in thickness (tube dissection). I think segregation is harder than you think. In my reactors, I place a zirconia wool plug after the fuel powder to help keep the powder in place. Then I put a loose fitting alumina rod filling about 5" of the tube between the wool and the open end. What I see is Li-Al coating the alumina rod for about 2cm past where it touches the zirconia wool plug. I am open to suggestion as to how the segregation you propose can be done.


    If it's foaming it means it's evolving too much gas too quickly in concentrated spots. Make it decompose slower and at a constant rate (might not be possible with heating power steps), distribute it over a larger area (again might not be possible without mixing it with the Ni in significant amounts without using a wider tube); or ultimately use less LiAlH4 so that the inner surfaces will only be partially coated even if the compound foams completely.


    This foaming depends on several factors and will hardly be a perfectly reproducible process. It sounds almost like it could be a good candidate for a random variable responsible for the exceedingly low degree of success that people are having with these experiments. Or why anecdotally there are positive reports from people who use an initial very slow, constant rate heating ramp. That could be completely coincidental, however.


    Quote from BobHiggins

    Can you be more specific? Until researchers publish their claims, and are verified to have a working LENR system (evaluation or replication), it is hard to consider modifying the research protocol on the basis of their claims. Also, some specifics of Piantelli's stimulation are very specific to his rod (thermal waves for example) and will not work for powder.


    I was referring to the general idea of providing in a way or another electrons/a current to the fuel, not specifically to induction heating that Rossi might have used, according to previous speculations.

  • MFMP: Automated experiment with Ni-LiAlH

    Quote from BobHiggins

    Nice pictures to communicate your point. Li-Al alloy (not necessarily 1:1 ratio required) will wet to the Ni. If there is no Al, the Li will not wet to the Ni. In the experiments that showed XH, the Al was present. So, Al presence in my experiments should not prevent XH even if the 1:1 ratio is non-optimum. SEMs of the Lugano ash, the Parkhomov ash, and the MFMP !Bang experiment (no XH) ash all showed the Li-Al wetting to the Ni surface. Note that I still consider that the Lugano experiment likely produced XH, but only with a COP about the same as Parkhomov. In the Lugano case, the ratio of Li and Al were not measured, and so may not have been 1:1. We know that the ratio in the Parkhomov case was 1:1 based on the use of LiAlH4 as the ingredient.


    In the second diagram above I propose that there may also be Al if there is a gap between the decomposing hydride and the metal surface, i.e. that there may also be LiAlH4. This implies that the powder mixing method might be important; one that allows gaps to develop between the hydride and the Ni surface could work better. This variable hasn't been explored in these experiments. With this I still mean that the Ni and the LAH would have to be in a line of sight, not segregated in opposing areas of the apparatus.


    Quote from BobHiggins

    [...] What the magnetic field may do to enhance LENR is still unknown; the first step in discovering how the magnetic field excitation may be complicit is to find a variable combination that does produce LENR effects (XH/radiations). Then the variables can be dithered to optimize the system. In my system, I have separated the magnetic stimulation from the heating so that these variables may be evaluated independently.


    There is logic to this iterative plan, but there is also a starting point from what other researchers/inventors (not necessarily engaged in Rossi/Parkhomov replications) report doing in their experiments. Inducing currents in the fuel with an alternating magnetic field would make sense in this context.

  • MFMP: Automated experiment with Ni-LiAlH

    Quote from David Fojt

    I'm really interested by iron rather steel. Because Inside Lugano report we saw possible Iron particle. Following my understanding, it could be porous iron coated onto thermical stable carbo-silicon nucleus. [...]


    Besides in Lugano, Rossi may have used iron in other occasions in the past (see these old analyses. Look how much iron there is compared to Nickel. However, it's not clear how representative of the entire sample they are, or if they are showing something entirely different).


    Dufour et al. may have done what you're suggesting in an experiment that was reported some time ago, which I previously linked in this thread. Theirs was an iron-sodium system. The fuel also contained silicon carbide, whose function was not described.:


    http://www.iscmns.org/work11/17%20Dufour.pdf


    Quote

    The active cell contained: Sodium 0.259 g (Alfa Aesar lumps), Iron 1.088 g (Alfa Aesar <10μ 000170 (lot A29123) and Silicon Carbide 1.088 g (Alfa Aesar <44μ 43332 (lot Q10B002).


    In their case their reaction occurs when:


    Quote

    [...] For the reaction to occur, electrons must be present in the reacting medium, where hydrogen is adsorbed on the metal (transition metals, like iron, adsorb hydrogen). Electrons are available when the vapor of an alkaline metal like sodium or lithium is present in the reacting medium and if the temperature is sufficiently high.


    There is no mention of electromagnetic trigger system, but there aren't many details in this very short report anyway. At the temperatures they used (>1000°C) the magnetic properties of iron wouldn't have made an effect, however.


    Quote from David Fojt

    Another hypothesis is austenitic steel powder coated onto a neutral core, why ?

    Because we see a lot of Radial grain gaps where could help to form H entities areas Without being disturbed by lithium.

    Therefore we need for this a special steel with exactly 0,77 % of carbon to allow breathing ( loading/unloading) from 750 °.


    I think I've read a similar suggestion in the past, besides from Piantelli's patents (if I understand correctly he's also used AISI316 stainless steel as an active core).

    However steel with 0.77% carbon content (where did you get this precise percentage?) would not exactly be austenitic steel anymore.

  • MFMP: Automated experiment with Ni-LiAlH

    BobHiggins

    I had to run the circuit in a simulator to fully understand how it works and the implications (I don't really know much about electrical engineering). Now I see why a capacitor is needed to make the circuit resonant and how one can't simply run it at different frequencies without losing significantly in terms of peak to peak current (especially at high frequencies).


    So I guess now the question is what this would be trying to attempt exactly. The fuel will not just generically be stimulated with magnetic fields, but currents will of course be induced within it. Perhaps one could design the circuit and materials used so that the skin depth remains within a certain optimal range? The skin depth in Nickel at 4 kHz past the Curie temperature (relative permeability = 1) will be >2mm. At room temperature (relative permeability = 600) this will be ~85µm. Skin depth calculator here.



    @David Fojt

    Since a picture is worth a thousands words, this is what I have in mind:




    And in my mind, ideally the Li (or LiAlH4) would be configured so that there is a small gap from the metal surface:




    The point of Li evaporating is that so that:

    1. the surface becomes free from obstructions (assuming no other obstacle present such as Al, which won't evaporate);
    2. Li atoms can excite hydrogen both in the atmosphere and adsorbed on the Ni surface in atomic by donating electrons through atom-atom collision (this is what Piantelli seems to be suggesting in one of his patents, although he doesn't explictly mention the presence of gaseous alkali metals).

    However, as previously mentioned hydrogen atoms decomposing from alkali hydrides (like LiH) should also be available directly in an excited or ionized form. So, causing LiH to continuously form and decompose as you propose should achieve a similar effect (provided that there's hopefully some sort of gap between the decomposing hydride and the Ni surface).

  • MFMP: Automated experiment with Ni-LiAlH

    If one wants to apply heat to the powder/fuel directly and excite adsorbed hydrogen atoms with the induced currents, Nickel might not necessarily be the best choice. Other ferromagnetic materials could be used instead. Iron has a Curie temperature of 770°C; Cobalt would bring this threshold to 1127°C (source: wikipedia).

  • MFMP: Automated experiment with Ni-LiAlH

    Alan Smith

    Induction heating can be used to melt non-magnetic metals through the heat generated by eddy currents, so the answer to those questions would be yes. However this heating process is more efficient with high magnetic permeability metals below their Curie temperature.


    I only presented a possible scenario where a "safety heater" could be indeed used to stop the reaction simply through heat like Rossi used to claim; it's not necessarily correct.


    EDIT: under this scenario one would also have to assume that somehow it's more desirable to increase temperatures outside the useful range rather than shutting off the heaters/coil completely. There could even be valid reasons for this, but elaborating on them at this point would be speculation.

  • MFMP: Automated experiment with Ni-LiAlH

    Quote from Alan Smith

    I agree entirely, not the best but very practical. You might consider buying a stethoscope to listen to the cores while you tune your circuit btw- or of course just look for current dips- but the stethoscope might work better- wait till you hear the core start to rattle. I am not entirely joking, either.



    Isn't the one in this photo the "low-temperature reactor" ?


    Quote from Alan Smith

    I'm not Bob, but scuttlebutt from the general area of Rossi is that EM fields are able to both start and stop the reaction. In other words they are trigger and safety catch both. This is the reason for the heater coil in some early Rossi documents (or perhaps discussions) being referred to as a 'safety heater'.


    I remember the "safety heaters", they were reportedly adopted in the table-top low-temperature reactors that didn't even glow red-hot.


    If the magnetic trigger depends on the magnetic permeability of the material used, then crossing the Curie temperature, which would bring it to 1, would inhibit it. However this would imply that the reaction is self-regulating, unless the safety heater is needed for other undesired effects.

  • MFMP: Automated experiment with Ni-LiAlH

    Quote from David Fojt

    Li evaporate at 1342° following Google, what you suggest to explain How Me356 works in this case ?

    May be close to 0 bar absolute, it should evaporate a little before ? Sorry it's over my knowledges..


    He has suggested that when starting (triggering) the reaction, pressure should be maintained very low, in the order of 1 millibar or less. During the preceding hydrogenation phase it can be higher. At 1 millibar Lithium evaporates at about 772°C (see this page). From what he writes it doesn't sound that just causing the Li to evaporate will start a reaction, there has to be a trigger of some sort (so far undisclosed), in addition to a properly prepared metal surface.


    See this link to the comment by me356 I'm referring about.


    Quote from David Fojt

    About Piantelli , my friend JL Paillet who works on Dirac Deep Level doesn't believe that an H- can cross electronic layers of Ni, i shares this.. [...]


    I would agree with that too. My personal and only opinion is that the H- is an intermediate step needed to achieve something that is not explicitly mentioned (or in other words, that has been omitted) in the theory described in the patent. Perhaps, kind of like how Leif Holmlid uses Rydberg (excited) atoms to eventually obtain what he calls ultra-dense hydrogen.


    Quote from David Fojt

    You spoke about Al, but at first Piantelli experiments, he played just with Ni and H2. By this way he saw some " radiation" , this is why he added Li plates externally, that's it.

    No Al used..


    I think the role of the Lithium-containing plates there is different than what has been proposed for LiH (hydrogen release) in other experiments by other authors. In that patent they're acting as a target for the multi-MeV protons emitted by the reaction occurring at the Ni surface, in order to produce useful secondary p+Li nuclear fusion reactions. So, they're more or less overall acting as passive components in the reaction. However, nothing prevents the same from happening in other systems where the Li has a more active role.


    On the other hand, while Al is reported in the literature to lower the decomposition temperature of LiH, according to me356 it also makes the reaction less powerful (see these posts: 1, 2, 3, 4), so perhaps as you say it would be indeed better to not use it at all in these Ni+Li powder experiments, at least when starting out.


    EDIT: In a more recent patent (EP 2754156 B1) Piantelli mentions a more active usage of alkali elements in order to ionize (by collision) hydrogen atoms in an additional manner than just adsorption on the special Ni surface. There, these alkali elements are referred to as "electron donor elements". Under this usage, Cesium is preferred because it's significantly less electronegative than Lithium (which means that it has a greater tendency of donating electrons than Lithium).

  • MFMP: Automated experiment with Ni-LiAlH

    Wyttenbach

    I'm aware of the Lipinski setup although I have to regretfully admit that I've never read about it much in detail. However I find that if alkali atoms excite hydrogen atoms adsorbed on a transition metal surface, this would be more similar to the theory of operation behind Holmlid's experiments (without the Nd:YAG laser, but other triggers should be suitable too).

  • MFMP: Automated experiment with Ni-LiAlH

    Quote from David Fojt

    Yes, breathing is blocked then this is the only point that Me356 has never understood very well.


    I think he advanced to a different point of view on the reaction.


    In some of his later messages, he wrote that the reaction can be started (meaning that it does not necessarily start spontaneously) when the lithium begins to evaporate. I suspect (also given other comments) this is in reference to Piantelli's suggestion from his patents that alkali atoms like for example Lithium (but other ones may be better) are electron donor elements, which means that they tend to donate electrons to more electronegative atoms like hydrogen.


    According to Piantelli when hydrogen comes in contact/collides with an electron donor element it can get negatively ionized (forming H-). My guess is that when lithium evaporates many more collisions than normal between Li atoms and hydrogen, both adsorbed on the Ni and in the atmosphere, can happen. When a sufficient amount of adsorbed hydrogen undergoes this excitation, the reaction then can occur following a suitable impulse.

    Ionic hydrides like LiH can also form negatively ionized (or otherwise excited) hydrogen when they decompose. When it's bound together LiH is composed of Li+ and H- atoms. When the hydride decomposes, at least for a short period of time the freed hydrogen atom will be in a negatively ionized state (H-), or perhaps just in an excited (Rydberg) state. Free hydrogen atoms in this form may have special properties.


    By making LiH "breathe" continuously one is essentially producing excited hydrogen atoms, so that would be would be in the end doing the same thing that can be achieved in other ways, but with the added impulse provided by the continuously varying temperatures, needed to cause this process. Or at least, that's what I'm thinking.


    Quote from David Fojt

    It is secondary here..


    Al is indeed secondary if LiH alone can work. From the point of view of decomposition temperatures it's probably not useful for these ClamShell (or Parkhomov-type) experiments anyway, since very high temperatures, far exceeding the decomposition temperature of LiH, are used.


    There was also a discussion earlier on in this thread that Al helps forming a coating on the Ni/transition metal surface, which is what one actually wants to avoid, according to the theory of operation described so far.

  • MFMP: Automated experiment with Ni-LiAlH

    @David Fojt

    If that discussion started in the other thread can be continued here, that's even better.


    Quote from David Fojt

    It's one point of the process but not the main one following my understanding


    That's my understanding too. I assumed that to be in reference to the usual Ni+LiAlH4 powder cells that are the main subject of the experiments described in this thread.


    Quote from David Fojt

    Sorry i don't catch the meaning could you help me ?


    I meant that it can be useful to use a lower hydrogen pressure in the cell, so that LiH can decompose at a lower temperature; this is what you've written too.


    Quote from David Fojt

    Don't understand..


    I understood that if the cell is maintained at a temperature where LiH is not forming or not decomposing, then it's not "breathing".


    Quote from David Fojt

    Yes Me356 said the same


    Unfortunately suggestions coming directly from me356 ('me356 says') aren't accepted yet in this thread. That's also why I found very interesting to read the same from you.


    Quote from David Fojt

    Yes, it's my idea completely in opposition with which is suggested here but..may be i'm wrong..Therefore I am not afraid to hurt my ego, but is this the case of everyone?


    Actually that's my opinion too. However it's not Bob Higgins' opinion. (and he is the one who is running the experiments, so...)


    Quote from David Fojt

    and to lower the decomposition temperature of LiH.

    No


    The LiAlH4 decomposition has several steps called R1, R2, R3 (see Wikipedia). The R3 step (2 LiH + 2 Al → 2 LiAl + H2) in presence of Al occurs at a lower temperature compared to pure LiH. I thought you also implied this; maybe you actually didn't.


    Also see this source (excerpt below):

    http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10…12a015?journalCode=inocaj




    Quote from David Fojt

    We need to take time for LAH+ Li transformation but if we use directly LIH let's start at 700° after it remains slow..


    Do you mean that it's slow because you still need to make the LiH form and decompose several times, which is going to take time?

  • MFMP: Automated experiment with Ni-LiAlH

    David Fojt suggested in another thread - I'm assuming according to observations from his own experiments (he is a known researcher who attends LENR meetings, etc) - that:


    • The decomposition of LiH (H release) is what promotes the reaction in these cells.
    • Internal pressure can be advantageously lowered in order to lower the decomposition temperature of LiH.
    • It is useful to cause the LiH to form and decompose cyclically.
    • It is useful to prevent this reversible hydride reaction from ever reaching equilibrium.
    • It is useful to use only LiH (or Li and external hydrogen) and no LiAlH4 to better study its effect on the system.
    • Parkhomov apparently obtains results because the powder is mixed in a way that makes hydrogen travel a certain distance from the liquid lithium (paraphrasing).
    • LiAlH4 is primarily used to provide the hydrogen that Li takes to form LiH and to lower the decomposition temperature of LiH.
    • It's not necessary to wait for a very long amount of time for LiAlH4 to decompose if Li+H/LiH can be provided directly.


    These practical observations could be applied to the next GlowStick ClamShell experiment(s).

    (EDIT: here I actually meant Bob Higgins' experiments)