Posts by can

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)

Dalton's law of partial pressures should be valid, which implies that if the partial pressure of hydrogen in a hydrogen-filled container is higher than the partial pressure of the hydrogen fraction in the outside atmosphere, hydrogen will still eventually leak away from the container.

Nevertheless from what I've seen so far with properly fitted alumina tubes this is generally a very slow process; I was imagining an observably fast leak rate (or apparent leak) in this case, which may be expected if excess heat is associated with some sort of "condensation" of the hydrogen atoms into some other unusual state (EDIT: this is why I often remarked to check for unusual pressure drops where none would be normally expected).

Alan Smith

Is that what the customer reported? Either the alumina tube is (or becomes after some time) leaky or the hydrogen which appears to leak is not ordinary hydrogen.

From data from experiments publicly conducted so far, I've got the impression that in absence of a leak alumina tubes can generally contain well hydrogen, even at high temperatures.

@David Fojt

That's a very significant confirmation if it's what you've observed; thanks. So, elemental Li/LiH is the active component and can work without adding Al/LiAlH4, but it requires higher temperatures and/or lower pressures and, I would add, a more durable reactor since in pure form it's quite corrosive and reactive.

Alan Smith

Releasing H quickly from the hydride and releasing it slowly (I suppose from the LiAlH4 in this case) seem mutually exclusive processes.

I'm not sure if I've noted this earlier in another thread, but I'm thinking there are probably two effects occurring here at the same time: one favored by the slow hydrogen release from the preferably ionic hydride and/or the active surface, and another by a rapid change in reactor conditions. Cyclically forming and decomposing LiH as suggested may be doing both at the same time.

From your report it sounds as if the first process occurs for a sufficiently long time (and I imagine, also in sufficient amounts), excess heat might eventually spontaneously arise.

I'm not sure I understand where the unconnected oxidized coil is located. Is it completely disconnected from the input electricity?

@David Fojt

To summarize, basically you're saying that to see results you have to continuously "play" with the reversible Li hydride reaction without allowing the system to reach equilibrium, and that a rather low pressure helps achieving this by lowering the decomposition temperature of the hydride?

EDIT: also:

Quote from David Fojt

AP powder worked because the mortar...As well as by some location" hydrogen condensing surface" was separated from the liquid lithium.

Do you mean that the liquid lithium must not form a coating on the active surface of the Ni particles, and that the reaction works/works better if there is a gap (even if short) between the decomposing hydride and the Ni surface?

Is this what you've seen in your experiments? Forgive me for asking this question, but if yes, it's exactly what I've been trying to suggest to Bob since a good while.

RobertBryant

I jumbled up the electron acceleration part with the glow discharge part, sorry.

Brian Ahern posted on Vortex-L:

Quote from Brian Ahern

[...] My recent Thermacore replication was not negative. It was a null result (I believe due to a loss of hydrogen gas to leaking copper gaskets above 600C.)

I hope to remedy that soon and I hope for a positive result

There is probably an error, either inadvertent or intentional, in the patent excerpt above by the way. How can electrons be accelerated up to 100 keV at a pressure of 3-6 bars?

He wrote about powders again in an email to Krivit in 2010, referring to Rossi's original patent. In addition of commenting on the non-novelty of Rossi's process he explained (in short) that a high surface area, which powders may give, is not necessarily useful if there's not a sufficient number of active sites: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/s…actionToRossiClaims.shtml

His 1995 patent also covered the usage of powders: https://patentscope.wipo.int/s…telli)&tab=PCTDescription

BobHiggins

Steven Krivit of New Energy Times this reported this in 2008 following a visit to Piantelli's lab. Your mileage may vary:

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/n…NET29-8dd54geg.shtml#dpnr

Quote

[...] Piantelli has some very interesting things to say about deuterium. New Energy Times asked him whether he had ever tried using deuterium instead of normal hydrogen. Yes, he said, but if you put the deuterium inside a hydrogen-based experiment, it stops the reaction instantly. Piantelli said that, if he uses just normal hydrogen with very high purity, which may have a trace amount of deuterium, it works fine. But if he injects even just 2 percent or 3 percent of deuterium with respect to the hydrogen, it stops the experiment, kills it. Whether Piantelli had ever tried pure deuterium, rather than pure hydrogen, was not clear.

BobHiggins

I was thinking more of real-time effects/response while the signal is applied rather than the after-effects so I didn't quite understand your reply at first.

On a slightly different but related subject, I've checked your values with this online calculator and realized that they're valid for an air core. Wouldn't the fuel load affect the inductance and generated magnetic field? Or worded differently, couldn't specific materials be used to directly affect these? I guess this depends on what one is trying to achieve exactly.

I've often thought that Piantelli's bars/cylinders would also make for good magnetic cores compared to powders, even if the specific surface area is lower (but one could simply use more material, surface treated of course).

BobHiggins

Is my understanding correct that the hoped effect here is that temperatures and/or gamma counts would remain elevated (or increase) after applying the signal?

Couldn't a run with a dummy load (for example, plain Ni powder in air) be arranged so that the effect of a similar signal on the system at varying temperatures can be assessed?

BobHiggins

From what I remember reading, rumors are that there is a specific load-matched frequency, possibly between 500 and 2500 Hz, that somehow is able to induce excess heat in a suitably prepared cell. Reportedly, every fuel load has a different optimal frequency and apparently a square wave works best. So, instead of a fixed signal I would go if possible for a long, slow frequency chirp and observe any effect on the reported temperatures.

It's not mentioned from these tips when exactly this signal should be applied.

Quote from andrea.s

Did you ever post there?

I've followed that forum (actually, thread) since a certain person pretty much told everybody to come reading what an insider in the E-Cat saga was writing. Then the thread slowly went downhill due to trolls taking over and the administrators not caring at all about what was going on. Instead of threatening to leave, Ahlfors should realize that a similar situation won't happen on LENR-Forum (at least not anytime soon), but he can't expect to do things the way he wants.

Quote from andrea.s

Oh, nice job in support of Bob Higgins on the NI LiAlH thread.

I do what I can, but I'm mostly posting what I would have made for myself anyway. I don't claim to be an expert in data analysis.

Quote from Ahlfors

can

Sure?

Hopefully...

Quote from ele

A bien tot ! CUL8R !

Culottor?

Quote from andrea.s

But I don't see what was reproachable

I guess one cannot simply hijack the ongoing discussion with a stream of seemingly random non-commented images and links. There's ample space in this forum for a dedicated thread on a discussion on that style (look for example Gennadiy Tarassenko's in the Russian subforum); and it's not that Alhfors isn't capable of writing in understandable English either.

In short: non siamo mica su Cobraf.

Why not have a dedicated "Ahlfors" thread? I would follow it.

BobHiggins

Piantelli et al.'s expired 1995 patent and some of the papers published in the 90's suggest that their bars were acid-etched and electroplated, not simply plain bars.

Anyway, I just did a test with powder composed of mostly micrometric iron in a water suspension. Nothing rigorous but I thought it could be interesting to note this here. To my eyes the smaller deoxidized particles appear even darker under diffuse light than the starting oxidized particles, but under strong direct lighting (especially when stirring the mixture) they do seem to reflect light better/differently, or almost shine.

However, if I remember correctly me356 was writing about wires, not powders, when referring to the shining quality of the treated surface.