Posts by can

BobHiggins (#415)

I've added the horizontal lines to make any change in count rate trend more visible. Specifically, the horizontal lines are placed at the count rate average values for the displayed data. From longer term data (see attached file) however there don't appear to be significant changes overall.

BobHiggins (#417)

I am indeed saying that outside the regions where the ionic hydride decomposes the temperature rise might probably be faster, but this is only my hypothesis; I have not been provided detailed information on this regard yet. I do not think that temperatures necessarily have to increase with a linear ramp, it's probably more important that in general the hydride decomposes slowly to take advantage for longer that the nascent H atoms will at least for a short period of time be either in an excited state or ionized. So, the rise may for example be executed in practice with small constant steps. Again, my opinion.

BobHiggins

If the slow ramp has to do with the decomposition of the ionic hydride as others have suggested, I suspect it would not be useful to keep further increasing temperatures slowly after there's nothing left to decompose.

I've checked the larger graphs but I'm not sure if I'm seeing gamma count bursts. I've attached below the latest one (page 3).

(Besides what I'm still regularly uploading automatically on the shared folder on mega.nz)

BobHiggins

If prolonged high temperature operation will reduce the life of the heater coil, why about half of the experiment time is >= 1150 °C? If the objective is seeing if any effect arises at a high enough temperature with the current conditions, couldn't those temperatures be reached quicker? This is among the things I previously wondered when I asked about the rationale behind the experiment schedule. It might be worth noting that from Parkhomov's latest email posted by Alan Smith, it seems that in his case after a dwell time at 400°C temperatures are "smoothly increased" to "1200-1300°C"; it doesn't sound like it's a very long process.

On a different subject: I attached a slightly different version of the previous graph, which is still not the same as those being uploaded in the shared folder on mega.nz.

BobHiggins

Yes, besides nothing interesting seems to be occurring yet so to me it feels a bit redundant to upload them here too while they're being regularly uploaded there.

In the meanwhile I tried arranging the graphs into a different multipage document format (which I have not yet applied to those currently being saved in the shared folder); I don't know if this is more useful for others. It's intended to be viewed in full screen with one page per screen.

BobHiggins

I'm asking because for example the GlowStick 5.2 experiment famous for the "signal" had deeper and more frequent temperature cyclings, although the "low" steps were probably not deep enough to ensure significant formation (and subsequent decomposition during the "high" steps) of LiH. There is a graph that shows them well on quantumheat.org:

http://www.quantumheat.org/ima…Parkhomov_Replication.png

http://www.quantumheat.org/ind…cookbook-is-in-the-signal

I've mentioned it in earlier comments, but I don't think that just allowing the Li to evaporate will work as a stimulus. Still worth trying, though.

Latest graph attached in this comment.

Also here: https://mega.nz/#F!XpQwQIrL!UWg9jMHh4I__eK33-d5x8Q

BobHiggins

It did work an in the end I also managed to cobble together something that can automatically upload somewhere the graphs. However that directory is not guaranteed to exist indefinitely so do keep saving/backing them to your experiment folder (no hurry though).

Changing subject, can you comment on the rationale behind the current experiment schedule?

Is this experiment mostly a test to see if only changing the powder type (etched, degassed) yields any change compared to the previous runs?

@Bob

There is a valve which discharges excess pressure (e.g. from Hydrogen decomposing from the LiAlH4) from the cell when it exceeds a certain predefined threshold.

Attached is the latest graph file. I'm now uploading them automatically to the previously indicated shared directory.

https://mega.nz/#F!XpQwQIrL!UWg9jMHh4I__eK33-d5x8Q

Some loading appears to be occurring:

As an experiment I'm starting to also upload files into this Mega.nz shared directory:

https://mega.nz/#F!XpQwQIrL!UWg9jMHh4I__eK33-d5x8Q

This is much simpler than having to study and rely onto the plot.ly API. I'm looking to automate the process so that eventually new graphs will be automatically uploaded there as new data files from Bob Higgins arrive.

First graph

Here's the planned test program according to the script (file Experiment_20170503_HClEtch.txt). I don't know what's the unit of measurement for the pressure ceiling:

Quote from robert bryant

Niobium is doped into some PZT ceramics to increase the piezo efficiency

It also has a specific name: PZTNb. Here's an example from a random paper on this material:

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6746333/

Quote

An electrophoretic deposition (EPD) process with high deposition rate was used to fabricate a curved piezoelectric thick film devoted to high-frequency transducers for medical imaging. Niobium-doped lead zirconate titanate (PZTNb) powder was stabilized in ethanol to prepare [...]

Alan Smith

Now it's clearer, thanks. I'm still not 100% convinced; for example I imagine this would work best with a very limited amount of water in the flask.

BobHiggins

The calibration seems finished and virtually unchanged from last time, even with the additional descending points. Here is the complete data (average of 100 samples preceding the timestamps):

Alan Smith

I'm not sure I understand the process there. There's a risk the flask could shatter instead, even if it's made of borosilicate glass.

But more in general, in retrospect I think that perhaps since Bob Higgins is going the oxide-free way it might not be so useful to attempt to fragment the Ni particles by steam fracturing at this stage. If the aim is obtaining smaller particles, wouldn't letting them digesting longer in the HCl and/or at higher temperatures eventually accomplish the same anyway?

It seems to me that the treatment ordering could be different. For example something like:

1) Oxidize particles completely or almost completely

2) Flash reduce particles in hydrogen at high temperature (will cause a porous structure)

3) Steam fracture

4) Final cleaning and etching in ultrasonic acid bath (will remove all oxides)

It's not clear if doing all this would actually be useful, though.

BobHiggins

EDIT (reworded): what Rossi writes in his patent on the process is poorly described. I had a short list of patents describing the fragmentation process of porous particles by rapidly expanding gases, but I can't seem to find it anymore. Here's one which in addition to the general process (surely applicable to water/steam) uses preferably liquids that are gases at normal temperature and pressure: https://www.google.com/patents/US6929199

EDIT2: according to section 2.3 here, depressurization of water below a certain temperature might not necessarily occur explosively, so my suggestion from the previous comment might also not necessarily be useful: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com…2/full#jgrb15754-fig-0003

BobHiggins

Steam fracturing: like for example heating the wet powder at a few bars of pressure and >>100°C, then suddenly dropping the pressure?

Calibration graph made with the last data point in before the descending steps phase. It looks like the current calibration almost perfectly matches the previous one until the last two steps. I think a third degree fit works better here.

Here is the data. The power and temperature data points here are the average of the 100 samples preceding the indicated timestamps, except for the first one.

Time Stamp Heater Power (W) Tube (C-k)

2017-05-01 21:38:07.183550+00:00 1.7220428332672002e-05 17.942339999999998

2017-05-01 22:35:00.442770+00:00 7.664807786896651 100.0839074

2017-05-01 23:34:59.973660+00:00 12.644998846405777 150.01106800000002

2017-05-02 00:34:59.600540+00:00 18.133817051990818 200.39287689999995

2017-05-02 01:34:59.139421+00:00 23.896451427578167 250.0262765999999

2017-05-02 02:34:58.766310+00:00 30.18091099963513 300.00385389999985

2017-05-02 03:34:58.289190+00:00 36.64975614044998 349.97075779999983

2017-05-02 04:34:57.924080+00:00 43.37305085003351 399.99852180000016

2017-05-02 05:34:57.454960+00:00 50.315560292769334 449.9978108000001

2017-05-02 06:34:57.089850+00:00 57.39183947735066 499.9888697

2017-05-02 07:34:56.612730+00:00 64.87330223265138 549.9905457999998

2017-05-02 08:34:56.247620+00:00 72.47135871071728 600.0379964000005

2017-05-02 09:34:55.770500+00:00 80.6033403371504 649.9752067000002

2017-05-02 10:34:55.413390+00:00 88.5913023331697 700.480553399999

2017-05-02 11:34:54.936270+00:00 97.4853823143232 749.9825112999985

2017-05-02 12:34:54.571150+00:00 106.15427356512576 799.9729999999972

2017-05-02 13:34:54.142040+00:00 115.333362565592 849.957331099999

2017-05-02 14:34:53.688920+00:00 124.60688635248215 899.9522664999982

2017-05-02 15:34:53.307810+00:00 135.2208374344002 950.159078399998

2017-05-02 16:34:52.846690+00:00 144.98418170356058 999.9508285999997

2017-05-02 17:34:52.467570+00:00 155.74080537269398 1049.9104676999998

2017-05-02 18:34:52.012460+00:00 166.98754319927102 1099.973550000001

2017-05-02 19:34:51.631340+00:00 178.78322825757604 1149.1512001000003

2017-05-02 20:34:51.170230+00:00 190.72940516887724 1199.9968420000018

BobHiggins

Further increasing the temperature of the HCl bath - if possible - may increase the reaction rate non-linearly in an advantageous manner:

http://www.mikeblaber.org/oldw…ics/Temprate/Temprate.htm

As far as I am aware of, hydrogen loading may occur to some extent with this process, by the way.

EDIT: e.g. https://www.corrosionpedia.com…ion/32/acid-embrittlement

For now the calibration seems close to the last one performed:

Quote from Rigel

Can ---- may I ask you something directly? I follow you and your thoughtful/posts you are very helpful. I find it amazing that you are on point always. If you care to respond do you have an idea (not a theory nor hypothesis) on what to look for? and how to look for it? Just something that you think will be able to break the C barrier. I am sorry if I put you on the spot, but I am hoping you are willing to share what you think. But I always appreciate your posts. And Bob H goes without saying....(cough hero cough cough)

In short

For what can reasonably be done with these experiments using the usual powders, either try to repeatedly and continuously "ride" the reversible hydride reactions of LiAlH4/Li (as apparently successfully done during GS5.2 and GS5.3) or have a non-wetted, solid high surface area transition metal environment in an atmosphere of hydrogen and Li vapors and attempt to trigger a reaction by sudden temperature changes/impulses.

A bit longer

Recently I've exchanged a couple emails with an Italian gentleman who has notably been involved in various LENR experimentation in the past 28 years or so. To my surprise - or perhaps not so much - it seems that LiAlH4 on its own can show excess energy, but only if the proper triggering protocol is respected (which I haven't read about yet from this person - he takes his time to reply - but I've had a quick overview from another (**)). It seems that the observation of anomalous energy revolves around the reversible hydride reactions of this compound, as I previously suspected.

According to his recount, one of his associates, who didn't know the full details of the process, at some point tried to replicate the effect in his own laboratory but never managed to due to failure to comply with the triggering protocol, as he found later on.

Not many details yet but I think it's possible to make some observations here:

- The MFMP GlowStick 5.2 and 5.3 which had rapid and frequent temperature/pressure variations where the LiH would decompose and release hydrogen might have been on the right track;

- Apparently without a proper triggering process nothing will happen in either case.

- Li boiling might end up being a different method for doing what the decomposition of the ionic hydride achieves (or perhaps as I'm thinking it's also a matter of surface coverage).

- Parkhomov reports of reaching temperatures of 1200-1300°C where excess heat may arise. I'm assuming this is externally measured, which means that internal ones will possibly be above 1350°C => Li evaporating at 1 atm.

(**) Apparently a successful triggering protocol involves taking the LiAlH4 to 500°C at a rate of 2°C/min or less, then switching off the heating allowing the system to cool to 300°C. At that point temperature is quickly ramped to 700°C or above. Excess heat lasting a few hours might follow.

Quote from Mustafa Kemal Astroturf

He actually addressed this today (Gee, I wonder why ).

Is there any truth to this?

There is:

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/s…RossiUniversityDegree.pdf