Posts by can

Last few tests for the time being.

Test 7

Again about 98 g water. Preliminary run with just summary data.

• [2020-02-16 20:12:32] Temperature gauge raised 2 Lego brick units
• [2020-02-16 20:13:13] Start 21.1C 0.05A 380V
• [2020-02-16 20:15:13] End 25.8C 0.04–0.05A

Results

• Input: 380V*0.045A=17.1W
• Temperature rise: 25.8 °C - 21.1 ° = 4.7 °C
• Output: 4.184* 4.7 °C * 98g / 120 s = 16.0596W
• Pout/Pin: 16.0596/17.1 = 0.9392

Test 8

Again after inverting electrode polarity but no other change. I made a video this time. Unfortunately the temperature gauge turned off automatically in the last few seconds, but I enabled it soon after that. At the end of the test 86% of the heat could be recovered.

Test 9

Inverting polarity again. Heat recovery was about 88-90% after 120 seconds.

Video of Test 9

Latest spreadsheet with manually sampled data from the videos attached.

Preliminary observations

It looks again that thermocouple placement might be the most important parameter here and that electrode polarity might not have that much of an impact as speculated.

This is a possible idea for high voltage AC suitable for this experiment, if it's really required:

• Arduino Uno-based programmable microcontroller (already owned)
• Step-up 1:19 transformer (already owned, from an APC 650VA uninterruptible power supply; I have an unused spare just in case)
• Heavy-duty H-Bridge DC motor controller
• 32V/10A DC bench power supply

DC current from the power supply into the H-bridge motor controller would be switched (by the Arduino) into a square wave at a rate of 100–200 Hz (actual frequency depending on where it seems to operate more efficiently) to the transformer (2.3 Kg weight). The step-up transformer should be ok up to 600V output—or at least that's what the wire insulation seems rated for—which should be attained at about 32V input (32V*19 = 608V). It is my assumption that the transformer has a 1:19 turn ratio; it could be lower in practice.

Another test with a slightly improved connections and so on, using new distilled water in slightly lower amounts (98.25g) and a higher voltage (380V) only seemed to recover about 70% of the heat, so between the 60% and the 100% results above.

So that it's on record, I might have to experiment with reversing electrode polarity, because I suspect that the unusually high result occurred after I swapped anode/cathode connections on the DC boost converter. If this is the case, then AC could work better. However this will be for another time.

Wyttenbach I don't know/have no opinion about that. A similar concept is also mentioned in the Di Tommaso–Vassallo paper on the electron structure, in any case:

https://www.researchgate.net/p…_Energy_Nuclear_Reactions

In other news, I tried repeating the same test twice but I found it might be sensitive to thermometer position or possibly also electrode distance and voltage (the DC boost converter appears to get noisy and with unstable output at a too high setting so I lowered it slightly in the last test). It's not possible to determine with reasonable certainty whether excess heat is being generated with my crude setup.

I couldn't confirm excess heat, but the jar was uninsulated and thermocouple location might have not been ideal. However over three runs the results have been consistent. Voltage kept decreasing possibly from the conductivity of water increasing over time. I also couldn't measure current very precisely, only ever seeing 0.06A or 0.07A current draw. 141.79 grams of water have been used.

Below is a video and data of the best instrumented run, and attached a spreadsheet.

Using energies:

Alan Smith

Can these comments on this short replication attempt be moved into a new dedicated thread?

And this is the setup on my side. Open-circuit DC Voltage hovers between 388–393V.

Alan Smith

I usually try to avoid focusing too much on the theory so I skipped most of it and only focused on the actual experiment.

I'm not sure what is exactly that you're pointing out or asking here, but the authors of your translated document seem to be citing the principle of equivalence of energy and information as a possible ultimate explanation for their observations.

https://www.quora.com/How-are-…ther/answer/Gregory-Bloom

https://physicsworld.com/a/information-converted-to-energy/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landauer%27s_principle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…cs_and_information_theory

Quote from Alan Smith

I had quite forgotten this paper Google and I translated and I edited some time ago...might still hold some interest.

THE NATURE OF THERMAL ANOMALIES DURING ELECTROLYSIS OF LIGHT WATER.

(The reversible hydrogen-neutron cycle) Sidorov B. A., and Nevessky N. E.

Thoughts on electrolysis from the lab of exp phys..pdf

Display More

I do have:

• 8mm-thick graphite electrodes
• 390V DC power supply (not giving a very stable current, but with this low power draw it should be fine)
• Demineralized water
• Food thermometer (but it turns off automatically every few minutes)

But no power meter or control resistance available that I could use, only a multimeter with a somewhat imprecise current measurement function.

A possible explanation could be that the anode is giving heat due to combustion of graphite with the evolved oxygen. However the authors point out that using a 5% Na2CO3 solution and AC did not give excess heat.

EDIT: for what it's worth, data in the table provided in the document seems to be consistent with output power calculations using the temperature rise of 180 ml water in 120 seconds.

I see Hutchison being referred relatively often—can anybody point to resources one could read and follow to replicate his work?

Alan Smith

Thanks. I've read it earlier, but wasn't sure whether I could put it on the forum since it's paywalled.

The authors consolidated (cold-pressed) at 1 Gpa pressure (which should be equivalent to about 10 tons/cm²) mixtures composed of 200–350 mg Al + 40–60 mg LiAlH₄ material (Alfa Aesar, used as-received) into 1 mm-thick bars and ran in addition to the usual differential scanning calorimetry studies also mechanical measurements measuring their internal stress (as far as I understand) as they were heated. It turns out that changes on this regard are also related to the decomposition and transformations of the LiAlH₄ into other phases, so they can be considered a novel way of studying the decomposition steps of LiAlH₄ which could be used in addition to calorimetry.

Of possibly more relevance to LENR, it appears that following decomposition at a heating rate of 3–5K/min, the so-formed bars after the first decomposition step of LiAlH₄ become rich of pores and crack features. Furthermore these bars do not show the typical endothermic response just before such first decomposition step of LiAlH₄. Heat treatment above 700K may remove such defect network, at least in the case of pure Al powders.

I haven't read any direct suggestion of anomalous heating effects, which is a bit of a disappointment given the authors. If there is, it's obfuscated in the text or data. It could be that I need to read the paper more carefully.

I haven't seen this posted before. Unfortunately the article is not open access.

Mechanical spectroscopy observation of LiAlH₄ decomposition

Enrico Gianfranco Campari, Ennio Bonetti, Angelo Casagrande, Loris Ferrari, Giuseppe Levi

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2019.152242

Quote from Abstract

Dynamic elastic modulus and internal friction of cold consolidated mixtures of Al and LiAlH₄ powders have been measured. All reactions and decompositions occurring in LiAlH₄ during a thermal run have been detected as dynamic elastic modulus anomalies and internal friction peaks, proving the effectiveness of mechanical spectroscopy for the study of alanate. These informations are complementary to calorimetric and thermogravimetric data.

Quote from Highlights

• Dynamic elastic modulus and internal friction of cold consolidated mixtures of Al and LiAlH₄ powders have been measured.
• LiAlH₄ decomposition detected by means of mechanical measurements.
• Complementarity of calorimetry and mechanical spectroscopy for the study of alanate.

Alan Smith

The "How to build" section ("4. Schema for Creating BL in a Modestly Equipped Laboratory") in that paper is rather vague and confusing; a diagram or two would have been helpful in understanding what the author had in mind there. Anyhow, he envisions in a second example the usage of heavy-duty pulse capacitors (detailed specifications not provided) to produce powerful spark discharges for simulating a lightning bolt.

Section 1.3 summarily describes practical suggestions for condensed plasmoid (CP) formation; partial excerpt below.

Quote

There are two known ways of producing CPs with high reproducibility: Electrical discharges and cavitation. Both phenomena involve the creation of plasmoids, which then condense to a CP.

Cavitation forms plasmoids, when the reentrant jet of collapsing bubbles hits materials at supersonic speed. During the impact matter is ionized and electrons are stripped from atoms, leaving cations. The electrons tend to decelerate quicker than the created cations, leading to a strong current through plasma, i.e. a plasmoid is forming.

However, not all plasmoids will readily condense. For example, an electric arc (driven by DC or AC current) is often too hot and the ionized channel is often too wide for the condensation to take place. The continuing current is heating the plasmoid by resistive losses in the plasma, which negatively affects the ability of the plasmoid to condense.

In order of a z-pinched plasmoid to condense, several conditions are instrumental:

• The current pulse should be very short, i.e. less than a microsecond in duration.
• The current needs to be strong enough, i.e. more than several hundred amps.
• Elements with large Z should be present in the plasma channel, because they increase both Bremsstrahlung and Xray line radiation as a cooling mechanism during the condensation phase
• The plasmoid should be cooled, i.e. by running the discharge along a dielectric surface or under water.
• Dense matter should be available, which can rapidly feed the forming plasmoid. Typically either the cathode, or the surrounding gas or the dielectric surface will supply the matter that forms the plasmoid.
• A magnetic field in parallel to the electric field will steer the electrons in the right direction If the above conditions suffice, the plasmoid will condense. The condensation is promoted by the radial pressure of the magnetic field.

If the above conditions suffice, the plasmoid will condense. The condensation is promoted by the radial pressure of the magnetic field.

[...]

Display More

A further test made today with the same setup was connecting the cathode to the half-functioning (due to missing/failed filter capacitor) negative output of the DC boost converter instead of ground potential. As the boost converter still gives short pulses there, this gives a very unstable -390V peak voltage that cannot be sustained under any significant load but that still appears to improve the observed reaction from the bursting electrolyte drops, again comprising graphite particles and K2CO3 solution. In this way, the inter-electrode voltage difference repeatedly varied between about 400V and 800V.

Low ambient lighting conditions were employed in this test.

Ideally, with at least one liquid metal electrode and a dry atmosphere, the same reaction type could be obtained at relatively low voltages, similar to how BLP do in their latest experiments/reactors. However this requires expensive equipment that I don't have and don't plan purchasing. In order to vaporize the aqueous electrolyte-graphite droplets into a plasma in my case (i.e. pass significant peak currents through them), I need higher voltages in my tests. At low voltage, no electrical breakdown occurs and I only get electrolysis.

It would not be too complicated to get a few diodes and large film capacitors, assemble a voltage multiplier and obtaining 1.0-1.2 kV DC from the wall plug for serious spark discharges, but the experiment would then become rather dangerous to operate. So it is probably better for me at this time to first improve other aspects to make it work more efficiently. However, as long as no meaningful measurements are being taken, in the end this remains only an interesting light show.

Eventually I repeated the same test as done earlier, but with the aqueous K2CO3 solution close to saturation (exact molarity unknown) now containing significant amounts of graphite powder, scraped with a steel blade from a relatively pure graphite rod (i.e. not a pencil graphite core).

Relatively large, black droplets form at the tip of the thin anode held at +390V, closing the circuit as they make contact with the flat steel cathode held at ground voltage.

Yesterday I did a similar test (video here) but with lower amounts of graphite and it performed worse. So, increasing the conductivity and lowering the breakdown voltage of the solution will indeed improve the reaction without the need for very high voltages. Alternatively or in conjuction, improving the electrical contact of the needle with the impure electrolyte ball forming at the tip and/or lowering its electrical impedance should also help.

Properly micronized graphite powder could improve the reaction and I am considering getting some here: https://www.graphite-shop.com/…phite-14my-994my-995.html or preferably elsewhere if they have good prices without the need for getting a few kilograms at a time.

The hollow needle still appeared intact and sharp after today's and yesterday's tests. At these power levels, a thick-walled, small inner diameter (~0.5 mm or less) copper capillary tube could work better.

magicsound

It is indeed made of old-school Lego Technic bricks, of which I have a large box. I find they can sometimes be useful for a variety of non-standard uses, as in this case.

There is a popular subset in the field of robotics and AI that is actually being already employed in real research experiments:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lego_Mindstorms

https://scholar.google.com/sch…5&q=lego+mindstorms&btnG=

If in the SAFIRE reactor they do have ultra-dense hydrogen production in the plasma corona—this is how they call it in the patent application—where hydrogen atoms recombine, they might first observe its heat of formation which should be in the order of 1 keV per transitioning H–H pair.

If you're inclined to think that way then you might find this paper of interest: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.…epdf/10.1002/2017JA024498

Dr Richard

Hydrogen atoms diffusing from bulk metals might have a higher energy than surface-bound Hydrogen atoms—so it might not be strictly required to have metal-oxides similar to those used by Holmlid's group. A possible reference:

https://doi.org/10.1021/ar970030f

Quote

Hydrogen atoms emerging from the bulk of Ni metal to the surface are observed to be the reactive species in the hydrogenation of adsorbed methyl radical, ethylene, and acetylene to gas-phase products. Surface-bound H atoms are unreactive. The distinctive chemistry of a bulk H atom arises largely from its significantly higher energy as compared to that of a surface-bound H atom. These results demonstrate that bulk H is not solely a source of surface-bound H in catalytic hydrogenation as proposed 50 years ago, but rather, a reactant with a chemistry of its own.

This paper was referred in the LENR-Cars patent application by Sottas et al., who are apparently producing ultra-dense hydrogen with a slightly different method than Holmlid, although related.

Quote

[...] In order to create Rydberg matter of hydrogen, it is preferable that it is bulk - and not surface - hydrogen atoms that desorb. Bulk hydrogen atoms traditionally have a significantly higher energy (about 25 kcal/mol when the primary material is Ni) as compared to that of a surface-bound hydrogen atom. See, e.g., ST. Ceyer, The unique chemistry of hydrogen beneath the surface: catalytic hydrogenation of hydrocarbons, Accounts of Chemical Research, 34(9)737-744, 2001. Generally, only the hydrogen species freshly emerging from the bulk of the primary material 14 will efficiently form Rydberg matter then condensed hydrogen clusters.

This could be related to the anode function in the Childs patent application.

From the patent description and claims, to me it appears that they are using the metal walls of the anode as a hydrogen diffusion membrane, with the diffusion process being governed by the pressure difference between the anode and the chamber atmospheres. Regardless of the metal or alloy composition, hydrogen would inherently diffuse into the anode walls in the atomic form, only to recombine into the molecular form on the low-pressure side or in large pores inside the material, if present.

I found the time to test the above concept—this was just a feasibility test (as usual) and no measurements have been performed.

Description

Potassium carbonate electrolyte solution (K2CO3) close to saturation is slowly dripping from a stainless steel syringe hollow needle held at about +390V with a low-power DC boost converter (anode). When electrolyte droplets make contact with the steel cathode held at ground potential, a small explosion occurs and the droplets vaporize. Occasionally they just appear to bounce on the cathode.

The process goes on spontaneously, but sometimes I assisted it by manually varying pressure on the syringe plunger.

Higher voltages would likely be beneficial in the process and make the droplets vaporize more efficiently. Alternatively, a better conducting electrolyte solution, perhaps with conductive solid impurities, would also work towards this goal. At the end of this short test the needle did not appear to show signs of wear.

Initially I tried making a video with tap water only and no significant reaction was observed. After a few tries with increasing electrolyte concentration the reaction appeared to work properly, but by then the walls of the jar already had been sprayed by electrolyte and so the video is not as good as it should have been.