Posts by David.Daggett

Re: Alan Smith contribution ["Attached is what MAY be the document you described- if not, no problem."]

One of our other Phonon-Energy team members also liked Alan Smith's cleaning process and suggested we first do a test with only Hydrogen-conditioned Nickel. We could later add LiAlH4 or LiH for a follow-on test. It'll take awhile to build the cleaning system and a new GlowStick, so I expect it'll be a few months before we can report the results. Don't worry though ... we will show the data for MFMP's open science GlowStick duplicate. I've been blessed with not having to worry about personal finances, so I'm not trying to get rich with this technology ... only to prove its feasibility and help mankind. If we can obtain a repeatable LENR result, I'll be sure to pass it on to my old work buddies at NASA for validation.

The fuel from test #36, with LiH, was a lot more sintered than test #35 with LiAlH4.

I've attached 2 more pages of pictures from the autopsy of the GlowStick. On the 2nd page, one can visualize how some of the fuel mix seeped out of the setscrew's vent. On the oppose side of the fuel capsule, most of the fuel remained and the Nickel then sintered into a hard cylinder.

At the suggestion of MFMP, I also did a flame burn-off test. Here's a link to a Youtube video. Alan G. suggested the flame color mimics Lithium.

The H2 gas leak in our last test was caused by a failed inner Alumina tube. I've attached a few pictures showing the detection process on the 1st page. I couldn't find the leak with soapy water so I immersed the GlowStick into a water bath, which immediately showed the H2 leak to be internal and not a Swagelok fitting. The Alumina tube break is shown on the 2nd and 3rd pages. The stainless steel fuel cartridge is more corroded looking than when we used LiAlH4 and more difficult to remove from inside of the Alumina tube.

Thanks Alan! I just ordered the ultrasonic cleaner and Hexane, which will take a few weeks to arrive, so no hurry on your shipment of the Li. Also, thanks for the Ni cleaning document. That was what I was remembering. I'll have our electronics guy look into the feasibility of creating a variable frequency modulator for the heater. Presently, he's living in a sailboat off the Florida keys for a couple of months (most of us at Phonon Energy are retired), so all these new suggestions will take awhile to implement.

I'll generate a new graph that includes the radiation readings and post it in a couple of days.

Thanks everyone for the suggestions.

For the calibration run, we measure both the internal tube temperature (2 type K T/Cs) and the outside shell temperature (6 type K T/Cs) at various heater power settings. The numbers shown on the previous chart were internal tube temperatures that were calculated from the 6 external thermocouples. The chemicals, and AH50 Nickel powder, are mixed in an Argon interted cabinet and are then inserted into the fuel cartridges inside the inert environment.

We would indeed like to have some more LiH from Alan Smith for a re-run. Could you also supply a small amount of Alpha Aesar's LiAlH4 for a different future test? We were using Consolidated Chemical's LiAlH4 for our previous test, but Mr. SelfSustain has convinced me that we should use a higher quality LiAlH4 and also do an ultrasound pre-cleaning process of the Ni powder. We're presently discussing via Skype the hardware, cleaning solution and process. I remember seeing a suggested process on another LENR forum thread, but don't remember the exact location. I'd appreciate if anyone could please direct me to it.

With regards to the aluminum shield, we can also try a thicker metal cover over the Geiger counter detector. I'll see what material we have in the shop and also try that during the next test. I don't think there is a correlation, but I'll mention it ... we did experience a very high radiation reading during the test with the SI-8B detector. I double checked the indicent with our old Victoreen CDV-700 unit, which didn't pick up anything. After I grounded the SI-8B detector's case, the reading went back to normal background. The (false?) radiation reading could also be made to subside when the GlowStick heater was shut off. We use a very high frequency PWM control circuit to regulate the heater, so I think there was some errant EMI causing the erroneous reading when the detector was not grounded.

The thickness number for the Geiger counter cover was a typo. It should have read 0.040 inch thick, not 0.40".

I've attached the calibration curve for the empty tubes. There are two curves, as there is a temperature divergence between the left and right sides of the GlowStick at high temperature.

As for the temperature ramp-up in the thermal cycling routine, it is controlled via a PID loop and rapidly ramps up and down between the peaks at 1 minute intervals. I wouldn't read too much into the shape of the tops/bottoms of the temperature lines. I was hoping to see a complete temperature reversal like MFMP's GlowStick where the fuel side went from being cooler to becoming hotter than the null side, indicating a possible LENR event.

Unfortunately, our GlowStick developed a pressure leak, so we had to stop the test after 11 hours of testing. No excess heat was observed as the fuel side remained cooler than the null side (as was observed during the calibration with no fuel). No radiation was detected either. I've attached a summary chart of the temperatures and pressure.

I changed from "deg F" in an earlier chart that I sent Alan, to "C". It shows the LiH started to out gas at 250C (sorry Alan for the earlier confusion).

Thanks for everyone's suggestions and help. We'll fix the leak and attempt to resume testing.

Cheers, Dave

We use a 0.040" thick aluminum shield in front of the Geiger counter sensor as a heat shield. Attached is a picture.

I just accepted your Skype invitation. Cheers, Dave

The test with LiH instead of LiAlH4, is now under way. The plan is:

•Vacuum Ni fuel at -28.5” Hg for 7 hours at 340C
•Add 100psia of 99.995% pure H2 gas for 13 hours at 150C
•In Argon inerted glove box, mix 79% Ni, 13% LiH, 8% nano-Li.
•Load 1.55g of mixture in GlowStick, vacuum at ambient temp for 15 min.
•Ramp to 225C at 1C/min rate, let pressure float
•Ramp to 725C at 5C/min rate, let pressure float
•Cycle rapidly between 1200C and 600C at 30 min each point for 1 week at 0.5 atm abs.

We'll let you know of results. Keep your fingers crossed for excess heat!

The heater coil is powered via 110VAC and is controlled via a 5 amp Variac at low power settings for the de-gassing and H2 loading stages. We then switch to a computer and PID/SSR controller for the high power, thermal cycling phase (peak is 12.5 amp). Current and voltage are measured via transducers.

The thermocouple temperature variation between the left and right sides of the GlowStick was observed for several baseline runs as well as the two tests. The IR pictures confirm there is indeed a slight temperature profile variation. However, this variation is stable and repeatable.

The heater coil was fashioned from a single wire spool and has an equal number of turns on each side. It is sort of springy and is anchored/cemented in the middle. It floats between the inner and outer alumina tubes on the left and right sides. As the coil heats up, it slightly changes shape. I suspect the heater coil may move closer to some portions of the outer alumina tube, which then indicates a slightly higher surface temperature. I think the important thing is that it is repeatable every time. Still, it is something to document and be aware of.

Thanks for the support and suggestions.
Cheers, Dave

Yes, we look at temperature difference between the left side of the GlowStick that has fuel (T3 & T4), and the right side that does not (T2). This is also compared to a baseline run that has no fuel in either side. We don't yet compare temperature Vs. power input. We also measure background and GlowStick radiation, but have not seen any positive indications. I've attached a picture that includes this measurement for an earlier test. We didn't report on this earlier test as I thought I may have contaminated the fuel, so we re-ran with fresh fuel.

We'll keep testing, especially for a longer period of time, but initial results are looking negative for the Ni/LiAlH4/nano-Li and H2 fuel. Attached are some pictures.

Thanks Alan,

I received a "bounce back" from your email address. Thanks so much for the offer of some LiH for our future GlowStick testing. We'll report the results on our web site.

Our address is:
Phonon Energy, Inc.
PO Box 2208
Shelton, Wa 98584

Or if you're going to send it via UPS or Fed Ex, then:

111 E. Heron Cv.
Shelton, Wa 98584

I look forward to reading more posts on this LENR blog thread, especially the group's thoughts on how to run the future experiment.

Cheers,
Dave

Consider it done. Ist class Royal Mail Airmail tomorrow. Alan.

Thanks all. This is great information that we'll include in our follow-on tests.

After reading my last post, it sounded as though I might have been critical of MFMP staff. That wasn't the case at all and we're very grateful for everyone's help. That's a hazard of blogs and emails ... lack of body language feedback.

In one of the previous posts, it is mentioned that Chlorine would be a contaminate. Why wouldn't Aluminum also be considered a contaminate? In one of our previous tests using LiAlH4 in the laser test rig, we found that it vaporized and coated the inside of our pressure vessel, including the windows, with an aluminum appearing powder (picture attached). So, if LiAlH4 is only used to provide a source of Li and H2, then why not supply them via the nano-Li powder and an external gaseous H2 source?

What would such a test sequence then look like without the LiAlH4?

Thanks everyone for the great information.

No, we are not connected to the Letts laser experiment, although we did get the idea to take the next step from Dennis and Peter Hagelstein's work and instead try Ni-H fuel. We did get one positive test result, but were unable to reproduce it on the 2nd test and then our laser broke down. We're doing the MFMP duplication until we can get the laser fixed.

We'll be open to making changes to MFMP experiment after we've done the initial duplication tests. We've been careful to make the test device and test procedure as similar to their GlowStick as possible.

Granted that our calorimetry is poor on this device, I've been hoping to record the radiation that the MFMP team saw in one of their tests as initial proof that we have a non-chemical reaction taking place. Development of differential temperatures between the dummy fuel tube (on the right) and the Ni fuel tube (on the left) would be a secondary indication of LENR (we put a few extra thermocouples on the tube for redundancy/verification).

Initially we did have internal thermocouples that were installed inside the alumina tube and touching both of the fuel capsules. However, the MFMP staff suggested that the H2 gas would quickly deteriorate the inconel sheaths, so we removed them.

I have to admit I'm still a little baffled why they're operating at sub-atmospheric H2 pressure of 5 psia. Their answer was "because that's what Parkhomov did". What are your thoughts on going to higher pressure?

Cheers, Dave

I'd like to encourage the LENR community to consider the source for their public releases. My feeling is that it further called the credibility of LENR into question by having the interview on the Alex Jones show, which has been described as a conspiracy theorist talk show.

Thanks Bob and Jed. What is the time scale on page 8? It is hours?

If there was indeed "no merit" to the technology, then why did IH make the $10M payment after the 24hr test? These investor people don't make careless mistakes with their money, so their validation experts must have found excess heat in the beginning of the test. Could it be that the performance of the e-cat eventually fell below the required COP of and so now they are trying to back out of the full payment? If the test material became a little too hot, then perhaps it destroyed many of the LENR reaction sites (e.g. NAE), and performance fell off over the duration of the test. I seem to remember reading somewhere that COP had increased to the double digits at some point in the test. It'd just take a little more engineering to steady out the performance or devise a way to feed a continuous supply of conditioned Ni fuel to the reactor. Let's not "throw the baby out with the bath water".