j9381 Member
  • Male
  • from Boston
  • Member since Feb 19th 2019
  • Last Activity:

Posts by j9381

    The crater pictures in that Aug 2020 German paper titled "Electrical Breakdown Spots in Metal-Aluminum Oxide-Metal Structures" are similar to Ken Shoulders EVOs (Exotic Vacuum Objects)


    https://www.lenr-forum.com/att…shoulders-transcript-pdf/


    I got the German paper from Sci Hub. To get it, go to the wikipedia article on Sci Hub to find the current location of the Sci Hub website. After getting to the Sci Hub website, just put in the title of the paper.

    The nickel mesh acts as an insulator and more heat will exit both ends of the vessel (as opposed to going through the middle of the vessel having no mesh inside). I haven't yet figured out how much the mesh changed my calibration constant for the vessel (I have 8 thermocouples clamped to the outside of the vessel) but will do that this week. But I'm guessing it changed the calibration constant >15%.


    I found this for the LHC ... note the low temperatures which means the outgassing is much reduced:

    A vacuum thinner than the interstellar void

    Ultra-high vacuum is needed for the pipes in which particle beams travel. This includes 48 km of arc sections, kept at 1.9 K, and 6 km of straight sections, kept at room temperature, where beam-control systems and the insertion regions for the experiments are located.

    In the arcs, the ultra-high vacuum is maintained by cryogenic pumping of 9000 cubic metres of gas. As the beam pipes are cooled to extremely low temperatures, the gases condense and adhere to the walls of the beam pipe by adsorption. Just under two weeks of pumping are required to bring the pressures down below 1.013 × 10-10 mbar (or 10-13 atmospheres).

    and ....

    Two important design features maintain the ultra-high vacuum in the room-temperature sections. Firstly, these sections make widespread use of a non-evaporable "getter coating" – developed and industrialized at CERN – that absorbs residual molecules when heated. The coating consists of a thin liner of titanium-zirconium-vanadium alloy deposited inside the beam pipes. It acts as a distributed pumping system, effective for removing all gases except methane and the noble gases. These residual gases are removed by the 780 ion pumps.

    After extensive testing, it was found that the source of outgassing at 100 watts and above was the SS304 thermowell with its internal heater cartridge. The MR2 cell was then rebuilt without the thermowell tube.



    The external heater coil is identical to the one used by Mizuno. Following bake-out the cell reached 1.2E-5 Torr vacuum and no leakage seen following 12-hour soak. Gas plumbing was moved to the far side of the vacuum manifold. Cal1 is now underway, with streaming at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcKIYzOrPZs


    do you agree with this guess: It wasn't a leak in the thermowell or at the weld of the thermowell but it was the high temperature of the thermowell that outgassed lots of gas. In other words, the thermowell gets much hotter than the vessel itself and therefore the stainless steel material of the thermowell does the outgassing.


    I'm using a commercial voltage feedthrough (uses ceramic/metal brazed seal) to get power to my heater.

    https://www.lesker.com/feedthr…dthroughs/part/eft0523093


    as you know, your external heater will reduce the temperature that the nickel mesh experiences vs an internal heater.

    Mizuno:


    Before 2017, the correction formula was made with the reactor temperature. Similarly, for the calibration data, a correction formula was made with a reactor of the same shape and weight, but the accuracy was poor and it was not accurate. Therefore, the heat dissipation from the box was used for the correction. As a result, the accuracy became extremely good.

    The newer the data I give, the better the accuracy and precision. Furthermore, it became possible to express any type and weight of furnace by a general formula with correction.

    When Mizuno says "Therefore, the heat dissipation from the box was used for the correction. " Does he mean there are thermocouples (or similar) on the outside of the box that are being used to estimate the heat emitted by the box? Or is he using the temperature of the flowing air (from the air flow calorimetry) to estimate the heat emitted by the walls of the box to the environment. Either way would work but the former would be more accurate (and be a more complex experimental set up).

    Maybe I misunderstand the question but . . .


    Output heat is always smaller than input power for a while.

    look at the gray line (no correction for heat loss) in the graph and see that it is higher than the red line (output, corrected for heat loss, I assume) for the first 30 minutes of the 5 hour run. At one point in that first 30 minutes, the uncorrected value (gray line) is about 130 watts while the corrected value (red line) is 50 watts. It is a little weird - but seems to be a tempest in a teapot. I'm sure there is a simple explanation.

    it's hard to know why the red trace off by that much in the start up of the run. It's only the first 30 minutes of a 5 hour run that you are referring to. I could speculate but I don't think it is too important because no one is using that data to claim over unity. It could be a simple offeset time error when the data was put into the spreadsheet (cut and paste of data at the wrong time stamp) or smoothing average functions in the spread sheet causing problems. It's a curiousity to bring attention to and ask that it be investigated but it isn't anything near a show stopper.

    I don't think so. Look at Figure 10 of Mizuno and Rothwell J Cond Matt Nucl Sci 29:1-12 (2019), then equation 2 of the same paper. The equation they fit to their calibration data is fractional power capture = O/I = 0.98 - [5.0811E-4 x T] where T is "the reactor temperature"

    I looked at this: https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondensedzb.pdf

    and figure 10 is the thermal power fractional capture number (less than 1). In figure 10 the first data point is around 25 C which is the room temperature. The capture ratio at 25 C is claimed to be .967 according to equation 2. Quoting from the paper linked:


    Figure 10 shows the reactor temperature vs. the heat recovery rate. When there is no input power, and the reactor
    body temperature is 25◦C, the recovery rate should be close to 1. When the reactor body temperature is 100◦C, the
    recovery rate is 0.93; it is 0.82 at 300◦C, and 0.78 at 360◦C.


    Any constraint that looks like it is "1" at 0 C is coincidence.

    And I particularly don't understand why the correction factor used in the 800W plot should ever be is less than 1 when Mizuno and Rothwell's procedure seems to be to find fractional efficiency by fitting a straight line to their steady state calibration data and (apparently) constraining the line to pass through 1 at reactor temperature = 0 Celsius.

    I'm guessing that it crosses at a delta T of 0 Celsius (in other words, a temperature difference of 0 Celsius).


    It's not crossing at 0 Celsius (freezing water temperature). The delta T is between the room air and the tube air flow temperature.

    I don't know how they did the math in that particular graph you are referring to.

    But whether the factor is above or below 1 on start up is different for every set up. The factor will be below 1 after some amount of time after starting for all set ups. There are lots of factors ... power emitted, surface area, reactor thermal heat capacity, calorimeter box thermal heat capacity, air flow rate, shape of the reactor vessel, shape of the calorimeter, insulation thickness etc.

    There's no real need to be concerned with such a small portion of the full run. Someone could spend weeks running different control (i.e. null) experiments trying to make an equation to decrease the error on start up and that would be wasted time. It's better to do a long run and then the start up portion with its errors will be a tiny percentage.

    the equation for start up could be complicated and involve the factors of time, heat capacity of the vessel, heat capacity of the calorimeter - in other words as complicated as you want to make it (though best is just to keep it simple and reduce the start up error to an acceptable level). The evaluated equation can be above or below the value of 1.


    One way to do the mathematics of flowing calorimetry (ignoring the startup issue above) is to make a calibration chart of thermal power captured in the flowing air at steady state with the control reactor (no nickel mesh, no D2, no Pd) and this chart would always show a fractional value (i.e. less than 1) because some heat escapes through the wall of the box. This fractional value is a function of the power into the control reactor.


    So for example: 130 watts of electrical resistor input, 100 watts measured in flowing air and 30 watts emitted by box at steady state. The fraction captured in the flowing air is 100/130 = 0.769.

    When running active reactor (with nickel mesh, D2, palladium etc.) , if 100 watts is seen in the flowing air at steady state then the total emitted power is 100/.769 = 130 watts. The key is to note that the fractional capture value changes as a function of power emitted by the reactor and is mostly (perfectly?) valid at steady state. If the temperature is fluctuating/increasing/decreasing then it is a judgement call when using the steady state fractional capture value. In most cases it is adequate and certainly adequate for long runs.


    On top of all that, when the input energy is turned off and the temperature returns to room temperature, the thermal power in the flowing air can be integrated over time to give the total amount of energy created by the reactor.

    The heat recovery graph that shows the percentage of thermal wattage lost through the walls of the box versus input power (for the flow calorimetry that Mizuno does) is made from steady state conditions. Fast changes in temperature of the atmospheric air inside the box at start up leads to errors in the output watts. So there is going to be errors in the output power graph that can be acceptable if they are small portions of the overall trend. It would be time consuming to determine the appropriate equation to reduce that start up error - but it could be reduced with enough effort. I don't think it is necessarily worth the time if the runs are long enough.

    sure, use the turbopump to decrease the deuterium pressure and kill the excess heat. But Mizuno says there is some excess heat even at very low pressures, I don't know how low.


    Also, importantly ... I want to check my calibration at the same temperature (such as 350 C) with a gas having the same heat transfer characteristics as deuterium but doesn't produce excess heat. If I could use Argon then I would.


    My control (null experiment ) calibration with stainless steel mesh didn't use as much mesh as I will be using in the active nickel experiment. I expect the mesh to change the heat flow inside the vessel with more heat flowing to the top of the vessel. So double checking the calibration with the active nickel and a gas that temporarily kills the excess heat effect would be very useful.

    if helium can't be used because it permanently kills the reaction then Argon is the safest choice unless Mizuno has a better idea.


    I would want a gas that has similar heat transfer characteristics and helium (mass number 4) fits that bill. Argon is ok because I can calibrate with it and I already know the calibration offset relative to D2 (I'll determine that and post it here someday soon). Argon has a mass number of 40 that compares to D2 which has mass number 4.


    If a small amount of nitrogen mixed with the D2 temporarily killed the reaction (but not permanently) then that would be useful to know.


    I don't use flow calorimetry. I use the average temperature of 8 external thermocouples clamped (using big pipe clamps) onto the vessel. I then calibrate it using Argon and D2 gas with a small amount of stainless steel mesh (as a non-active control) inside. I calibrate at different temperatures and pressures between 50 mT and 4 Torr. I do wonder what my calibration constants would be if I had used more non-active stainless steel mesh. I may have to do that after I try the activated nickel.

    I need a gas that I can use at high temperature that won't kill the excess heat reaction permanently (that eliminates air and nitrogen in my view) so that I can recheck the calibration constant. This will verify that the calibration constant hasn't changed. The reason that it might change is that calibration and running with activated nickel can be months apart.


    Helium and Argon are two non-reactive gasses.

    If I get excess heat, what is the best gas to use to kill the excess heat without permanently ruining the chances of getting excess heat again (I would not do that until I've collected a lot of data with D2)?

    Helium?

    Is nitrogen a bad choice because it would somehow permanently bond with the nickel or palladium and ruin future chances of getting excess heat with D2?

    I think air would be a bad choice because that would form metal oxides (that may or may not be removed with D2).

    Shingles can be extremely painful according to people I've talked to who had it. There is a wide range of severity among people who get it. I found this on the web:


    Shingles (herpes zoster) has a deserved reputation for being an extremely painful and debilitating medical condition. Both the National Health Service in the United Kingdom and AARP in the United States recently included it on their respective lists of most painful medical conditions.

    Statistically, one in three adults in the United States will develop shingles during their lifetime. More than 99% of Americans over the age of 50 have had chickenpox, putting them at risk of the virus reactivating as shingles. About half of all cases occur in people over the age of 60, but many younger individuals are also at risk.

    “Age is the major risk factor because everyone’s immune system normally declines with age, and quite noticeably so starting around age 40,” explains neurologist Anne Louise Oaklander, MD, PhD, director of the nerve unit at Massachusetts General Hospital. “But the other thing to note is that in addition to age, anything else that suppresses your immune system is a known risk factor. That includes patients who have chronic diseases such as heart failure, kidney failure, malnutrition, patients who’ve had fractures or injuries, patients who are planning elective surgery, patients who have any kind of early stage cancer including precancerous lesions, and anyone who has rheumatoid arthritis or other disease that might require treatment with steroids.”

    I've had good luck with these KF valves:


    https://www.idealvac.com/Ideal…ws-Angle-Valve/pp/P103784


    $261 for a 25 mm KF flange, 90 degree angle valve ($299 for a straight inline valve)

    and the full rebuild kit is about $150 (I have not had to rebuild the valve and its been through, I would guess, 200+ open /close cycles).


    They use orings for sealing - it is a clamping type seal when the handle is fully turned (i.e. *no* sliding orings which would fail quickly). There is a bellows involved but they design it so that the oring does not slide along a surface. It just clamps over a hole. I use it on the roughing vacuum side of my system (not the high vacuum side).


    I use swagelok SS-DSV51 on the high vacuum side, $250:

    https://www.swagelok.com/en/ca…duct/Detail?part=SS-DSV51

    (note: only tighten the nut on the stainless steel seals 1/4 turn as indicated in the instructions)


    I have a larger volume, about 2.5 liters. I see a lot of outgassing at high temperature which is partially solved by running at high temperature with the turbo vac pump on for 24 hours to get rid of the majority of it. My plan is to live with the remaining outgassing (about 100 to 200 Pa per day at 300 C) and just evacuate the contaminated gas each day using the roughing pump and add fresh D2 gas when I get to the point of running with the mesh installed.

    I'm using the following grit size conversion chart for the sandpaper for use on the nickel mesh in my Mizuno replication experiment.


    http://www.hocktools.com/temp/15hGritChart.pdf


    Mizuno lists this in the supplemental:

    Silicon Carbide Wet-Dry Abrasive: grits: 500CC, 800CC, 1200CC, 1500CC.

    Note the "CC"


    here is the supplemental:

    https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTsupplement.pdf


    here is a japanese manufacturer that uses "CC" but I gather that just relates to water resistance and it is usable for hand sanding etc.

    https://www.nihonkenshi.co.jp/english/product/sheet.html


    According to the conversion chart (hocktools link at top of this message) it can be seen that 1500 grit in Japan is equivalent to 950 grit in American units (ANSI/CAMI). And 500 grit in Japan is equivalent to 380 grit in American units.

    Thoughts?