Posts by StevieH

Quote

Of course I've already been told that my idea of placing the mesh on a spinning wheel at a given RPM and applying the palladium at specific pressures to the spinning mesh wouldn't work.

Personally, I liked your idea when you first posted it. The approach of mechanically systemising the Pd application is a very good way of maximising the likelihood of replication. Of course, the Mizuno application method

would need to be accurately replicated, and for that, an array of SEM images of the sucesful meshes would be vital. Jed has previously told us that they are expected "soon", but these things can take time. On the up side,

I reckon there can't fail to be a way of doing this if a rigorous, determined approach is taken.

We have had a previous detailed discussion on this.

Amongst various features which indicate a varied history for the rod, there is a 'droplet' which looks like a 'handle?' That would certainly make a difficult-to-grip rod much easier to handle. Said droplet bears all the hallmarks of possibly a join between two rods, as there is a slight but noticeable axial displacement. If it is a join, and certainly by the look of the spheroid handle, this would have involved localised intense heating. Pd is a high melting point metal and a good thermal conductor, so that would have annealed it whether or not that was the intention.

Quote from RobertBryant

as long as we are nitpicking

Adiabatic temperature increase

The outlet pressure is 300 pascals more than the inlet pressure..from fanspec.

Pin 101300, Pout 101600 pascals

To/Tin =(Po/Pin) exp(0.286) … the exponent is related to Cp, Cv via theory.

For Tin = 25C, 288K

To = 288x(101600/101300) exp(0.286)

=288.2432 K…

25.2432C

Adiabatic temperature rise= 0.243 C

which is a large proportion of 0.35 C.(actually measured)

Display More

I am struggling with this. Maybe I am "missing something" too.

How is this in any way relevant to anything?

The fan is there to cause movement of air through the calorimeter. It does this by behaving like a compressor, causing a pressure gradient which generates the flow.

Whatever heat it inputs to the system is needed due to the need for air flow. This will come out in the calorimetry. I can't be bothered to look for it, but presumably TM has allowed for this. Even if he hasn't, it doen't make any difference.

I like rough approximations to start with, to make sure one is not calculating to 5 decimal places whilst being an order of magnitude out of ball park.

I have done a rough approximation based on the consistency of the calorimeter with R19 and R20. In one paper, reporting on R19, the cal run is 100W in, and it results in delta T of ~5C. With the excess heat run, the cop is 1.8 and the delta air T is 9C. So, 100/5 = 20W/C. If we then apply this to the excess heat run, we have 80W of excess, which calcs as 80W/(20W/C) = 4C. Then, 5C + 4C = 9C, which is the reported delta T. With the high cop R20 run, it is a bit more difficult because the 50W input for cal is difficult to discern on the scale, but it looks like about 60% towards half way, which would mean 2.6C. Thus, 2.6 * 20 is 52C, so within the likely variations, this is consistent enough, for me with this type of analysis.

So, the 0.2432C rise that you have calculated as adiabatic increase would give us .024(32) * 20 = 4.8 W. This, as expected, is the power of the compressor. It is a) allowed for, and b) totally to be expected.

As an aside, 25C ambient is actually 298.15 K. I have also calculated the more accurate answer as 298.15 *(101600/101300) ^0.286 = 298.402. I took the liberty of rounding that to + 0.25C. Which gives us 0.25*20 = 5W ie, no difference in the context.

So what is the 0.35C measured that you refer to as this being a large proportion of?

Also, what is the point please? The data in the reports is such that it renders the seemingly never ending arguments over minutiae completley irrelevant when considered in the context.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

And the best way to proceed is to take off on a completely different path? Based on a theory? Respectfully, that makes no sense whatever.

Interesting to see this discussion between you two. It is an almost carbon copy of an exchage of views Dr Storms and I had a few months ago.

Storms' experiments and his theories derived therefrom may well lead him to criticise the individual details of Mizuno's R20, eg sheet being a better material than mesh, but in the absence of said mechanism, no one is to say that any approach is better or worse. Before the conference, AlanG was looking at his own prepared mesh of the Mizuno type, and made various relevant discoveries. One of which was that the prep. method may well cause a scraper type of edge on the flatted areas which tends to cause a particular physical form of the Pd. This may be highly relevant to the D2 absorption process, or it may not, but it is the sort of thing that may well be involved in TM's success. Sheet would not allow this mechanism to take place, for example.

Storms made the point that what we need to do is replicate what Mizuno brought about, not necessarily what he did. For me, that comment is right on the money, but right now, the only thing we know for sure, is that Mizuno did achieve a result doing what he did with the materials he did it with. So the clue stands a better chance of being discovered there, than looking elsewhere.

Quote from Storms

According to my idea, the substrate on which the Pd is applied plays no role in the LENR process.

If I rember correctly, reading the relevant Mizuno paper, he calculated, and stressed the point, that the amount of Pd present could only have absorbed a fraction of the D2 that his inventory showed was absorbed. He reckons that the Ni must, therefore, have played a major role in its absorption. It may be possible that there is more than one mechanism which can be successful. This has been accepted for years in the parallel (and much better funded field) of corrosion mechanisms. That, for me, would be another reason for looking for a successful one in the wake of a successful experiment rather than elsewhere.

Regarding the mechanism, it has been so successful in illuding us that it may well not be possible to find it by stringing an evidence based theory together. I have been designing a series of experiments to examine, in high resolution, as big a spread as possible of the parameters likely to have been involved in TM's success. I eagerly await the analysis results and hope to see some SEM images of the meshes soon. In the light of AlanG's work, I think this may well allow us to learn a great deal about what went on in R20. I think this sort of approach may well fit in between R20 and future replications of its success. In the light of his own inability, to date, to replicate his results, it seems even more apparent that TM hit something highly sensitive in just the right way. I also think that there could have been some kind of coupling of parameters. This would help to explain the difficulty in finding a mechanism from a string of single factors.

Quote from Storms

As Einstein said, simply repeating the same thing and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. We need to find out why the method can not be reproduced, not keep doing the same thing.

Is it not rather ironic that there are many people repeating the same action, and going quietly insane because it won't achieve the same result!

Just a thought. When the succesfull Mizuno meshes were handled after removal, I wonder if they were bent much, and if so, were they brittle?

Quote from JedRothwell

Some people have reported that the Pd is so hard, it does not rub off onto the Ni mesh. Ashraf Imam suggested that annealing Pd for two hours at 650 C will soften it. An inert atmosphere, like argon, ought to be used for the annealing to avoid oxidation.

Could it not also be the case that, per AlanG's work, they might not be getting effective scraper geometry by mesh preparation?

Rather than assuming it is hard Pd that is the problem, has anyone actually tested it with an indentor?

Or noted the desireable difference after annealing?

Alan Smith

Cute. I was thinking physical rather than chemical.

Why bother at all with D2 when you can take it out of the equation.

Quote from Alan Smith

4. We hope to keep D2 out of the Mass Spec by using a cryo-trap- not shown here. This is designed to stop D2 getting into the MS because it's hard to discriminate between D2 and He - and we are on the hunt for helium.

I have been in discussion with MKS regarding the He/D2 issue. They tell me it is possible to resolve the 2 but it is tricky. It is down to differences in ionisation energy. It is more difficult to resolve small amounts of He in D2 then the other way round, and does also depend on the exact type of MS you have.

Interesting one with the cryo-trap. What sort of temperature does that run at if it stops D"?

Quote from Cydonia

Crystalline structure is something else.

Sure, in some respects. The reason I put it together with surface topology though, is that there seems to be a deal of evidence that the step and terrace structure of ordered crystals is dimensionally in the right ball park for assisting adsorption.

But then again, if you rate a stoichiometric aspect above adsorption anyway, then I can see how you would not put the two together.

Of course, that does raise the question : "stoichiometric to what?", but perhaps you regard that as your personal deductions.

However, at the end of the day, we will indeed see. Thank you for the discussion.

Cydonia

It looks like you don't like any kind of oxide present if you have removed NiO too.

Do you reckon that the D2 dissociative adsorption is driven by surface topology/Ni crystal structure alone then? Assuming you are using D2 and agree with that as the first step of the process, of course.

Cydonia

Just a couple of questions for my own interest.

I've noticed from previous posts that you are into sputtering. I was wondering if the type of sputtering process you use still allows the CaCO3 crystals to be present on the mesh?
If so, does the applied Pd build so that the CaCO3 crystals protrude through it, or would it cover them if they were present?

If I am poking my nose in too much, I apologise.

Quote from Cydonia

yes, i think the best way to be well uniform should be chemical plating, here by a beam we should have small thickness variations mostly we stay at nanometers level.

The nanometer thickness may well be fine.

Not sure about the uniform application though.

Mizuno scored with very heterogeneous Pd application. His success could be down to hitting something random, but highly dimensionally sensitive.

Best of luck though, it will be interesting to see your results. It's all data to work the problen with.

Is there an SEM image of one of the succesfull Mizuno meshes anywhere?

Quote from magicsound

The effect of this edge on the Pd is clearly that of a scraper.

Yes, I was thinking like a cabinet maker's scraper as I read your post. Might that also explain the needle like appearance of some of the Pd particles, especially in the Zhang image. Whenever I have made scrapers, they produce shavings similar to the particles in your images of Pd mixed with calcite. Also, if the wood surface is greasy, they produce fine rolls, like needles. If the darker, fuzzy material is the deposited Pd, Zhang does seem to have achieved a fairly even distribution. Also, it looks possible that the rolls or needles of Pd may have been picked up by subsequent actions and galled together on the flat surface? It also seems he has over done the coarser grit as several of the wires are broken or displaced.

Quote from magicsound

I followed Mizuno's sequence of increasingly finer sanding grit

That is what I find confusing slightly. Image 3 in your link to your initial test, showing 1 elliptical site between 2 holes, scale bar 50 mu, is exactly what I would have expected to see, and what I was on about.

It seems that as you say, if the Ni has not work hardened in the mesh production, it is ductile enough to make finer burrs. But they must be very fine because the edges look quite sharp. It seems that at this level of importance of every detail, you daren't even rely on what you think is experience. It seems necessary to start with a clean sheet, and build the picture pixel by pixel.

What I find quite scary is that such a small feature makes such a big difference to the Pd application. It seems reasonable to think that the Pd would gall across the flat site, but due to the burr, it clearly gets scraped of in dendrites, almost. This is what seems to have happened in the Zhang photo, where the Pd looks like a birds nest, with fuzzy fibres sticking right out from the edge. Similar to the particles in your images of how the Pd sits on the mesh.

Quote from Arun Luthra

You can find some Si-alpha on ebay, it goes by the brand name hexoloy. IIRC the spectral properties of Si-beta are a little better but I can't find any that's easy to buy.

Right, I have looked at that and it is the alpha that is the high temperature sintered ceramic. I am familiar with the Hexoloy brand name. So it is the beta material which is needed for this application. I have previously bought a fair amount of the beta material, which is used in refractory situations, like crucibles and tubes, or filter foam for molten metals. The only thing I could suggest for the beta, apart from Kanthal who use rod for their 'Globar' elements, is a firm called Vesusius. In the U.K. they have made objects for me. They have standard parts, and will also make patterns if you have a non standard requirement. Of course, this is not cheap, but it isn't ridiculously expensive, either. I don't know if they would have a tube as a standard part. Minimum invoice charge will apply, from memory around 100 GBP.

Also, I have seen your video now. That is definitely the refractory beta grade, as the alpha is absolutely untouchable, like black diamond.

Also, if you look on ebay and search for 'silicon carbide crucible' you can get the beta inexpensively, but only as crucible. They are probably too big. But if you are prepared to work with it, you could perhaps buy one with straight sides and cut an oblong strip out of it. Then saw/file/drill. It is easy to work with. But be warned, it is very messy, and there will, of course, be a dust hazard to cope with. It makes superfine dust that gets everywhere.

Quote from Arun Luthra

Approximation of where H Zhang is hitting based on the microscope image.

Also, plugging the parametric spread testing, it wouldn't be too difficult to do a range of widths of elliptical site on the mesh, caused by a range of pressure/stroke number/grit size, to pass through the frequency peaks and observe the effect on heat production. Just a bit of localised learning of the art.

Quote from Arun Luthra

You can't even buy large size silicon carbide tubes, they are just not readily available to consumers.

A question you could help me with here, I have looked at this due to SiC's thermal and optical properties, but haven't found a definitive statement as to whether the SiC in question is ordinary refractory SiC, or SiC ceramic. Are you able to answer this question ploease?

As a PS, I don't half wish we could get a few small random pieces of the Mizuno success mesh under AlanG's SEM. That would tell a story I would like to see (to mix the metaphors)

Quote from magicsound

The images show that the size and thus mass of deposited Pd is greater with the coarsest (100) grit sanded surface. The burnishing also crushed the CaCO3 crystals and mixed the resulting <1 um particles into the deposits of Pd. The final image shows this effect.

A couple of points here.

Mizuno recommends starting rough and working with successive finer grits, as is the norm with a flatting/smoothing process. Also, as I recall, Mizuno a) never uses anything a rough as 100 grit , and b) starts at around 400 and works to around 1500 grit. This would give a much smoother finish. I also suspect this will get rid of a lot of the rough edges which will alter the nature of the Pd deposition. I have a deal of experience of this process over the years, and when you start rough, it produces the rough edges you have. But as you go smoother, it produces an increasingly well defined, burrless, clean edge.

This leads to the second point which is that you point out that the most Pd is deposited on the rough 100 grit mesh. Have you measured the actual weight gain of Pd on the mesh, and is it sufficiently well defined, area and consistency of treatment wise, to be able to calculate the equivalent weight that would be deposited on mesh of area Mizuno used. If so, does this match the ~ 50mg that TM recommends?