Posts by BobHiggins

Quote from Zeus46

apparently Motorola were running a "stealth LENR" program, until they were sold by/to Google.

That was my part time project as sole researcher for my last year at Motorola Solutions. Motorola Mobility was never involved. The project ended when I retired from Motorola in 2013. I began setting up my own personally funded lab to continue the work and began a relationship with MFMP after ICCF-18. As far as Motorola Solutions research programs are concerned, they are all "stealth" programs to the outside world. ICCF-18 was also where I met Dewey Weaver.

There are only 4 quantities that are calculated: 1) line voltage, 2) pressure, 3) heater voltage, and 4) heater current. I will create a short doc that has the equations for these from the columnar data.

Those .csv files are created automatically by Labview. I don't know how to add the equations into the .csv files. I like to leave the original raw data in the .csv files. Normally when I am processing the data, I read that into excel and add those columns and others. For example column 11 is the proxy for the line voltage and I have an equation for converting it to ACrms. What I should do is put a prototype excel file into the folder as well into which the .csv data can be copied and which will have the other columns.

I am just 1 person and there is a lot to do. I had to learn to program in Labview and write several drivers to make this all work together. It has been a long haul.

You will find some pressure variations. I was trying in later hours to repair the circuit on the fly including fixing the USB interface back pressure regulator circuit (while live!) and then the plumbing afterwards. After I got the regulator working as it should, I discovered that the residual leak was too big to fix while the experiment was running. So I aborted the experiment to disassemble the reactor tube is repair its seal before the fuel was damaged.

Sorry, the equation should have been P = (100/(0.8*C13))*(C12-0.1*C13)

The pressure is computed from columns 12 and 13 in the data. Column 13 is the voltage across the sensor and column 12 is the sensor voltage. The equation applied to this is pressure = (100/(0.9*C13))*(C12-0.05*C13) and the result is in PSI absolute. The result in the beginning is the local atmospheric pressure of about 10.6 PSIA. The sensor was working properly, but the computer controlled back pressure regulation was not working, in part because there was a leak at the reactor tube. Circuitry problem was fixed while running, but the leak was not fixable without taking the system apart.

Quote from axil

The implication the Bob is drawing is that the structural material that the reactor is made from is transparent. This conjecture is not supported by the possible detection method of plasma related to a current flow between the electrodes as seen in the appropriate current measurement instruments.

But, in the report of the experiment, they say that the resistance was 1 ohm and the measured voltage was 0.105V. Those don't sound like a description of a plasma measurement. It could be the ionized operating discharge voltage and dynamic resistance at high temperature, but you would think they would say this if that is how they determined that a plasma was present.

I have a hypothesis I am testing as to why the Ni-H experiments are not reproducible. If it bears any fruit, I will let everyone know what works and what doesn't.

Quote from Bob

I know this says "intends" to support, but I hope they have committed to you. I appreciate you posts and while open minded, show not only a good understanding of a correct approach but an appropriate caution not to jump to unfounded conclusions! A scientist in the true meaning!

Good fortune on your automated test as well!

Thank you for the vote of confidence, Bob. My stated goal is to find a reproducible Ni-H LENR experiment, document it and share the details for reproduction - specifically university reproduction. It is not until we get a reproducible experiment in the universities that the research needed to understand Ni-H LENR is likely to occur. Theoretical physicists need reliable and reproducible data or the field is not going to mature to practical engineering. Grad students need an experiment they can reliably build upon to build a dissertation research project. A single reproducible experiment whose protocol is fully documented and provided to everyone would legitimize the field in all sectors. This experiment doesn't have to be a Ni-H experiment, but that is where I chose to work.

I should comment that Pd-D reproducibility has been improving and we are seeing university work there (U of Missouri, Texas Tech in the US). One of the disappointing things with Pd-D is not what Peter Gluck keeps harping about (power density and cost), but rather longevity of the experiment. If you cannot get the experiment to run for weeks and months, it is impossibly hard to find the systematic changes in the materials that could provide core clues into what is happening in the reaction. That's an important reason I chose to work on Ni-H - because of reports of long-lived experiments.

Today, I only have a friendly relationship with IH. I share what I am doing, just as I share it with everyone else. I have not received any money or materials from IH. Actually, the future of IH's support for outside researchers depends a lot on the outcome of this trial. I get NO information about Rossi's technology from IH. The relationship has allowed me to discuss LENR subjects with some of their other research partners.

The experiment was aborted last night due to a leak, apparently at the reactor tube metal seal interface. I will be reworking that today. The experiment did not get very far into heating - only to 140C. I will rework the reactor tube seal today and re-install. Hopefully the leak will have been resolved and the test can proceed as planned.

The experiment uses AH-50 Ni powder that has been processed to remove oxide prior to mixing with 10% by weight LiAlH4. It is a Parkhomov-like reaction that is insulated in the K-26 bricks to improve the sensitivity to excess heat.

When the experiment is re-started, there will be a new folder for link to the data.

I cannot comment on the validity of Gullstrom's theory, but it appears that the included "experiment" at the Doral location provided no evidence of support nor evidence to refute his theory. Including that "story" in the experimental section of his paper does Gullstrom a disservice - he might as well included a recipe for chocolate cake for all it added to his paper. Clearly the theory presented did not come from Rossi. I don't know how Rossi came to be associated with this paper, but that was a mistake. Rossi's contribution could have been the "Report of the Experiment ..." section; which, as I said, was useless in supporting the premise of the paper. Perhaps, Rossi was looking for some validation that he could show that his device worked because he was under substantial courtroom burden of evidence that his devices did not work. In my opinion, Gullstrom should edit his paper, remove that non-supporting experimental report, and remove Rossi's name from the paper as author - make it strictly a theory paper.

It did not occur to me until a second reading of the paper ... "When the current was switched on a plasma was SEEN flowing between the two nickel rods". Obviously to be seen as an identifiable plasma, the envelope of the reactor sounds like it was clear. This suggests the envelope may be fused quartz (cheap) or sapphire (expensive). Rossi claimed that the Quark would be cheap and threw out a $25 number, making it more likely that the tube he was using at the time was fused quartz. Fused quartz melts at 1650°C, which is too high to create a direct seal to the Ni electrodes, but it may have been possible to create a low temperature seal if the seal area was relatively far from the discharge area. The thermal conductivity of fused quartz is low - about 17x less than sapphire and 70x lower than Ni. Thus, heat from the discharge region would not conduct through the fused quartz as much as through the Ni rod. It may have even been possible to make the seal with JB Weld.

Quote from magicsound

Unfortunately, the electrical resistivity of zirconia drops even faster than Alumina. At 500 C it is ten orders of magnitude more conductive than at 20 C. So at operating temperature, a zirconia tube would probably look like a short circuit to any high voltage applied between the ends of the tube.

Yes, you are correct AlanG. However, the tube will still have some metal on it - perhaps aluminum - which may dominate. The aluminum boiling point is quite high ~2470°C. It is a pretty odd device from an impedance variation standpoint. It likely won't be linear either. All the more reason not to quote a single value "resistance" for the device.

The next choice after alumina would probably be zirconia. The melting point for zirconia is 2715°C and it has many manufacturers. It's thermal expansion is better matched to metals, so it would be better for trying to make a seal. The transparency issues with zirconia are similar to alumina. Zirconia is more of a thermal insulator than alumina. The desired tube size would probably have to be made to order. Zirconia starts out as a good electrical insulator (until coated inside by the Li-Al).

Quote from Bob

It is apparently a very simple device. So a black box test should be easily conducted. MFMP could do it well! I wonder if that will happen?

I can see a reasonable path forward to build such a device, but there are a thousand ways to screw up a replication. If what you made didn't work, it wouldn't mean that Rossi's didn't work. It is better, as you say, to have a cooperative inventor who will allow validation of his device which he believes is in working order. It would be simple to make a reasonably accurate calorimeter for this. Get a 5-gallon bucket of water, put a horizontal 1" copper pipe through the middle of it, fill with water, and put the device in the middle of the copper pipe. Plug both ends with some fiberglass and insulate the bucket. When the device is operating, measure the rate of temperature rise of the water (mixing of the water would be good). If you carefully measure the input power as the integral of V(t)*I(t) the input and output powers would be obtained with high reliability. It doesn't make any difference what the Quark temperature is; all of the convected and radiated heat from it will pass into the water. The copper pipe temperature would never be more than 1-2°C over the water temperature. You would have enough water to insure no boiling (just stop the experiment before boiling occurred). You could also put in a resistor in the middle of the copper pipe in place of the device and run it over input power. It would be easy to calibrate out the heat losses. Easy to do and there are no high technology devices to be wrongly used - particularly if you have as high of COP as Rossi claims.

Using the spectrometer and the blackbody calculation as Gullstrom did makes me wonder if this was Rossi's choice. It also makes me wonder if the whole Optris based calculation of temperature, radiated heat, and convected heat was Rossi's misguided input to the professors running the Lugano experiment.

Reproduction of such a device sounds easy on the surface, but it is harder in practice. The hard part is the electrode sealing. Normally, for example in an electron tube or a neon tube, the metal to glass seal is done by melting the glass onto an oxidized molybdenum wire. Sapphire melts at 2050°C which would exceed the melting point of Ni by far but not the melting point of molybdenum. You would also have to somewhat match the thermal expansion of the metal and the tube material so it wouldn't break the seal over temperature. Then there is the issue of the LiAlH4. When it decomposes, it gives up a lot of H2 and the tube would explode unless the tube intentionally leaked or the LiAlH4 was pre-decomposed to reduce the amount of released H2. With Ni electrodes, that is not going to be a huge problem because the Ni to alumina/sapphire tube seal would leak. If a true seal were made, you would need a big buffer volume for the gas like they did in old gas lasers.

Quote from Alan Smith

In fact the tubes are Sapphire - which is ok up to 2000C+ (2332K) , and operation is intermittent, so the plasma temperature might be too high for comfort, but the tube and the electrode temperatures fall within the bounds of possibility. Intermittence is even alluded to in the paper.

Alan, if the tubes are sapphire, why would they ascribe an emissivity of 0.9 and make their calculations based on blackbody emission from the tube surface? Surely it would have been recognized immediately that the tube was at a different temperature than the plasma if it was obviously clear like a sapphire tube. It makes it seem even more of a rookie mistake.

I should also mention that I am not convinced of adequate input power measurement. When the device is cold, the Li-Al will condense on the inside of the alumina tube. Initially when measured cold, the resistance may appear low as there is a metal-metal electrode connection through the condensed Li-Al and the Ni electrodes. It would appear as a resistor until the alumina tube got to over 700°C when the film would melt changing the resistance. Then at 1342°C the Li would become vapor and at some point the tube would become a Li vapor lamp with the current flowing through the Li vapor. At this point the resistance could be substantially different than the starting resistance. So the resistance is going to change, I believe, from metal-metal resistance to Li vapor nonlinear discharge. Once the Li is in vapor phase and there is a plasma discharge, the tube could actually be lower temperature than the Li vapor temperature.

Obviously this paper seems to describe what Rossi has been calling his "Quark" device. From the scant description, it sounds like a quasi-gas/metal vapor discharge tube. Per the description, the sealed small diameter tube would have Ni electrodes on each end with a 1.5cm gap. When such a tube reaches its operating discharge temperature, the plasma inside the tube is a far different temperature than the envelope of the tube. Collisions of the ions and electrons with the wall of the tube transfer heat and create a colder layer around the inside of the tube. Think of a neon sign. The hot orange plasma may have an effective plasma temperature of >2000°C but the lead glass tube will soften in the range of 600°C and melt substantially by 800°C. Plasma temperature is best characterized by its spectrum, but it will not necessarily be Boltzmann distribution - it could have strong lines that contain most of the energy which will impart a particular color. In a linear tube the plasma will be hotter in the center and will fall off in temperature with radius as it approaches the envelope boundary. It sounds like from this paper that the tube is not glass since an emissivity of 0.9 is being ascribed to it. Likely it is a thin alumina tube. Note that alumina appears opaque, but it is really translucent, so measuring the spectrum is important. The surface area being used is 1 cm^2 with a length of 1.5cm suggesting that the tube OD is 2.1mm - pretty small. So, at high outer surface temperature, if the spectrum shows a Boltzmann distribution, a blackbody calculation could be used for emitted power. In this case, the spectrum is only measured to 1.1 microns.

From their measurements, they estimate a temperature of the device surface at 2636°K or 2363°C. Alumina would melt at 2072°C, so either the tube is not alumina, or the tube surface temperature is wrong. It is likely that the tube is alumina and the tube surface temperature is wrong. As I mentioned, the tube can be much cooler than the plasma (for example the much cooler glass temperature of a neon sign), particularly if the tube is transparent. Alumina is translucent at visible and near infrared wavelengths - it has a high degree of transparency because its crystallites are randomly oriented sapphire. So it has scattering, but a high degree of transparency. This means that the diameter for the Boltzmann calculation would have to be some kind of average plasma discharge diameter inside the tube because it is not the tube surface that is at that temperature and radiating at the 2363°C Boltzmann spectrum - it is the inner plasma.

So, lets make an guess-timate for the diameter of the plasma. Lets say that the OD of the tube is 2.1mm, the ID of the tube might be 1.1mm. The diameter of the average emitting plasma discharge might be 0.4mm (just to guess). This would make the emitting area (0.4/2.1)x(1cm^2) = 0.19 cm^2 and would reduce the calculated output power to 47 watts. But, this estimate is prone to huge inaccuracy. What is needed is to measure the tube in a calorimeter. If you are going to do it optically, at least make a bolometric measurement of the emitted power/cm^2 and integrate over the sphere.

Once again, we see that Rossi could be fooling himself with poor measurements. That doesn't mean that he does not have excess power. It suggests we don't know how much he has if any due to poor measurements.

Quote from THEDEBATEISUSELESS

First of all, Piantelli and Focardi never used powder: they used bulk nickel in which 99% of the mass of the fuel could not participate in the reaction. Rossi's first step was to increase surface area and hence the amount of fuel that could become, "active."

I don't believe you can say that Piantelli and Focardi never used powder. What I can observe about this, having worked with powder, is that it is immensely more difficult to pursue the SCIENCE of LENR when using powder. There is evidence, particularly in Ni-H LENR, that the LENR is largely a near-surface effect. It is obvious that increasing the surface area could expand the power density. However, the surface of the powder is highly complex and difficult to study even with the best instrumentation. Working with materials having a simpler surface area, even at lower power density, allows study of the effect far more readily than will ever be done with powder. Working with a Ni rod, Dr. Piantelli greatly expanded his understanding of the underlying Ni-H LENR effect with the instruments in his lab, and is rumored to have created advanced, engineered LENR materials that are presently proprietary. Rossi is not a scientist, he is an engineer. He appears to be trying to engineer high power LENR in powders without understanding the science behind the LENR (this is also not necessarily a criticism). Dr. Piantelli is a scientist and wants to understand the chemo-physics of the phenomenon.

Quote from JedRothwell

You should ask I.H. for the 500 grand. I believe they might give it to you.

While I think IH may have an interest in such a replication, there would be some painful details to work out. IH would have to develop a relationship with Nichenergy and Dr. Piantelli, which is clouded by IH's relationship and ongoing legal battle with Rossi - Piantelli holds Rossi with a high DIS-regard (to put it mildly - despise might be more appropriate). Working with Dr. Piantelli to do a replication would require a team. Note that Dr. Piantelli only speaks Italian. This not a criticism at all - I only speak English with a handful of words in other languages. So, the team would need someone that could speak technical Italian. In addition, it may be necessary for the replication to occur in Europe to be not displaced too far in time and distance for holding regular meetings with Dr. Piantelli online and face-to-face. This would be a big undertaking, but certainly doable. It would have to begin with a relationship between Nichenergy, Dr. Piantelli, and IH. A true replication without that relationship would not be possible.