Deuterium is not necessary, I used only hydrogen. At this point, I don't know if deuterium is better or not than hydrogen, but this has to be checked
jean-paul biberian Verified User
- Member since Feb 7th 2015
- Last Activity:
I am very busy with my own experiments and all the discussions occuring in numerous places, so I usually don't get here. However, after reading a few comments, I thought that giving my own results will clarify the situation
Frank asked me if I would try to reproduce his experiment. It took me a while to realize that it is not very complicated to do, so I did. My first attempt was with a 2mm Pd/Ag 10cm long rod inside a 6mm OD stainless steel tube. I put hydrogen and nothing happenned. I then did deposit a thin film of palladium by electrochemistry and re-did the experiment. This time a voltage appeared in hydrogen, and nothing under vacuum or in air. In order to amplify the phenomenon, I built two coaxial cylinders about 35mm in diameter and 10 cm long, then with hydrogen, the voltage went up to 640mV.
An interesting point is that the voltage grows rapidly at the beginning and slowly afterwards. I measured the voltage with various resistors to check the power, and definitely, it is in the microWatt range.
I pumped out the chamber to remove the hydrogen and put deuterium. Under vacuum, the voltage decreased with time during pumping, and reached zero. When I introduced the deuterium, nothing happenned, the voltage was zero. I thought that maybe deuterium is no good, so I switched back to hydrogen again. The voltage remained zero. Next day, the voltage appeared an kept growing.
Definitely, it seems that the palladium film needs to be loaded with hydrogen to produce the effect. The first load is fast, but the second time it is slow. I could not continue this experiment because I needed the chamber for other purposes, but I plan to start again soon,
This is not galvanic, because there is no contact between the two electrodes, there is only hydrogen gas and the palaldium deposit is crucial.
Ten years ago, I had an explosion in an electrolytic experiment. The cathode was a palladium tube 2mm OD, and 1.6 mm ID. The anode was a platinium wire, and the electrolyte was LiOD and D2O. It was an open cell, and I was doing mass flow calorimetry. The experiment had been running for a few weeks with increasing and decreasing input powers. A Monday morning when I opened my lab, there was glass everywhere, the cell had exploded. It was a 50 cm long 2.5 cm ID Dewar, and it had exploded. The system was not sealed. I don't know what happened. I tried later to create a D2+O2 explosion in a similar design, but the result was a firecracker style explosion. No destruction of the Dewar. Since then I stopped elctrochemistry, and if I ever go back, I will place a steel tube around the cell to protect myself.
I have been doing mass flow calorimetry in gas phase for 15 years, and my calorimeter is all stainless steel. I always work with very small amounts of materials, and increase the temperature by steps, so that I can monitor the experiment carefully. I will never go full power at once. At the moment, I am trying to duplicate Parkhomov experiment, but for safety and convenience, I use a steel tube 6mm OD and 4mm ID with .5g of Ni and .05g of LiAlH4. I increase the temperature by small steps, and it takes several days for me to reach 1000°C. That way, I can see if there is any sign of exccess heat appearing at any time. This also gives me confidence in the actual heat I measure, because, even with a mass flow calorimeter, it is necessary to make a calibration. There are always heat losses that are neither constant, nor proportional.
Regarding the chemicals, it is a question of quantities, the smallest the safest. I am not trying at this point to get a COP of 3, but 1.2 or 1.3 is sufficient for me to conclude. So this is what I am aming at.
I hope to make a contribution at the ICCF19 conference.