Readable overview appears today, here: http://animpossibleinvention.com/2014/10/08/new-scientific-report-on-the-e-cat-shows-excess-heat-and-nuclear-process/
Another: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/10/08/e-cat-report-released/
QuoteKey findings: COP of 3.2-3.6 over a 32 day period and isotopic change in nickel and lithium was found to have changed substantially after run.
Scientific treatise for download here: https://animpossibleinvention.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/luganoreportsubmit.pdf
QuoteObservation of abundant heat production from a reactor device
and of isotopic changes in the fuel
Giuseppe Levi
Bologna University, Bologna, Italy
Evelyn Foschi
Bologna, Italy
Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson and Lars Tegnér
Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
Hanno Essén
Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
ABSTRACT
New results are presented from an extended experimental investigation of anomalous heat production in a special type of
reactor tube operating at high temperatures. The reactor, named E-Cat, is charged with a small amount of hydrogen-loaded
nickel powder plus some additives, mainly Lithium. The reaction is primarily initiated by heat from resistor coils around the
reactor tube. Measurements of the radiated power from the reactor were performed with high-resolution thermal imaging
cameras. The measurements of electrical power input were performed with a large bandwidth three-phase power analyzer.
Data were collected during 32 days of running in March 2014. The reactor operating point was set to about 1260 ºC in the
first half of the run, and at about 1400 °C in the second half. The measured energy balance between input and output heat
yielded a COP factor of about 3.2 and 3.6 for the 1260 ºC and 1400 ºC runs, respectively. The total net energy obtained
during the 32 days run was about 1.5 MWh. This amount of energy is far more than can be obtained from any known
chemical sources in the small reactor volume.
A sample of the fuel was carefully examined with respect to its isotopic composition before the run and after the run, using
several standard methods: XPS, EDS, SIMS, ICP-MS and ICP-AES. The isotope composition in Lithium and Nickel was
found to agree with the natural composition before the run, while after the run it was found to have changed substantially.
Nuclear reactions are therefore indicated to be present in the run process, which however is hard to reconcile with the fact
that no radioactivity was detected outside the reactor during the run.
1. Introduction
This paper presents the results from a new extended study carried out on the "E-Cat" reactor, a device
invented by Andrea Rossi. Various tests of this reactor have indicated that an excessive amount of heat is
generated from a fuel consisting of hydrogen-loaded nickel powder plus some additives. The heat generating
process is initiated by heat from resistor coils around the reactor tube. In addition, the resistor coils are fed with some
specific electromagnetic pulses. The E-Cat reactor was tested in March 2013 by the same collaboration
performing the present test and a report is given in ref. [1]. The March 2013 test showed indeed a clear
indication that abnormal heat was generated, i.e. that the amount of heat could not be explained by any
chemical processes in the limited volume of the reactor tube. This striking result prompted us to investigate
this phenomenon further. Therefore a second test has now been performed, this time over a much longer
period of time (32 days). Also, additional instrumentation was employed to further improve and secure the
experimental conditions during the run. A longer test was also motivated to investigate the long term
stability of the E-Cat operation, as well as running it at two different operational settings for comparison.
Furthermore, and more importantly, we wanted to investigate if the nuclear composition of the fuel had
changed due to the heat generating process. Such an investigation is indispensable in order to find out if the heat generating process has its origin in transformations at the nuclear level...
I'm looking at the changes in isotopic abundances between "fuel nickel" and "ash nickel" in particular.
If verified/true - these results are ASTOUNDING.
The Lugano Report seems to be quite a rigorous and impressive test procedure of the E-CAT.
Quote from: ION on 2014.10.09, 01:41:37
The Lugano Report seems to be quite a rigorous and impressive test procedure of the E-CAT.
I agree. Studying it more now.
This is what I find so exciting, yet so puzzling!!
From Appendix 3 in the Lugano report (below).
--> Why is Li-7 consumed, but not Li-6? what is the reaction? (I presume P+ Li7 reacting... LENR)
--> Why are Ni-58 and Ni-60 consumed, but not Ni-62?!! (Presumably p-Ni58 and p-Ni60 reactions are occurring - and releasing heat. LENR.)
To perform a replication - but I would use standard WATER CALORIMETRY to measure the output energy -- one needs to know just what is in the cylinder, i.e., what chemical species of Lithium and nickel, and what else is there?
I have just started going through the report, one thing comes to mind and that is the hydrogen needed to start the reaction is coming from the lithium aluminium hydride which stores a huge amount of hydrogen. No other hydrogen is injected into the reactor, and the reactor is not air tight in so much that it would maintain a vacuum or pressure, so the interior is at AP!
The lithium change could be a result of the hydrogen expulsion due to heat, I will have to look that one up :-\
Being that hydrogen is needed and the test was for 32 days, it seems obvious that the hydrogen is only needed to instigate the reaction and not maintain it, once the reaction is taking place it would seem the hydrogen is not needed. All the hydrogen would have gone in the first day if not in the first hours!!! or am I missing something here?
regards
Mike 8)
http://coldfusionnow.org/new-e-cat-report-positive-1400c-and-isotopic-changes-in-nili/
http://matslew.wordpress.com/2014/10/08/new-scientific-report-on-the-e-cat-shows-excess-heat-and-nuclear-process/
What about the competitor, Defkalion and their results?
Defkalion provided a live-by-internet demonstration of their P-Nickel LENR device at ICCF-18, conference held last year at Univ of Missouri in Columbia (Mizzou). I was there.
OTOH, Rossi et al. were NOT represented at the conference (not sure why not).
I asked a question of a Defkalion scientist, and he responded - here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lPnUt4cNzM
Note for the first approx two minutes, he fields a question about Nickel isotopes, which ones undergo the LENR reaction (in p+Ni) and which do not. He says that Nickel-61 does NOT react in this way, but that all the other isotopes of Ni do react (LENR) with protons/hydrogen.
HOWEVER, this latest Lugano report does NOT agree - they say that Nickel 62 does not react in this way.
So here we have a discrepancy between measurements that needs to be resolved.
I don't think all of this Lugano report was intended for the public - too much detail perhaps -- and PESN agrees in their report dated today:
http://pesn.com/2014/10/10/9602543_Apocalypse-Revealed--The-Four-Horsemen_of_Andrea-Rossis_E-Cat/
More skeptical, Mark Dansie weighs in also; this report is generating discussion in various venues and forums -
http://revolution-green.com/e-cat-lenr-test-results-released/
The comments are worth reading also.
--Steve
Quote from: Centraflow on 2014.10.09, 10:48:47
I have just started going through the report, one thing comes to mind and that is the hydrogen needed to start the reaction is coming from the lithium aluminium hydride which stores a huge amount of hydrogen. No other hydrogen is injected into the reactor, and the reactor is not air tight in so much that it would maintain a vacuum or pressure, so the interior is at AP!
The lithium change could be a result of the hydrogen expulsion due to heat, I will have to look that one up :-\
Being that hydrogen is needed and the test was for 32 days, it seems obvious that the hydrogen is only needed to instigate the reaction and not maintain it, once the reaction is taking place it would seem the hydrogen is not needed. All the hydrogen would have gone in the first day if not in the first hours!!! or am I missing something here?
regards
Mike 8)
Mike, yes my understanding also - is that the H comes from the LiAlH4 (call it LAH) . At what temp? we need to look that up! also, at what temp does LAH melt?
I understand that the container is SEALED and only contains 1 gram of fuel mixture!
But the Hydrogen should be kept in the container, and they say the reaction(s) continue as long as the fuel stays HOT.
COP = 3.2 at 1260 C, and 3.6 at 1400 C, they claim, so temp-dependence is indicated.
--Steve
From wiki:
QuoteThermal decomposition[edit]
LAH is metastable at room temperature. During prolonged storage it slowly decomposes to Li3AlH6 and LiH.[12] This process can be accelerated by the presence of catalytic elements, such as titanium, iron or vanadium.
Differential scanning calorimetry of as-received LiAlH4.
When heated LAH decomposes in a three-step reaction mechanism:[12][13][14]
3 LiAlH4 → Li3AlH6 + 2 Al + 3 H2 (R1)
2 Li3AlH6 → 6 LiH + 2 Al + 3 H2 (R2)
2 LiH + 2 Al → 2 LiAl + H2 (R3)
R1 is usually initiated by the melting of LAH in the temperature range 150–170 °C,[15][16][17] immediately followed by decomposition into solid Li3AlH6, although R1 is known to proceed below the melting point of LiAlH4 as well.[18] At about 200 °C, Li3AlH6 decomposes into LiH (R2)[12][14][17] and Al which subsequently convert into LiAl above 400 °C (R3).[14] Reaction R1 is effectively irreversible. R3 is reversible with an equilibrium pressure of about 0.25 bar at 500 °C. R1 and R2 can occur at room temperature with suitable catalysts.[19]
So at the operating temps of the experiment, LAH is first melted then decomposed and the hydrogen (atoms) are freed.
Presumably LENR reactions proceed:
p + 7Li yielding 2 alphas, ie., two 4He - hence the lowering of 7Li (but not 6Li) reported in the paper
And
p + Ni yielding copper (??) - hence the lowering of certain nickel isotopes (but not 62Ni)
reported in the paper.
Reports seem to be rolling in.
QuoteObviously, if these third-party findings are to be believed — if the E-Cat really is performing cold fusion [or LENR, not fusion per se, if correct]
— then this is rather exciting. We are talking about an extremely cheap, green, and dense power source that could quite literally change the world.
Before the world can be changed, however, there will now be a very extensive period of scrutiny from the scientific community at large. The previous third-party analysis of the E-Cat device, published in March 2013, was attacked and debunked very rapidly. It seems this new report has been intentionally designed so that there are fewer plot holes and logical leaps. The research paper has reportedly been submitted to the Arxiv pre-print server, with the hope of eventually being published in the Journal of Nuclear Physics.
The next few weeks could be very interesting indeed. According to one report at Sifferkoll, a big bank downloaded the new E-Cat report just minutes after it was made available online — and "oil futures have stayed volatile since." And of course this morning Glasgow University announced that it would be selling its fossil fuel investments. Hmm...
more: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/191754-cold-fusion-reactor-verified-by-third-party-researchers-seems-to-have-1-million-times-the-energy-density-of-gasoline
So no hydrogen injection for this new design? Nice!
Beware of temperature measurements using thermography....
"Measurements of the radiated power from the reactor were performed with high-resolution thermal imaging
cameras."
See this for the reasons: http://www.qirt.org/archives/qirt1992/papers/007.pdf
In industries using thermography, one of which I am in, will not use thermography to measure temperature unless relative/comparative measurements are all that is required.
Examples:
1. You can point a thermal camera at a hot transformer on a power pole and see readings like -50 deg C. Why? Because the average temperature of the focal point includes outer space.
2. The same camera (even ultra high resolution types) can be pointed at a metal surface, known to be hot enough to melt aluminum, and obtain normal room temperatures. This, simply because the target had a shiny surface reflecting ambient room temperature, even though that surface could melt aluminum.
3. The same can be done monitoring almost any object with the results of ridiculously high temperature readings.
A good example of t-camera misinterpretation was one Ghost-Busters episode where their t-camera recorded a ghost at the end of a dark hallway. The idiots were looking at their own thermal reflections off the hallway end wall.
The e-cat test setup seen in the photos is not conducive to even near accurate measurements with any camera unless reflectivity and emissivity and a host of other variables is part of the camera setup.
I carry an international certification as a trainer for this technology. I'm pretty sure I know what I'm talking about.
The transmutation has my interest but calculating power out using a t-camera is nuts.
In my own unprofessional opinion, I thought that using a camera would lend itself to inaccuracies and faulty measurement, but I am not a physicist nor a scientist. Wouldn't it be better to heat a container of water and infer energy produced based on that?
I totally agree; as I also said above in an earlier post:
QuoteI would use standard WATER CALORIMETRY to measure the output energy
This is challenging given the HIGH Temperature allegedly needed for operation - 1260 and 1400 C for their tests in this paper. But it can be done.
Another calorimetric approach is to use a large "heat leaking" box around the device - and another identical box around a simple resistance/heater; both in the same temp-controlled room. Air as the coolant in each box.
Put the SAME electric power into the control and into the "e-cat reactor", then observe the equilibration temp. inside each box, using say four temp probes and identical fans to circulate air in each box.
These are basically heat-flow calorimeters using air as the cooling medium.
Switch boxes and run again. Then drive your "control" resistive heater with enough electrical power (Y) to reach the higher equilibration temp reached by the reactor. This gives a decent measure of the electrical power being generated by the reactor (Y). (Comparative air calorimetry.)
A COP of 3 or so (as claimed) should be EASY to see by this method.
I finally made it through the report.
In the image showing the camera setup the camera trained upon the reactor does appear to be of the right type for the measurement.
It is possible that it is monitoring in the SW or 'near-visible' band (7.5 to 13 um is more in the MW band but filtering may allow data from the high end to be used). If so, it is a lab-grade camera and quite accurate if used properly. Most of these have the ability to output an analog signal from a specified cross-hair or cursor box. The software available with these allows later data filtering for corrections.
I assumed they were using a more conventional camera. I may be mistaken. They did make comparisons to a t-couple. Perhaps their temperature data is not far off.
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2014.10.11, 01:36:39
I finally made it through the report.
In the image showing the camera setup the camera trained upon the reactor does appear to be of the right type for the measurement.
It is possible that it is monitoring in the SW or 'near-visible' band (7.5 to 13 um is more in the MW band but filtering may allow data from the high end to be used). If so, it is a lab-grade camera and quite accurate if used properly. Most of these have the ability to output an analog signal from a specified cross-hair or cursor box. The software available with these allows later data filtering for corrections.
I assumed they were using a more conventional camera. I may be mistaken. They did make comparisons to a t-couple. Perhaps their temperature data is not far off.
Makes me wonder why they simply did not place the entire device in a "fixed loss to ambient" box, and measure the temperature rise above ambient at the inside top of the box for both loaded with the "magic fuel" and a dummy load of e.g sand.
The thermal imaging also made me a bit uneasy.
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2014.10.11, 01:36:39
I finally made it through the report.
In the image showing the camera setup the camera trained upon the reactor does appear to be of the right type for the measurement.
It is possible that it is monitoring in the SW or 'near-visible' band (7.5 to 13 um is more in the MW band but filtering may allow data from the high end to be used). If so, it is a lab-grade camera and quite accurate if used properly. Most of these have the ability to output an analog signal from a specified cross-hair or cursor box. The software available with these allows later data filtering for corrections.
I assumed they were using a more conventional camera. I may be mistaken. They did make comparisons to a t-couple. Perhaps their temperature data is not far off.
I think that all the angles have been covered, that being the empty dummy run just with the heater and then after with the "fuel", then we have the ref: spots also. I would say the % error is not a problem with the overall COP being over 300%.
The aluminium oxide would have to be changed for another type of container if water was to be used, we also get into the problem of water flow rates as the reactor temp would be at over 1200c "min" with super heated steam we start getting into some very complicated systems as in all WCR's (water cooled reactors).
What Ion has stated would have been a good idea but with an opening at the bottom of the box as well as the top, all that is needed then is the delta T between bottom and top, in and out, with appropriate temperature sensors.
I am sure they looked at all this, but what you can't get away from is the change from fuel to ash composition, unless all the SEM, X ray etc analysis was wrong, and I doubt that very much.
What is also interesting is that there was no radiation event for these changes, so do we have a new found type of nuclear reaction? and are we to find out that we don't know all about the atom as we think we do? hmm.
regards
Mike 8)
From Centraflow
QuoteWhat Ion has stated would have been a good idea but with an opening at the bottom of the box as well as the top, all that is needed then is the delta T between bottom and top, in and out, with appropriate temperature sensors.
If the box has enough radiative surface area to keep the internal temperature and the loss to ambient at reasonable values, inlets and outlets are not needed and actually introduce another variable that needs to be measured i.e. flow rate through the box.
The temperature measurement at the top surface of the closed box with and without fuel would be ultimate proof of COP>1, of course these values are recorded and ambient is subtracted after each temperature reading has stabilized.
Quote from: ION on 2014.10.11, 18:19:21
From Centraflow
If the box has enough radiative surface area to keep the internal temperature and the loss to ambient at reasonable values, inlets and outlets are not needed and actually introduce another variable that needs to be measured i.e. flow rate through the box.
The temperature measurement at the top surface of the closed box with and without fuel would be ultimate proof of COP>1, of course these values are recorded and ambient is subtracted after each temperature reading has stabilized.
Thanks ION, foregot to mention the flow rate, this has to be fixed on the input side, and the box would have to be mirrored inside and insulated on the outside, the best would be a thermos with a hole at both ends.
At least they applied the right formula to account for convection and radiation, with a throughput of air in a box as suggested that is not needed.
regards
Mike 8)
Quote from: Centraflow on 2014.10.11, 16:53:43
What is also interesting is that there was no radiation event for these changes, so do we have a new found type of nuclear reaction? and are we to find out that we don't know all about the atom as we think we do? hmm.
I'm always dumfounded that nuclear science is convinced that the only radiation to be generated in a nuclear reaction would show on a Geiger counter. Why don't they think of the rest of the EM spectrum? Perhaps the resulting radiation is radiated as heat of something that would show up on a spectrum analyzer.
Maybe, there is nuclear radiation of a type that is stopped by the reactor material and converted to heat...
Perhaps, that is the source of excess heat?
It may be that not all nuclear reactions create clicks on a Geiger counter ^-^
BTW....
My preferred t-camera is an old M7800 (Mikron). I did some reading on my model and found that the accuracy can be better than .5% when limited to the single digit um band.
Indeed, the proton-capture reaction on lithium-7 discussed in the paper (hard to understand HOW it could proceed under the Lugano conditions) yields just energetic alpha particles, which are quickly stopped in the fuel or container walls. There are no gammas or neutrons (which WOULD be observable outside the vessel; but not present in the reaction).
p + 7Li --> 4He + 4He + 17.2 MeV, that is, each alpha carries 8.6 MeV.
Seeing the energy signature of the alphas would be difficult, but DEFINITIVE of this nuclear reaction!
One would like to try for it.
Nobody says much about the RF injection into the reactor!!!! if anyone ??? apart from me ;)
The three phase delta connected heater coils are also radiators of, I think stated, a complex multi signal (not DC, DC was stated, and I agree does not work), this I do know, from experience, causes huge changes be it gas or liquid, so why not solid as well ^-^ I believe all nuclear reactions have a frequency signature, that means it would be prone to frequency manipulation. We are talking huge current here, some 100amps @4-5v input, if this was a transmitting loop that 100amps would be in the 1000amps ball park floating around those heater coils :D
So you see I am taking it for now that they have done it O0, but I'm trying to see how they have done it, and a lot ties in with past and present work by a few. What is the common denominator? who else can see it?
regards
Mike 8)
Quote from: Centraflow on 2014.10.12, 09:55:06
Nobody says much about the RF injection into the reactor!!!! if anyone ??? apart from me ;)
I think Wesley would. Pretty sure he is heterodyning two megahertz range (300 & 800 I think) frequencies into his Colman reactor. If you look at this device, it isn't a huge stretch to see the similarities to the E-Cat.
May I propose a simple setup the home experimenter can attempt for under $100 USD?
In the method shown, a Kill-A-Watt meter logs and tallies the input power, and a temperature controller maintains the target setpoint.
The reactor vessel is a Ohmite or equivalent power resistor, the ohmic value of which is chosen such that it can reach the target temperature without fuel.
First run is with no fuel or sand dummy fuel inserted into the hallow core of the resistor. One ends can be plugged with a small bit of ceramic cement, and the thermocouple can be cemented into the core.
The other end has a removable plug of ceramic material.
No calorimetry needed here as the total power to maintain target temperature is logged.
With fuel in the core, the Kill-A-Watt meter should log 1/3 or less power required to maintain target temperature if indeed there is a heat reaction with a COP > 3.
The test can be run for example 1, 2, 5 or 10 hours in each case, whatever is desired.
The resistor may not last forever but it should last the length of the test or longer. If not, I have lots of alumina tubing and Nichrome wire on hand and can wind a resistor core.
For heat sinking of the resistor I propose the resistor assembly be placed in a small vessel and covered with sand. This will gently transport the heat to a larger surface area of the vessel through the thermal resistance of the sand. The vessel will have a fixed loss to ambient and if ambient does not change much, it should give good data.
The real problem is determining the actual magic mix of fuel used in the E-CAT.
Mike: I find it odd that they used such high current low voltage, when they could have wound the heater with finer wire and operated at mains potential. My only guess is that they did not want to deal with heater change of resistance due to excessive oxidation. This problem is eliminated with my proposed setup.
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2014.10.12, 15:04:21
I think Wesley would. Pretty sure he is heterodyning two megahertz range (300 & 800 I think) frequencies into his Colman reactor. If you look at this device, it isn't a huge stretch to see the similarities to the E-Cat.
Matt your right, hadn't thought about him O0
regards
Mike 8)
Quote from: Centraflow on 2014.10.12, 15:08:35
Matt your right, hadn't thought about him O0
regards
Mike 8)
If they are using off the shelf Thyristor triac controllers, I doubt seriously RF noise is a contributor. The zero voltage switched triac controllers generate minimal EMI, and the phase angle fired types are usually suppressed with inductors and capacitors to eliminate undue EMI. There are strict regulations for allowable EMI from thyristor power controllers. I used to design these things in a prior work life.
The high current surrounding the material is a different issue and cannot at this time be ruled out, however other E-CAT designs had the heater on the outside of the iron vessel reactor, which would shield some induction effects.
The following is a bit of thinking allowed ;D
The test showed that by increasing the "temperature" the cop increased, but was that an increase in current input so as to raise the temperature? I think that was missleading, I think the frequency was shifted or the duty cycle and the result was an increase in temperature with the same or less input, I personally think it was frequency and not putting more in to get more out!.
How fast can we switch Triacs running at 100amps ? 3 phase? anyone? could be square, sine or triangle wave as long as it is made up of an alternating current as opposed to pulsed DC.
Modulated AC square wave? multiple frequencies? heterodyning? it was stated that it was a special wave form and so of course DC will not work.
I think that the heating of the resistive wire does two things, 1. to release the hydrogen, 2. to bring the temperature to the reaction start level (catalytic) anything higher would not make any difference, that then makes the control totally RF ^-^
regards
Mike 8)
Quote from: ION on 2014.10.12, 15:50:23
If they are using off the shelf Thyristor triac controllers, I doubt seriously RF noise is a contributor. The zero voltage switched triac controllers generate minimal EMI, and the phase angle fired types are usually suppressed with inductors and capacitors to eliminate undue EMI. There are strict regulations for allowable EMI from thyristor power controllers. I used to design these things in a prior work life.
The high current surrounding the material is a different issue and cannot at this time be ruled out, however other E-CAT designs had the heater on the outside of the iron vessel reactor, which would shield some induction effects.
ION, it was stated right from nearly day one that the controller produced a special manipulated wave. Now I'm only thinking Triacs due to the high switching amps "100amps @ 4-5v", are there mosfets to do that current?
Rossi was very quiet about his controller!!!!
regards
Mike 8)
Here is the 50 ohm 20 Watt Ohmite ceramic wirewound resistor running at 760 C and being held to a fraction of a degree with the temp controller.
I will run it at this temp for a while to relieve stresses then ramp it up higher to see where it gives up.
Quote from: Centraflow on 2014.10.12, 16:34:25
ION, it was stated right from nearly day one that the controller produced a special manipulated wave. Now I'm only thinking Triacs due to the high switching amps "100amps @ 4-5v", are there mosfets to do that current?
Rossi was very quiet about his controller!!!!
regards
Mike 8)
What I get from reading the report is that all equipment
was required to be supplied by the independent test lab and
only the reactor core and the fuel were supplied by Rossi.They do mention in the report that prior units were tested (By Rossi) with "specific electromagnetic pulses" but they had no design for this and all of the typical switching harmonics generated by the on/off or phase control of the triacs is accounted for by the PCE's. They do not mention which switching mode was used.
In other words, they used their own equipment and had no recipe for electromagnetic pulsing.
I stand corrected ION O0
It was the other tests that I got that from, not this one, which seems quite different.
As of late I have problems of memory and start to get things mixed up >:( probably the cause of some minor strokes which are now controlled.
I should have reread the report again, I only read it once the day before yesterday.
The original E-CAT was frequency controlled, that was the one he heated water to super heated steam and the reactor was made of copper I recall.
regards
Mike 8)
I very much like your design, ION!
A big engineering issue, is holding hydrogen gas INSIDE the reactor for weeks, when it is at 1400 C.
Can you or anyone see a way to do this? (They use an alumina vessel. I'm still surprised the gas does not permeate through and out... perhaps some does.)
I'm looking into fuel the last several days.
For the record:
2D + 3He → 4He + 1p + 18.3 MeV
2D + 6Li → 2 4He + 22.4 MeV
1p + 6Li → 4He + 3He + 4.0 MeV
3He + 6Li → 2 4He + 1p + 16.9 MeV
3He + 3He → 4He + 2 1p + 12.86 MeV
1p + 7Li → 2 4He + 17.2 MeV
1p + 11B → 3 4He + 8.7 MeV
1p + 15N → 12C + 4He + 5.0 MeV[2]
These reactions are all "aneutronic" -- emit no neutrons. Also, no gammas... Very clean nuclear reactions.
--Steve
Personally like the
p + 7Li
and
p + 11B
reactions best -- producing inert helium! used in childrens balloons etc.
I don't know of anyone who has looked at p+11B yet (non-energetic protons, ie as a LENR reaction), but I'd like to try it...
I would call it "anomalous fusion" I think, or "anomalous transmutation" especially if we go to p+Ni reactions etc. Remember Iwamura's excellent transmutation research also, e.g., p + Cs --> Pr.
Note: Boron naturally occurs in two isotopes, 10B and 11B, the latter of which makes up about 80% of natural boron.
Cool IMHO.
Here are a few more shots, this time at 900C.
Shop lite on and shop lite off.
Pictures shown running in closed loop mode with a temperature controller and type "K" thermocouple.
At about 920 C the vitreous coating melted but it still was running so I backed it off to 900 C and took the pictures.
The ceramic mandrel remains intact with just a small coating of vitreous glaze. I'm sure sand or alumina powder in a container will pull some of the heat away from the outside in a gentle way and still allow running at high temperature.
I'm putting 220 Watts into a 20 Watt rated resistor and it is surviving. This can be vastly improved, but is a first rough cut to see what can be done with off the shelf components.
220 watts at 110 Volts is only 2 amps draw so this is easily controlled with a low power triac, also nicely in the range of the Kill A Watt meter for power logging.
Next I will make some alumina seals for the end caps and cement them in with the thermocouple (Type K ) and some sand.
Then I will be hungry for some fuel.
The 20 Watt 50 Ohm resistor is just about perfect, as the controller is running about 95% 0n time.
I also ran it in open loop mode from a Variac and it required about 110 volts for 900 C so 50 Ohms is nice for this heat range.
From PhysProf
QuoteA big engineering issue, is holding hydrogen gas INSIDE the reactor for weeks, when it is at 1400 C.
Can you or anyone see a way to do this? (They use an alumina vessel. I'm still surprised the gas does not permeate through and out... perhaps some does.)
Maybe as Mike noted earlier some Lithium Aluminum Hydride is also added to the mix to make the Hydrogen "on the fly" so no need to store it and ok if some leaks out as it is replenished.
It should not be necessary to run for weeks for proof of COP>1, a few hours should give us enough info, but a few days is also do able.
BTW, Thanks for the calculations.
Impressive work with your resistors, ION!
Quote from: ION on 2014.10.12, 20:26:33
From PhysProf
Maybe as Mike noted earlier some Lithium Aluminum Hydride is also added to the mix to make the Hydrogen "on the fly" so no need to store it and ok if some leaks out as it is replenished.
It should not be necessary to run for weeks for proof of COP>1, a few hours should give us enough info, but a few days is also do able.
BTW, Thanks for the calculations.
Lithium Aluminum Hydride call it lah, decomposes by around 200 C releasing hydrogen... So above that, one has to contain the gas. Hopefully your caps will do the job...
Test - Perhaps put a little water inside, say, let it turn to steam during "run". Then cool back down and see how much water is still in there?
I've got lah on order... seeking Ni powder. And some boron (what the heck?)
Shall we work together on this? how would you like to proceed? (ps - I'm in Missouri now...)
Heat measurement first, i think - but we should definitely look at p-Li and p-Ni (and p-B if we add boron) reactions after run, by looking at isotopes that might have reacted.
The resistor topped out at 970 C but showed no signs of destruction. On the next run, I will use a slightly higher line voltage or slightly lower value resistor to try to find the point of destruction.
That's the best you can get from a nominal 50 Ohm resistor run full tilt at 115 VAC (my line voltage). This was 250 Watts even and the Temperature controller was on full. Actual resistance was closer to 52.9 Ohms.
The resistors are dipped or painted with the glazing material, then fired in a high temperature kiln, so I suppose they can take about 1000 C for a short time.
I'm happy that the terminations on the ends held up just fine. They ran dark compared to the bright glow around the center.
I'm sure the resistor will have a slight positive temperature coefficient at these temperatures.
I want to get more experience and shoot for higher temperatures. Also I want to use sand or other loose refractory material in a vessel that I will immerse the resistor in.
I'm not ready to move on to the fueling just yet, need to refine the setup and include a strip chart recorder or data logger.
I'm happy to work with you, Steve, and all interested parties on this.
Great progress, ION! very good.
No rush on the set-up really, as it will take a while to get the ingredients together for the fuel...
which looks like "mainly"
lah - expensive, but worth it for the hydrogen we need in the vessel (much easier than messing with a hydrogen tank and valves!)
nickel - fine powder.
Then an appendix makes the non-quantitative comment -
"Sample 2 was the fuel used .. in the form of a very fine powder." -- OK, that seems important.
"Besides the analyzed elements [Ni, Li and Al] it has been found that the fuel also contains rather high concentrations of [here comes the dirty laundry list]
C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn and these are not found in the ash." -- Appendix 4
A bit of a red flag there perhaps... I'll try to reach the chemist involved if I can; and if he will respond...
Anyway, my thought is to KeepISS, just lah + Ni powders, at least at first.
If anyone has further solid information on the FUEL, pls let me know!
--Steve
I agree, starting with a simple mix then work our way into more exotic mixes.
I have an idea that will make testing even easier. Hallow rods of alumina that fit snugly into the heater body will make for a quick change fuel rod setup where different mixes can be inserted into the heater element and tested without having to disassemble the entire test set.
If we intend to go over 1000 C, we will need to create our own heater assemblies as I noticed some plasticity of the ceramic mandrel that the resistance wire is wound on at a temperature of 1082 C
Latest numbers for the stock 50 Ohm 20 Watt Ohmite resistor are:
Temperature = 1082 C
Power required=275.6 Watts
Voltage 118.6
Amperage 2.31
Photos attached
All should see my rationale outlined in the schematic I posted earlier. (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2647.msg42246#msg42246)
To recap, let's say we are running the system at 1000 C with an even 250 Watts power input and this setpoint is maintained by the temperature controller. As the system enters an exothermic state, the temperature controller will cut back power to some lower value as part of the heat comes from the exothermic reaction.
By observing the power in Watts drawn (on our Kill A WAtt meter) pre-exothermic compared to post-exothermic we will be able to easily compute the difference in Watts equivalent heat being generated by the fuel. The system will not enter any runaway that would occur with a fixed power input, as the temperature controller will try to maintain setpoint by reducing it's power contribution.
I believe this is the simplest method to determine anomalous heat output when the system requires an initiating preheat.
In future embodiments and should it be necessary, we can even add a cooling function to prevent gross overheating and still maintain our control setpoint.
I'm even thinking ahead and considering a design where electrodes are added to our fuel rods expressly for the purpose of introducing RF energy in the manner of Colman-Gillespie.
Excellent engineering and progress, ION - and thanks for the photos!
I think 1000 C is hot enough to see the effect (again, if it is real). Very exciting really.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2014.10.13, 13:57:30
Excellent engineering and progress, ION - and thanks for the photos!
I think 1000 C is hot enough to see the effect (again, if it is real). Very exciting really.
Thanks
Attached is the data sheet for the resistors, and I was surprised to see the derating curves go to 350 C. I'm sure there are better resistors available, possibly with higher temp ratings but I have not done the search yet. I used these because they were on hand.
The center hole is a nice even 0.25 " and length is 2.0". I think we can make the fuel rod inserts the full length of 2" and plug the insert ends internally with 0.5" or so of alumina cemented in place. This will leave an active area of 1.5" for fuel centered nicely in the hottest zone. We can also pressure load the plugs until the cement dries for a mildly compacted fuel.
When the test is complete, the sealed rods can be removed and shipped to university for analysis, preserving the material from contamination.
Dimensional information is also on the data sheet which is also available here:
http://www.alliedelec.com/search/productdetail.aspx?sku=70023771&mkwid=AuqGSRCC&pcrid=30980760979&gclid=CObPu83sqcECFWVp7Aod4VwAGQ
Good ideas again, ION.
For those pursuing the chemistry and physics with me here, pls join in reading an informative patent:
http://www.google.com/patents/US3948700
which discusses hydrogen formation from a (hot) thermitic reaction of AlH3 and Fe2O3.
I think that LAH will likewise undergo a hot thermitic reaction, but if anyone can find a patent or paper on LAH + Fe2O3 reactions I would appreciate it! The Lugano experiments involve lithium and are said to use LiAlH4 aka LAH.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US20110005506.pdf
https://www.google.com/patents/WO2012164323A2?cl=en
https://www.google.com/patents/WO2013170244A2?cl=en
https://www.google.com/patents/US8485791
http://books.google.ch/books?id=T4bjAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=powder+nikel+gerli+metalli&source=bl&ots=qeYeq7aBmc&sig=pLOnpCmYuzcXbUCG_uMo29Uhpt4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=h6o8VOe0OoHjywOCi4HICA&ved=0CDcQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=powder%20nikel%20gerli%20metalli&f=false
https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg43121.html
Quote from: wings on 2014.10.14, 04:34:51
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US20110005506.pdf
https://www.google.com/patents/WO2012164323A2?cl=en
https://www.google.com/patents/WO2013170244A2?cl=en
https://www.google.com/patents/US8485791
http://books.google.ch/books?id=T4bjAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=powder+nikel+gerli+metalli&source=bl&ots=qeYeq7aBmc&sig=pLOnpCmYuzcXbUCG_uMo29Uhpt4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=h6o8VOe0OoHjywOCi4HICA&ved=0CDcQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=powder%20nikel%20gerli%20metalli&f=false
https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg43121.html
http://shutdownrossi.com/e-cat-science/hanno-essen-admits-recent-test-of-e-cat-not-science/
Quote from: wings on 2014.10.14, 05:58:22
http://shutdownrossi.com/e-cat-science/hanno-essen-admits-recent-test-of-e-cat-not-science/
So I went to this site and read (at the bottom of this report you linked):
Quote
Gary Wright
June 3, 2013
It has a June 2013 date! so this does NOT specifically address the more recent 2014 tests at all.
Also, who is Gary Wright?
After a third read, I am having serious doubts about the validity of the Lugano report test methods, data gathering and conclusions regarding the Rossi E-CAT supposedly yielding COP>3.
Here are some of the key points of concern:
1) A COP > 3 should have allowed the input power to be reduced to near zero or at least a third of what it was and still maintain the 1400C, this is not the case, and even with the supposed COP>3, the temperature does not soar way beyond the 1400C provided by the 900 Watts input. Remember they are controlling input current , therefore power, and allowing final temperature to stabilize where it will .
2)We see that input power of 810 Watts produced 1260 C. Then power was then set to 900 Watts and temperature went to 1400 C. From this they observed by imaging and concluded that an extra 700 Watts were being released. But the input power and stabilized temperatures are not unreasonable for the extra 90 Watts increase in power input. A plot of the dummy device (input power vs. stabilized temperature) up to 1400C would have been a good comparison, but was not done.
3) The dummy test / calibration of imaging cameras was done at a much lower temperature, then assumed to be correct for the higher temperature. There was no comparison with a dummy test run at 1400 C. Where is the equivalent to table 7 using the dummy test?
4)Wattages are calculated based on imaging from various parts of the device, then the numbers are added together to get Wattages in excess of 2300. This, to me, is just wrong and the reason they were able to get the high COP numbers. Splitting the test chamber into all those zones, imaging and calculating convection and radiation losses for each zone in an attempt to derive wattage per zone is possibly introducing large errors. (see point 6)
5) The use of three phase power, 100 Amps at 7 to 9 volts (4 to 5 volts per phase) is just an overly complicated and lossy way to get 700 to 900 watts of input power into the target area, when they could have used thinner Inconel heating wire, with a higher resistance on a single phase setup operating directly off the line without the need for step down transformers etc. Their method creates a lot of heating in the wires and connections well beyond the target area because of the high amperes drawn, creates glowing wires well outside the target area, and allows for more imaging, tallying and possible obfuscation.
6) Stabilizing the system by controlling current input is the wrong approach, they should have been controlling final temperature, then they could have easily seen if there was excess heat by observing a drop in input power with fuel vs. without fuel as I have suggested. No need for thermal imaging and adding up of supposed wattages along various zones and parts of the device including leadwires. All the parts of the system have a variable loss to the environment based on temperature, the proof of the pudding is that it will require a certain input power to supply all those losses and maintain the core at the target temperature. A sudden drop of input power while maintaining target temperature would be proof positive of extra heat supplied by the fuel. This can be easily graphed against a dummy run under the same temperature target conditions.
I am open to comments and criticism of my observations, but I would have performed the test in a far more simple and straightforward manner as I outlined earlier.
I would like to believe the burning of metals in a nuclear manner with some energy release is possible, but the Lugano report is to me unconvincing proof.
Insightful analysis, ION.
QuoteA sudden drop of input power while maintaining target temperature would be proof positive of extra heat supplied by the fuel. This can be easily graphed against a dummy run under the same temperature target conditions.
I am open to comments and criticism of my observations, but I would have performed the test in a far more simple and straightforward manner as I outlined earlier.
I agree. The power measurement needs to be done better! and frankly, you are the man to do it IMO -- with your background and expertise.
What strikes me, is the isotopic shifts in Lithium and in Nickel. These are hard to explain without some sort of nuclear reactions going on (LENR). Iwamura independently sees similar effects (but he does not claim xs anomalous heat), Cesium + d --> Pr. This reaction will release heat, but the rate is very low in the Iwamura experiments - which have been replicated and peer-review published BTW.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2014.10.14, 17:16:06
Insightful analysis, ION.
I agree. The power measurement needs to be done better! and frankly, you are the man to do it IMO -- with your background and expertise.
What strikes me, is the isotopic shifts in Lithium and in Nickel. These are hard to explain without some sort of nuclear reactions going on (LENR). Iwamura independently sees similar effects (but he does not claim xs anomalous heat), Cesium + d --> Pr. This reaction will release heat, but the rate is very low in the Iwamura experiments - which have been replicated and peer-review published BTW.
I'm not disputing any of the nuclear effects as they are out of my area of expertise, only the thermal test procedure.
I'm very hopeful that we can get some positive effects in the thermal area with a better test procedure.
Again, I agree.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2014.10.14, 13:05:49
So I went to this site and read (at the bottom of this report you linked):
It has a June 2013 date! so this does NOT specifically address the more recent 2014 tests at all.
Also, who is Gary Wright?
posted only for the device picture
OK, thanks Wings.
In order to replicate / move forward, I'm looking for sources for
1 Lithium Aluminum Hydride
2 Lithium Boron Hydride
3 Nickel powder
and
4 Lithium hydride
Any ideas? e.g., what form of lithium is in a lithium battery?
Announcement of d-t fusion device being developed at Lockheed... pls add any additional sources you find...
This from Yahoo news:
QuoteLockheed says makes breakthrough on fusion energy project
Reuters By Andrea Shalal
3 hours ago
By Andrea Shalal
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Lockheed Martin Corp said on Wednesday it had made a technological breakthrough in developing a power source based on nuclear fusion, and the first reactors, small enough to fit on the back of a truck, could be ready for use in a decade.
Tom McGuire, who heads the project, said he and a small team had been working on fusion energy at Lockheed's secretive Skunk Works for about four years, but were now going public to find potential partners in industry and government for their work.
Initial work demonstrated the feasibility of building a 100-megawatt reactor measuring seven feet by 10 feet, which could fit on the back of a large truck, and is about 10 times smaller than current reactors, McGuire told reporters.
In a statement, the company, the Pentagon's largest supplier, said it would build and test a compact fusion reactor in less than a year, and build a prototype in five years.
In recent years, Lockheed has gotten increasingly involved in a variety of alternate energy projects, including several ocean energy projects, as it looks to offset a decline in U.S. and European military spending.
View galleryChief Executive Officer of Lockheed Martin Corp Hewson …
Chief Executive Officer of Lockheed Martin Corp Marillyn Hewson speaks to journalists at a news conf ...
Lockheed's work on fusion energy could help in developing new power sources amid increasing global conflicts over energy, and as projections show there will be a 40 percent to 50 percent increase in energy use over the next generation, McGuire said.
If it proves feasible, Lockheed's work would mark a key breakthrough in a field that scientists have long eyed as promising, but which has not yet yielded viable power systems. The effort seeks to harness the energy released during nuclear fusion, when atoms combine into more stable forms.
"We can make a big difference on the energy front," McGuire said, noting Lockheed's 60 years of research on nuclear fusion as a potential energy source that is safer and more efficient than current reactors based on nuclear fission.
Lockheed sees the project as part of a comprehensive approach to solving global energy and climate change problems.
Compact nuclear fusion would produce far less waste than coal-powered plants since it would use deuterium-tritium fuel, which can generate nearly 10 million times more energy than the same amount of fossil fuels, the company said.
Ultra-dense deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen, is found in the earth's oceans, and tritium is made from natural lithium deposits.
It said future reactors could use a different fuel and eliminate radioactive waste completely.
McGuire said the company had several patents pending for the work and was looking for partners in academia, industry and among government laboratories to advance the work.
Lockheed said it had shown it could complete a design, build and test it in as little as a year, which should produce an operational reactor in 10 years, McGuire said. A small reactor could power a U.S. Navy warship, and eliminate the need for other fuel sources that pose logistical challenges.
U.S. submarines and aircraft carriers run on nuclear power, but they have large fission reactors on board that have to be replaced on a regular cycle.
"What makes our project really interesting and feasible is that timeline as a potential solution," McGuire said.
By saying its 10 years out, they should avoid flack I think...
Clearly, HOT fusion.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2014.10.14, 20:32:16
OK, thanks Wings.
In order to replicate / move forward, I'm looking for sources for
1 Lithium Aluminum Hydride
2 Lithium Boron Hydride
3 Nickel powder
and
4 Lithium hydride
Any ideas? e.g., what form of lithium is in a lithium battery?
3) Nickel powder only :(
http://www.made-in-china.com/showroom/copper-nano-powder/product-detailhBQmkSXEatVI/China-Ultrafine-Nickel-Powder.html
https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg43121.html
"in the Rossi ECAT and it seems more in keeping with what is listed in the patent as: Powder nickel: Gerli Metalli--Milan Italy"
The ECAT should be be a Piantelli patent spin of see more precise cold fusion with nickel powder effect:
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/commerce/patents/Piantelli-2013-EP2368252B1.pdf
.....................
Long story in Italy _ Cold fusion start with Giuliano Preparata and Emilio Del Giudice with god results:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_sHXk2ixbc
Giuliano Preparata his reference here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuliano_Preparata
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/views/Group1/Preparata.shtml
http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Scientists&tab1=Scientists&tab2=Display&id=1555
Emilio del Giudice explain the hydrogen loading into palladium and that the cold fusion is opposed and dangerous used for military technology in micro atomic bomb:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38te4Ls6DQM
loading process and cold fusion http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Antonella_Ninno/publication/232805893_COHERENT_NUCLEAR_REACTIONS_IN_CONDENSED_MATTER/links/0fcfd5097933183ebf000000.
regarding Preparata_Del Giudice on CF
Steven, you might try here for lithium aluminium hydride, also have other chemicals
http://ushitechs.fm.alibaba.com/company_profile/r_d_capacity.html
Tel:- 1-203-6614040 Mr. Robert Lee
They are in Arizona and might supply a sample for R&D as you only need a few grams which could be sent through the post
regards
Mike 8)
I think you would have to charge the lithium with electrolytic hydrogen, and I don't think that is a problem as with 3bar of pressure (mains water supply pressure) using a simple electrolysis setup at 20c it will absorb the hydrogen.
I believe when heated above 80c the hydrogen will be given off as monatomic H1 turning to H2 in the usual 350msec, but at 1000c it will remain as H1 in the reactor and so start the proton exchange, if I have it right :-\
anyway that is your expertise and not mine ^-^ just thinking aloud on the last part
best regards
Mike 8)
Doing my usual investigation ;D I have come up with what might be a better bet
Lithium Triethylborohydride
The structure of LiTEBH causes the compound to be a very strong hydride source. Hydrogen is more electronegative than boron which causes the B-H bond to be strongly polarized with boron having a partial positive charge and hydrogen having a partial negative charge. The ethyl groups on the boron also aids to this abnormal polarizability by removing additional electron density from the boron making it even more electropositive. This polarization of the B-Et and B-H bonds causes the hydrogen to be in the (-I) oxidation state instead of its usual (+I) oxidation state which leads to its high reactivity with atoms that can accept electrons to allow the hydrogen to go to its (+I) oxidation state. O0
regards
Mike 8)
Lithium triethylborohydride (LiEt3BH), commonly abbreviated to LiTEBH or Superhydride, is a powerful and selective reducing agent used in inorganic and organic chemistry. LiTEBH is far more powerful than lithium borohydride and more powerful than lithium aluminium hydride (LAH) in many cases. One of the main advantages of LiTEBH is that it is safer than LAH.
Good sleuthing, Mike!
O0
QuoteLiTEBH is far more powerful than lithium borohydride and more powerful than lithium aluminium hydride (LAH) in many cases. One of the main advantages of LiTEBH is that it is safer than LAH.
I'm checking into it!
Steve
ION and all
There still seems to be a frequency relation to how this works, especially when in self run mode "no input power", it is the way the reaction is controlled.
Here is a quote:-
These were fed electricity by a TRIAC power regulator which "interrupted each phase periodically, in order to modulate power input with an industrial trade secret waveform." This procedure was needed to activate the E-Cat charge and did not affect the power consumption of the device which remained constant throughout the test.
Note says each phase and not the phases, that I read into each phase has it's own modulation, maybe frequency, certainly special wave form as stated.
This has been stated in various places about frequency and waveform "secret".
regards
Mike 8)
Quotemodulate power input with an industrial trade secret waveform.
????
What is known about triac triggering:
For a Triac regulator powered from the 50 or 60 Hertz line there are only two firing modes possible, since the Triac is somewhat similar to an inverse parallel SCR i.e. once triggered it normally remains on for the remainder of the cycle.
The two industrial standard modes that I know of are:
Zero Voltage Switched: The device is triggered on at the very beginning of the AC cycle and the number of on to off cycles are controlled to modulate power. This reduces EMI but does not have the resolution of control that phase angle firing has unless long duty cycles are used. Long duty cycles would be unsuitable for the E-CAT as it would produce visible modulations in heat output.
Phase Angle Fired: The phase angle or firing point from zero to 180 degrees is controlled for each half cycle, then the triac remains on for the remainder of the cycle. This is the type used in the lowly wall mounted lamp dimmer. It has greater resolution but produces large amounts of EMI. This mode is more likely to have been used with the E-CAT.
There is a possibility to use a blend of the two modes for greater control resolution and low EMI.
Under certain conditions it is possible to commutate a triac to the off state after it has been turned on leading to more complex modes.
There are further complex modes using FET's or IGBT's such as inverse phase angle or peak spread or it's inverse.
Most of the complex modes are well known to designers of industrial power control circuitry, there are very few secrets here using Triacs.
If there is some secret heater driving mode to the E-CAT in addition to fuel type, the project becomes exceedingly more difficult sans harmonic signatures.
Regardless of the control mode, they all produce harmonic signatures.
Input and output power was measured using devices that also recorded harmonics, so the info should be available from the signatures, in which case it is no longer secret, and we can reverse engineer the control mode from the harmonic signatures.
From the clumsy and in my opinion very poor lab test setups, I have doubts that Rossi himself is capable of designing such complex control circuitry.
Yes I find it strange, but there you are, it was put in writing as so and I'm only quoting. ???
I used to control a 12kw water heating system using triacs switching 3kw at a time "3kw heaters X4" but as you say that was hard on and hard off, not like using mosfets at high frequencies switching DC.
It was also stated that DC would not start the reaction, so there has to be something in AC that triggers the reaction.
Just thinking allowed here ION, nothing else, you are the expert on the possibilities O0 just reading into what has been stated as an important part of starting and controlling the reaction :-\
regards
Mike 8)
Re: Rossi and hydrogen + metal fusion/transmutation (whatever you want to call it) - we should recognize that light-hydrogen H + metal M experiments have been going on long before Rossi.
Iwamura in Japan comes to mind, dating to 1990's IIRC -- and BYU experiments dating to 1986 began with H2O and copper.
Does anyone know of a thorough time-line history of light-hydrogen H + metal M experiments ??
Total up to 2006 O0
regards
Mike 8)
MIT :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMx1mpcokBk
"Last week Jan 27-31, 2014 I attended the Cold Fusion IAP course at MIT, and filmed the lectures for ColdFusionNow.org I highly recommend viewing those lectures for anyone who would like dense scientific information on Cold Fusion."
Thanks, guys!
I'm particularly enjoying Srini's well-referenced history. Very helpful, thanks Mike. O0
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2014.10.20, 21:41:33
Thanks, guys!
I'm particularly enjoying Srini's well-referenced history. Very helpful, thanks Mike. O0
You can also find a general history of LENR we posted here http://chavascience.com/index.php/en/hydrogen/lenr-anomalous-heat
cheers.
Mark.
Quote from: Mark Snoswell on 2014.10.20, 21:46:56
You can also find a general history of LENR we posted here http://chavascience.com/index.php/en/hydrogen/lenr-anomalous-heat
cheers.
Mark.
Excellent, thank you, Mark.
O0
Based on your study of the history, can you tell me who was the FIRST to claim significant results using LIGHT water or H2?
I recall that for P&F replicators, H2O was the "control". That persists today at SKINR (Univ of Missouri) and in Italian D2O expts, etc.
But I mean -- who was the first to claim anomalous heat OR LENR effects when H2 (not D2) was involved?
Yoshiaki Arata, from Osaka University, who claimed in a demonstration to produce excess heat when deuterium gas was introduced into a cell containing a mixture of Nickel palladium and zirconium
Zirconium and water Advantage or Disadvantage?
One disadvantage of zirconium alloys is their reactivity toward water at high temperatures leading to the formation of hydrogen gas and to the accelerated degradation of the fuel rod cladding:
Zr + 2 H2O → ZrO2 + 2 H2
This exothermic reaction is very slow below 100 °C, but at temperature above 900 °C the reaction is rapid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PS2v1kN1U8&list=UUH78efhknLR-cuL9w2hVcUQ
in the video MANELAS DEVICE
Another insightful review, updated in 2012:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEastudentsg.pdf
Wings
as always very helpful
On your link for the "MANELAS device"
"snip"
Manelas Device has been producing 60
watts For the past 20 months.
----------------------
thx
Chet
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2014.10.21, 01:58:06
Another insightful review, updated in 2012:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEastudentsg.pdf
Thanks Steven, also I found the possible explanations interesting, it is a pity I am a long way from you and the possible labs you may have access to, I think I have found a way of instigating the reaction and controlling it.
The two pdf's have given me insight as to the workings or possible workings in relation to the work I have done, I would need to have analysis on site of which I do not have.
I find the change of hydrogen to deuterium and then tritium
idea explains a few things at this end, also exotic metals are not needed, common metals can be used and alloys might just be better.
Loading of hydrogen into the electrode (metal) by a recoil method where possibly two hydrogens hit one another at the metal surface creating deuterium and secondary reactions is a big possibility. O0
regards
Mike 8)
A Student's Guide to Cold Fusion
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2012/2012Storms-Students-Guide.pdf
Quote from: wings on 2014.10.21, 20:05:48
A Student's Guide to Cold Fusion
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2012/2012Storms-Students-Guide.pdf
Note: same as my reply #70 above... we're thinking along same lines!
There are earlier reviews (as noted above), but this seems to be the most recent review- updated in 2012.
Quote from: Chet K on 2014.10.21, 14:03:47
Wings
as always very helpful
On your link for the "MANELAS device"
"snip"
Manelas Device has been producing 60
watts For the past 20 months.
----------------------
thx
Chet
find in http://www.hyiq.org/Updates/Update?Name=Update%2027-05-14
see the power of iron under cavitation_vibration_ferroresonance:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IZ34Wwa-AE&list=UUDHlZnJd2lQOq8vsxdFmxJQ#t=834
Thanks, Mike and Wings.
I particularly enjoyed your 2nd video, Wings, regarding sonoluminescence (something I researched also years ago).
I found an explanation why the palladium in the CF. Between the metals it is what captures the hydrogen more easily.
Before the discovery of cold fusion was used as a catalyst in systems with batteries to reduce the emission of hydrogen as explained in the following document see the last pictures HYDROGEN GAS MANAGEMENT FOR FLOODED LEAD ACID BATTERIES .
http://www.battcon.com/PapersFinal2008/ODonnellPaper2008PROOF_6.pdf
http://www.bater.pl/langs/bater.pl/en/recombination-plug.html
This also explains some FE experiments with HHO and catalytic converters.
http://www.overunity.com/14202/small-amount-of-hho-gas-into-automotive-catalytic-converter-yields-ou-heat/msg383128/#msg383128
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-UUnHq0gjU&list=UUi3fFZN1pwHTyM8H_nSxerg
some Nickel chemistry in:
Making Economical,Green, High-Energy Nickel-Manganese (NiMn) Batteries
http://www.saers.com/recorder/craig/TurquoiseEnergy/BatteryMaking/BatteryMaking.html
Stmicroelectronics _ Reactor for energy generation through low energy nuclear reactions (lenr) between hydrogen and transition metals and related method of energy generation:
http://www.google.com/patents/US20130243143
Lockheed will have truck size by 2017 fusion reactor using hydrogen
http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2014/10/15/lockheed-martin-claims-fusion-breakthrough-that-could-change-world-forever/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlYClniDFkM
We have to get working faster guy's :D
regards
Mike 8)
More on this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-ln8xiEVB8
regards
Mike 8)
Seems they are using two super conducting magnets to create a plasma between them, and I presume the gases in between under compression of the field. I'm sure there must be an easier way to do that ;D
regards
Mike 8)
Quote from: Centraflow on 2014.10.24, 15:12:47
Lockheed will have truck size by 2017 fusion reactor using hydrogen
http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2014/10/15/lockheed-martin-claims-fusion-breakthrough-that-could-change-world-forever/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlYClniDFkM
We have to get working faster guy's :D
regards
Mike 8)
this seems to me the other side of the moon nuclear fusion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWWTegfPO6g
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/531836/does-lockheed-martin-really-have-a-breakthrough-fusion-machine/
regards
Mike 8)
@ physicsprof
I found this as an answer to your lithium question O0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BliWUHSOalU
regards
Mike 8)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FilflaqbVI#t=3015
enjoy
regards
Mike 8)
thanks Mike 8)
this document shows possible catalyst
http://ecatbuilder.com/catalyst
The controller is here
http://ccipower.com/product-selector
UF3HX6DYBE-50-P2R00
regards
Mike 8)
Quote from: Centraflow on 2014.10.26, 10:19:44
The controller is here
http://ccipower.com/product-selector
UF3HX6DYBE-50-P2R00
regards
Mike 8)
Those are garden variety SCR controllers (Control Concepts was one of our competitors) that use the names "fusion" and "microfusion" as part of their advertising trade names.
There are many suppliers of SCR power controls out there, but these are not necessarily needed. I designed similar controls as part of my employment in the past.
Shortly, I will be providing information on a simple foolproof test method that anyone can put together to test the validity yay or nay of the ECAT claims. It does not use calorimetry, instead it uses a simple null balance against a control standard to determine excess heat. It will be accurate, robust and repeatable.Regards ION
Quote from: ION on 2014.10.26, 15:55:18
Those are garden variety SCR controllers (Control Concepts was one of our competitors) that use the names "fusion" and "microfusion" as part of their advertising trade names.
There are many suppliers of SCR power controls out there, but these are not necessarily needed. I designed similar controls as part of my employment in the past.
Shortly, I will be providing information on a simple foolproof test method that anyone can put together to test the validity yay or nay of the ECAT claims. It does not use calorimetry, instead it uses a simple null balance against a control standard to determine excess heat. It will be accurate, robust and repeatable.
Regards ION
I am told that it is the one used in that test, and if you look at the photo's you can see it I think on the table next to a lap top PC.
Has a PWM via USB interface, I really do not know how it works, just quoting what I have been told by PM and passing it on O0
regards
Mike 8)
Haven't forgotten about the LENR experiments - far from it. I've been gathering ingredients for the half-disclosed "recipe" of these experiments. We gain clues from what the scientists analyzed for, isotopes of lithium, nickel, aluminum, and we know that hydrogen is very important and was released when LAH was heated in their "reactor."
TODAY, I finally rec'd shipments of LAH and Ni powders - the lah was particularly hard to get.
Thinking back to the Iwamura transmutation expts involving deuterium, I also obtained a small amount of LAD, where D replaces H.
Hurray!
Quote from: ION on 2014.10.12, 15:06:06
May I propose a simple setup the home experimenter can attempt for under $100 USD?
In the method shown, a Kill-A-Watt meter logs and tallies the input power, and a temperature controller maintains the target setpoint.
The reactor vessel is a Ohmite or equivalent power resistor, the ohmic value of which is chosen such that it can reach the target temperature without fuel.
First run is with no fuel or sand dummy fuel inserted into the hallow core of the resistor. One ends can be plugged with a small bit of ceramic cement, and the thermocouple can be cemented into the core.
The other end has a removable plug of ceramic material.
No calorimetry needed here as the total power to maintain target temperature is logged.
With fuel in the core, the Kill-A-Watt meter should log 1/3 or less power required to maintain target temperature if indeed there is a heat reaction with a COP > 3.
The test can be run for example 1, 2, 5 or 10 hours in each case, whatever is desired.
The resistor may not last forever but it should last the length of the test or longer. If not, I have lots of alumina tubing and Nichrome wire on hand and can wind a resistor core.
For heat sinking of the resistor I propose the resistor assembly be placed in a small vessel and covered with sand. This will gently transport the heat to a larger surface area of the vessel through the thermal resistance of the sand. The vessel will have a fixed loss to ambient and if ambient does not change much, it should give good data.
The real problem is determining the actual magic mix of fuel used in the E-CAT.
Mike: I find it odd that they used such high current low voltage, when they could have wound the heater with finer wire and operated at mains potential. My only guess is that they did not want to deal with heater change of resistance due to excessive oxidation. This problem is eliminated with my proposed setup.
Prof Alexander Parkhomov of Lomonosov Moscow State University has published a paper describing his successful replication of the E-Cat, based on the available information about it.
Wings, Thanks for the English translation.
I have run tests with tandem heaters, one with fuel, one with a dummy load and tracked them to 1 Deg C with no evidence of extra heat in the fueled heater assembly.
I am told the containers must be sealed to allow H pressure to build. I'll save that one for outdoors when the weather warms and I can build a bunker for the test.
I think this pertains as it is updated info on the same subject.
http://www.cobraf.com/forum/immagini/R_123581963_3.pdf
The link is to a document describing why an application for patent has failed. Interesting enough it spells out much the same technical points we already brought up.