Test in Progress Using Fuel Recipe of E-Cat Patent (Brian Albiston)

The following post has been shared by Brian Albiston

Test in progress:

https://plot.ly/~fear_nuts/590/temperature-power-pressure/
https://plot.ly/~fear_nuts/593/calorimeter-mass-energy-cop/

I will be holding at 500C for several hours wating for the water to boil. That is the annoying thing about heat of vaporization calorimetry, you don’t get any measurements until the water boils.
Here are the details:

0.5g INCO 255 Nickel, baked
0.3g LiAlH4
0.2g Passivated Li Powder, APS 80-100 nm, 99.9% Purity

I thorougly ground the Ni and LiAlH4 together using a mortar and pestle. I then added the Li powder and lightly ground and mixed using the mortar and pestle. All of the powders were mixed in my Redneck glove box which was continuously purged with Argon.

Powders were then loaded into a 5/16″ OD, 316 stainless thermocouple protection tube. The open end of the tube was plugged with alumina wool. The tube was then dropped into 18″ long alumina outer tube. The alumina tube was evacuated before the start of the test.

Let’s cross our fingers. We may have the right ingredients now, but there still are a lot of unknowns, i.e. nickel type, pressure profile, em stimulation, etc.

  • Jarea

    I keep the finger crossed. Good luck!

  • Jarea

    I keep the finger crossed. Good luck!

  • Mats002

    This experiment started on the day one year ago from the Lugano report release.
    I hope this is a good sign – good luck Brian!

  • Mats002

    This experiment started on the day one year ago from the Lugano report release.
    I hope this is a good sign – good luck Brian!

  • Alain Samoun

    Brian: Can we ask you where you have ordered the Passivated Li Powder?

    • Wishful Thinking Energy

      Nanoshell in India. http://www.nanoshel.com/

      • Ecco

        Any specific reason why you opted for passivated nano-powder instead of standard micron/sub-mm lithium powder?

        • Wishful Thinking Energy

          Ecco, standard Li powder is very tricky to work with. It is pyrophoric and must be stored under Argon at all times for safety. The passivated powder is much more forgiving.

        • Wishful Thinking Energy

          I’ve also had difficulty finding a supplier for any lithium powder. Most suppliers won’t work with you unless you are a university or an institution.

          • Ecco

            Nano lithium powder seems expensive stuff to melt. That’s what I was mainly referring about. Coarser powder might have been fine anyway.

          • Wishful Thinking Energy

            It is very expensive, but so far it is the only supplier I’ve found that is willing to work with me. I currently searching for other suppliers of less expensive powder.

          • Ecco

            Extracting Li from a lithium battery and subdividing the lithium foil into small pieces in an inert atmosphere could be an inexpensive idea, although you would need some practice first – that’s what Parkhomov also apparently did.

          • Sanjeev

            What is the role of Energy 2 Society here ?
            Perhaps Frank can answer better.

      • Alain Samoun

        Can’t find it there…

  • Alain Samoun

    Brian: Can we ask you where you have ordered the Passivated Li Powder?

    • Wishful Thinking Energy

      Nanoshell in India. http://www.nanoshel.com/

      • Ecco

        Is there any specific reason why you opted for passivated nano-powder instead of standard micro/sub-mm lithium powder?

        • Wishful Thinking Energy

          Ecco, standard Li powder is very tricky to work with. It is pyrophoric and must be stored under Argon at all times for safety. The passivated powder is much more forgiving.

        • Wishful Thinking Energy

          I’ve also had difficulty finding a supplier for any lithium powder. Most suppliers won’t work with you unless you are a university or an institution.

          • Ecco

            Nano lithium powder seems expensive stuff to melt. That’s what I was mainly referring about. Coarser powder might have been fine anyway.

          • Wishful Thinking Energy

            It is very expensive, but so far it is the only supplier I’ve found that is willing to work with me. I currently searching for other suppliers of less expensive powder.

          • Ecco

            Extracting Li from a lithium battery and subdividing the lithium foil into small pieces in an inert atmosphere could be an inexpensive idea, although you would need some practice first – that’s what Parkhomov also apparently did.

      • Alain Samoun

        Can’t find it there…

  • Mats002

    Temp dropping without visible reason, any idea why?

    • Wishful Thinking Energy

      It’s on purpose. I’m letting it run through the Li -H absorption temperature region one more time to see if the pressure will drop further.

      • Mats002

        Power in did not decrease during that drop, neither did the water (gram I suppose) increase, how did you do it?

        • Wishful Thinking Energy

          If you are looking at the average power, I calculate it over each 500g boil off period. It probably didn’t change much because it is being averaged since the last calorimeter fill up.
          The calorimeter mass only increases each time the pump fills it up, which occurs automatically when it reaches 7000g. I don’t measure the flow rate into the calorimeter. I measure the Watt-hours since the last fill up and compare that with the mass lost.

          • Mats002

            Thanks – I warried something went wrong there 🙂

  • Mats002

    Temp dropping without visible cause, any idea why?

    • Wishful Thinking Energy

      It’s on purpose. I’m letting it run through the Li -H absorption temperature region one more time to see if the pressure will drop further.

      • Mats002

        Power In (average) did not decrease during that drop, neither did the water (gram I suppose) increase, how did you do it?

        Edit: looking closer on average Power In it looks like you hold it steady and that – because of the chilling effect of running water – made the temp drop?

        • Wishful Thinking Energy

          If you are looking at the average power, I calculate it over each 500g boil off period. It probably didn’t change much because it is being averaged since the last calorimeter fill up.
          The calorimeter mass only increases each time the pump fills it up, which occurs automatically when it reaches 7000g. I don’t measure the flow rate into the calorimeter. I measure the Watt-hours since the last fill up and compare that with the mass lost.

          • Mats002

            Thanks – I warried something went wrong there 🙂

  • Mats002

    Freethinker also had the goal to lower pressure by Li-H formation in his september 9 run, but he seeked for that at much lower temps, at 190 – 250 C using Ni, Li, LAH and Al2O3, see
    http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/1872-Freethinker-s-replication-attempts/?pageNo=11

    Depends on where TC is placed and other differences in the setup of course, but I wonder why you choosed temps at such different temp windows?

  • Mats002

    Freethinker also had the goal to lower pressure by Li-H formation in his september 9 run, but he seeked for that at much lower temps, at 190 – 250 C using Ni, Li, LAH and Al2O3, see
    http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/1872-Freethinker-s-replication-attempts/?pageNo=11

    Depends on where TC is placed and other differences in the setup of course, but I wonder why you choosed different temp window?

    Edit: Freethinker was very successful in the pressure drop.

  • Ged

    Good luck Brian! Hopefully the extra lithium won’t destroy the alumina reactor body as seemed to happen to two other recent attempts. Shall be interesting!

    • Mats002

      Hi Ged, we are hooked again 😉

    • Mats002

      Second thought: I re-read the whole thread of Freethinkers experiment – was the steep pressure drop because of a breach? Me356 said he also had a pressure drop but later on they discuss breach because of Li corrosion?

  • Ged

    Good luck Brian! Hopefully the extra lithium won’t destroy the alumina reactor body as seemed to happen to two other recent attempts. Shall be interesting!

    • Mats002

      Hi Ged, we are hooked again 😉

    • Mats002

      Second thought: I re-read the whole thread of Freethinkers experiment – was the steep pressure drop because of a breach? Me356 said he also had a pressure drop but later on they discuss breach because of Li corrosion?

      Edit:
      Freethinker wrote “Analysis of the reactor, which suddenly lost pressure indication, after an unprecedented period of unknown and very low pressure, show that the reactor Alumina tube likely was compromised by molten Li. The pressure transducer has been verified, and seem to work fine.”

      This statement indicate that first the pressure dropped, later on the breach happened or the cause of pressure drop was the breach?

  • Mats002

    Brian, can you please describe ‘Ideal COP’ and ‘Env loss COP’ because the curves seams to get closer to each other and what is your understanding of that development?

    • Wishful Thinking Energy

      Ideal COP is strict energy in to mass of water boiled away not accounting for any system losses.
      Env loss COP includes a 33W constant heat loss from the calorimeter to the environment. It is constant because the calorimeter is always at 100C. This was determined from calibration.
      The curves get closer as more power is added because the environmental loss becomes proportionately smaller compared with the input.

  • Mats002

    Brian, can you please describe ‘Ideal COP’ and ‘Env loss COP’ because the curves seams to get closer to each other and what is your understanding of that development?

    • Wishful Thinking Energy

      Ideal COP is strict energy in to mass of water boiled away not accounting for any system losses.
      Env loss COP includes a 33W constant heat loss from the calorimeter to the environment. It is constant because the calorimeter is always at 100C. This was determined from calibration.
      The curves get closer as more power is added because the environmental loss becomes proportionately smaller compared with the input.

      • Eric Walker

        Just to double check — did you measure the loss of energy to the environment over a range of power levels during calibration and determine that the loss is constant? I would have figured it would vary with radiative and conductive pathways.

  • Ged

    Not much of any pressure drop. Wonder why. Possible water infiltration is keeping the pressure up?

  • Ged

    Not much of any pressure drop. Wonder why. Possible water infiltration is keeping the pressure up?

  • nietsnie

    I’d like to congratulate Wishful Thinking on his terrific graphs.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Yes – really brilliant and meaningful!

    • Sanjeev
    • theBuckWheat

      Using a Redneck glove box? Which model? The Acme glove box is far better.

      • bfast

        Like, what the heck is a “Redneck glove box” anyway?

        • Obvious

          If remember correctly, it was made with a large picnic cooler as the main body, and modified from there.

          • Wishful Thinking Energy

            Good memory Obvious.

          • Obvious

            It was an ingenious re-purposing, deserving of some sort of DIY award.
            Elegant in its simplicity, and yet meeting the function totally.
            The very embodiment of function before fashion.
            I thought it was wonderful.

  • nietsnie

    I’d like to congratulate Wishful Thinking on his terrific graphs.

  • Sanjeev

    Great ! Finally calorimetry is here. No more wild guessing.
    COP seems to be below 1 so far.

    • Sanjeev

      We are back to 130W but strangely the EL-COP is now 1 instead of 0.8, which is the value corresponding to the same power previously.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Also – the average temp has been going up whilst the average power has been going down.

        • Ged

          It was a surprisingly clear temp increase over time while power went down. Interesting. Seems we need a long time period to evaluate.

          • Mats002

            Yes, is the patent fuel mix intended for the LT Cat? If so the temp window for XH is much lower than the HotCat.

          • Ged

            Maybe so! We assume hotter is better, but likely there is a window.

          • Sanjeev

            About 65C increase with almost no change in power (if you consider time from 22:45 to 05:45 only). Its slow, but clearly some anomaly. Also there was power cut off for 3 minutes, and the temperature or pressure did not respond to it at all.
            Capture attached.

          • Ged

            Didn’t notice that 3 minute cut off, that is way more impressive than expected.

          • Sanjeev

            Almost like a mini HAD…

          • Ged

            Exactly ;).

            Really think we need a lot more time to let this sit and watch it develop, but that seems true for most of these experiments. Slow and steady instead of fast and bursty… wonder what features are controlling that.

          • Sanjeev

            But its not responding to the power cuts in other places also. That’s strange, can be a data related issue. Is WTE here to comment ?

          • Ged

            Could be thermal time constants (unlikely given how fast it responds elsewhere to small changes, but still possible), or indeed, could be a data logger dropout.

          • Ged

            Still, that doesn’t change that the power came back lower than before the cut off, yet temps continued to rise. However, we do need to know for sure it isn’t some weird artifact of the data logging.

          • Sanjeev

            Agree. I’ll just ignore the power cut off area for now.

          • Ged

            Watching the data longer, it looks like the power dropout happens whenever there is a water re-fill.

  • Sanjeev

    Great ! Finally calorimetry is here. No more wild guessing.
    COP seems to be below 1 so far.

    • Sanjeev

      We are back to 130W but strangely the EL-COP is now 1 instead of 0.8, which is the value corresponding to the same power previously.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Also – the average temp has been going up whilst the average power has been going down.

        • Ged

          It was a surprisingly clear temp increase over time while power went down. Interesting. Seems we need a long (steady?) time period to evaluate.

          • Mats002

            Yes, is the patent fuel mix intended for the LT Cat? If so the temp window for XH is much lower than the HotCat. But remember that average power is not real time, see Brians post below about how it is calculated. I guess holding power steady as you propose is needed to know.

          • Ged

            Maybe so! We assume hotter is better, but likely there is a window.

            Edit: There was that talk a few threads back about one theory of LENR being most effective at the transition point of Li into liquid. Maybe that is the case for the low temp fuel version, and thus around 600/700 C external is the right window here. Hard to say, but seems 550-600 C was definitely somewhere in or near the window since it saw the anomaly. Same happened for MFMP in GS3.

            Hmm. Dunno though, the data suggests that is only a “spark” moment but not essential for continuous reaction once started.

          • Sanjeev

            About 65C increase with almost no change in power (if you consider time from 22:45 to 05:45 only). Its slow, but clearly some anomaly. Also there was power cut off for 3 minutes, and the temperature or pressure did not respond to it at all.
            Capture attached.

          • Ged

            Didn’t notice that 3 minute cut off, that is way more impressive than expected.

          • Sanjeev

            Almost like a mini HAD…

          • Ged

            Exactly ;).

            Really think we need a lot more time to let this sit and watch it develop, but that seems true for most of these experiments. Slow and steady instead of fast and bursty… wonder what features are controlling that.

          • Sanjeev

            But its not responding to the power cuts in other places also. That’s strange, can be a data related issue. Is WTE here to comment ?

          • Ged

            Could be thermal time constants (unlikely given how fast it responds elsewhere to small changes, but still possible), or indeed, could be a data logger dropout.

          • Ged

            Still, that doesn’t change that the power came back lower than before the cut off, yet temps continued to rise. However, we do need to know for sure it isn’t some weird artifact of the data logging.

          • Sanjeev

            Agree. I’ll just ignore the power cut off area for now.

          • Ged

            Watching the data longer, it looks like the power dropout happens whenever there is a water re-fill.

  • Sanjeev

    What is the role of Energy 2 Society here ?
    Perhaps Frank can answer better.

  • Ged

    This set up makes me think of trying to turn a few embers into a bonfire. Had something for a bit, but then dropped the power in too fast (blew too hard) and snuffed it out (put out the embers). Gotta find a way to gently stoke it. Seems like being at a higher temp and then returning to the “spark zone” was one way in this case; but past experiments suggest that if it dies, it’s very hard to get back.

    There really does seem to be two different temperature zones based on all the Open Science experiments we’ve seen: the “spark zone” and then the higher “optimal maintenance zone” once sparked.

    Man, learning to use fire is hard. But, encouraging results so far!.

  • Ged

    This set up makes me think of trying to turn a few embers into a bonfire. Had something for a bit, but then dropped the power in too fast (blew too hard) and snuffed it out (put out the embers). Gotta find a way to gently stoke it. Seems like being at a higher temp and then returning to the “spark zone” was one way in this case; but past experiments suggest that if it dies, it’s very hard to get back.

    There really does seem to be two different temperature zones based on all the Open Science experiments we’ve seen: the “spark zone” and then the higher “optimal maintenance zone” once sparked.

    Man, learning to use fire is hard. But, encouraging results so far! Hope the reactor keeps staying in one piece.

  • Ged

    A little bit of analysis:

    Depending on where you look in the time course of temperature and power in the early, low temperature part of the trace, the coefficient of “change in temperature” (dT) to “change in power in” (dP) is ~7 C/W from about 5:15 to 12:30 on Octobor 9th; and is ~3.7 C/W during the higher temperature regime (as dT/dP is non linear and decreases at high temperatures) from 21:30 to 00:00.

    So then, using the highest dT/dP ratio for the most conservative calculation, and looking only at the slow temperature rise after the drop in power that had no effect on temperature, that is from 1:30 to 5:30 on October 10th, we expect a temperature increase of 28 C due to the 4 W power increase over that time. However, we see a temperature increase of 36 C, which would be a COP of ~1.29 based solely on dT/dP, and explains why the much more official calculated COP passes 1 in that time range (and not before; in fact the entire curve shape of the COP is altered in that range, which shows a clear heat anomaly).

    This is the most unfavorable comparison to make for that steady rising temperature part of the trace, by this analysis method. It ignores the much higher power in that was dropped from while temperature continued to raise, and uses the most unfavorable possible dT/dP based on much earlier time and lower temperature domains which should have a higher dT/dP coefficient than the time domain in question.

    I’d say this is still -well- within the uncertainties of artifacts and errors when it comes to the absolute values, -until- further post processing of the data is done to correct for, quantify, and/or rule them out so we can know for sure. But, it is the change in behavior that is stark, and definitely constitutes an “ember” of “something for a bit”.

    • Sanjeev

      Something interesting happening since 08:50, increase in TC1 of 170C for an increase of only 2 W in power. Capture attached.

      • Ged

        This is a much bigger effect than what I was just analyzing; so all I just said above applies but even more so (a 32 C/W(!) increase from 8:50 to 9:39).

        I want to see how this trend develops. Would it be best if he held the power now? I don’t know for sure. I think we want the temp back in the 600-700 C range before a hold, but this is looking very peculiar.

        • Sanjeev

          I guess he is doing temperature cycling.
          The behavior of power is still odd. Its flattening with each cycle.

          • Ged

            Unfortunately, my dT analysis won’t work while it’s cycling so fast (I think it’s cycling faster than the thermal inertia can keep up, dampening the results). A ddT analysis may, but there’s no reliable control comparison for such cycling to evaluate against with that method. Need steady state, but we’ll see what happens.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Might it help if water that is added was already near 100ºC?

      • Ged

        It would. Pre-heated load water wouldn’t change the continued heating of water and mass loss calculations over time. Though there’d still be a window of uncertainty after loading, it would be a lot smaller.

  • Ged

    A little bit of analysis:

    Depending on where you look in the time course of temperature and power in the early, low temperature part of the trace, the coefficient of “change in temperature” (dT) to “change in power in” (dP) is ~7 C/W from about 5:15 to 12:30 on Octobor 9th; and is ~3.7 C/W during the higher temperature regime (as dT/dP is non linear and decreases at high temperatures) from 21:30 to 00:00.

    So then, using the highest dT/dP ratio for the most conservative calculation, and looking only at the slow temperature rise after the drop in power that had no effect on temperature, that is from 1:30 to 5:30 on October 10th, we expect a temperature increase of 28 C due to the 4 W power increase over that time. However, we see a temperature increase of 36 C, which would be a COP of ~1.29 based solely on dT/dP, and explains why the much more official calculated COP passes 1 in that full time range of the slow rise/power drop (and not before; in fact the entire curve shape of the COP is altered in that range, which shows a clear heat anomaly).

    Editted Side note: the “official” COP sensitivity as currently calculated is very dependent on where in the point of water boil off the apparatus is, and is insensitive immediately following a water fillup as happened during the period of my dT/dP calculation.

    This is the most unfavorable comparison to make for that steady rising temperature part of the trace, by this analysis method. It ignores the much higher power in that was dropped from while temperature continued to raise, and uses the most unfavorable possible dT/dP based on much earlier time and lower temperature domains which should have a higher dT/dP coefficient than the time domain in question.

    I’d say this is still -well- within the uncertainties of artifacts and errors when it comes to the absolute values, -until- further post processing of the data is done to correct for, quantify, and/or rule them out so we can know for sure. But, it is the change in behavior that is stark, and definitely constitutes an “ember” of “something for a bit”.

    • Sanjeev

      Something interesting happening since 08:50, increase in TC1 of 170C for an increase of only 2 W in power. Capture attached.

      • Ged

        This is a much bigger effect than what I was just analyzing; so all I just said above applies but even more so (a 32 C/W(!) increase from 8:50 to 9:39), as long as it stabilizes like before.

        I want to see how this trend develops. Would it be best if he held the power now? I don’t know for sure. I think we want the temp back in the 600-700 C range before a hold, but this is looking very peculiar.

        • Sanjeev

          I guess he is doing temperature cycling.
          The behavior of power is still odd. Its flattening with each cycle.

          • Ged

            Unfortunately, my dT analysis won’t work while it’s cycling so fast (I think it’s cycling faster than the thermal inertia can keep up, dampening the results). A ddT analysis may, but there’s no reliable control comparison for such cycling to evaluate against with that method. Need steady state, but we’ll see what happens.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Might it help if water that is added was already near 100ºC?

      • Ged

        It would. Pre-heated load water wouldn’t change the continued heating of water and mass loss calculations over time. Though there’d still be a window of uncertainty after loading, it would be a lot smaller.

  • bfast

    Wow! It looks like this thing is working!
    Ged, is that correct? What is the latest COP, not that it matters much, anything over 1.0 is a win.

    • Ged

      It is being pulsed right now, so no way for me to calculate COP, at this time (need a steady state). Could be done in post analysis though. Error margins are too wide at the moment, but we’ll see.

  • bfast

    Wow! It looks like this thing is working!
    Ged, is that correct? What is the latest COP, not that it matters much, anything over 1.0 is a win.

    • Ged

      It is being pulsed right now, so no way for me to calculate COP, at this time (need a steady state). Could be done in post analysis though. Error margins are too wide at the moment, but we’ll see.

  • Sanjeev
  • Sanjeev
  • Wishful Thinking Energy

    Sorry, software crash! I had to restart which means I lost the plots. All of the data can be found here:
    https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ens6hhkb3kj6zo8/AAA7V9DxYM3sWmVrhwg-awaYa?dl=0

    • Ged

      Glad the data survived! It was probably due for a refresh to let the graphs decompress anyways. You’ve been doing great work, and we are thoroughly addicted!

      • Wishful Thinking Energy

        I’m going to ramp up to 1100 now.

  • Wishful Thinking Energy

    Sorry, software crash! I had to restart which means I lost the plots. All of the data can be found here:
    https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ens6hhkb3kj6zo8/AAA7V9DxYM3sWmVrhwg-awaYa?dl=0

    • Ged

      Glad the data survived! It was probably due for a refresh to let the graphs decompress anyways. You’ve been doing great work, and we are thoroughly addicted!

      • Wishful Thinking Energy

        I’m going to ramp up to 1100 now.

  • Wishful Thinking Energy

    COP estimates will be incorrect because of the crash until the first water refill. That will probably be about an hour or two.

  • Wishful Thinking Energy

    COP estimates will be incorrect because of the crash until the first water refill. That will probably be about an hour or two.

  • theBuckWheat

    Using a Redneck glove box? Which model? The Acme glove box is far better.

    • bfast

      Like, what the heck is a “Redneck glove box” anyway?

      • Obvious

        If remember correctly, it was made with a large picnic cooler as the main body, and modified from there.

        • Wishful Thinking Energy

          Good memory Obvious.

          • Obvious

            It was an ingenious re-purposing, deserving of some sort of DIY award.
            Elegant in its simplicity, and yet meeting the function totally.
            The very embodiment of function before fashion.
            I thought it was wonderful.

  • Ged

    It’s possible the reactor is too hot to hold a reaction. It’s edged up to ~1200 C external at this point. Don’t know if the material lattice could survive. Similarly, I’ve watched the dT/dP collapse to 4 or so C/W after it went above 1100 C external.

  • Ged

    It’s possible the reactor is too hot to hold a reaction. It’s edged up to ~1200 C external at this point. Don’t know if the material lattice could survive. Similarly, I’ve watched the dT/dP collapse to 4 or so C/W after it went above 1100 C external.

  • Wishful Thinking Energy

    I released hydrogen pressure and will do a reheat to see if that has any effect.

    • Axil Axil

      Pressure and temperature must be varied in a cycle. See Rossi’s 1st demo paper.

  • Wishful Thinking Energy

    I released hydrogen pressure and will do a reheat to see if that has any effect.

    • Axil Axil

      Pressure and temperature must be varied in a cycle. See Rossi’s 1st demo paper.

  • Sanjeev

    There is a spontaneous rise of 20C starting from 23.10 (and rising).
    Anyone watching ?

    • Mats002

      Hi Sanjeev, I just woke up to a new day, gonno look now.

      • Sanjeev

        Hi and Good morning… perhaps the power pulses explain it nicely.

    • Ecco

      I am, but as the system appears to respond weirdly to input power changes, I’m still not sure what to make of events like this.

      • Sanjeev

        My best guess is that Brian is doing it with sharp 500W pulses of power. 🙂
        I had turned off the instant power trace because its usually too noisy, but now I can see it.

    • Stephen Taylor

      Yes, there seems to be an event that begins at this spontaneous rise of temp. There is no power input at this time. For the next 4 hours the temp goes up as average power goes down. COP graph does not respond yet there seems to be excess heat if the temperature reading is ok. Does the mass loss correspond to the thermal energy increase indicated by the temperature?

  • Sanjeev

    There is a spontaneous rise of 20C starting from 23.10 (and rising).
    Anyone watching ?

    • Mats002

      Hi Sanjeev, I just woke up to a new day, gonno look now.

      • Sanjeev

        Hi and Good morning… perhaps the power pulses explain it nicely.

    • Ecco

      I am, but as the system appears to respond weirdly to input power changes, I’m still not sure what to make of events like this.

      • Sanjeev

        My best guess is that Brian is doing it with sharp 500W pulses of power. 🙂
        I had turned off the instant power trace because its usually too noisy, but now I can see it.

    • Stephen Taylor

      Yes, there seems to be an event that begins at this spontaneous rise of temp. There is no power input at this time. For the next 4 hours the temp goes up as average power goes down. COP graph does not respond yet there seems to be excess heat if the temperature reading is ok. Does the mass loss correspond to the thermal energy increase indicated by the temperature?

  • Sanjeev

    To me it looks like the average power is not really showing the correct values, its still going down even though there is clearly an increase in power.

    • Ged

      Yeeaaahhh, it’s going to take proper post processing for this to be analyzed. The average doesn’t behave like one would expect an average to do (sometimes too low, sometimes too high, sometimes not changing in step, sometimes changing fine), so I’m not sure what is up with its calculation.

  • Sanjeev

    To me it looks like the average power is not really showing the correct values, its still going down even though there is clearly an increase in power.

    • Ged

      Yeeaaahhh, it’s going to take proper post processing for this to be analyzed. The average doesn’t behave like one would expect an average to do (sometimes too low, sometimes too high, sometimes not changing in step, sometimes changing fine), so I’m not sure what is up with its calculation.

  • Stephen Taylor

    From 23:12 to 03:17 looks very interesting. Looking forward to raw data analysis as it may shed some light on this period. Something isn’t quite right if there is excess heat here because the cop graph does not seem to respond to what looks like a clear case of excess heat.

  • Stephen Taylor

    From 23:12 to 03:17 looks very interesting. Looking forward to raw data analysis as it may shed some light on this period. Something isn’t quite right if there is excess heat here because the cop graph does not seem to respond to what looks like a clear case of excess heat.

  • Mats002

    I don’t understand how this develops:
    Temp is steady increasing from 200 to over 600 C in 5 hours without a correlation in increasing power in. To me that would be an increase in COP. Because of the relative low temp, boiling off water is slow, only one refill during this time and a complete cycle between refills not yet accomplished.

    Watt-hours can be used to see power in during this period, it has increased from 2000 to 2400, so 400 Wh of energy have been the input to boil off 250 g water (approx readings, it’s all there to see more exactly). Another 250 g of water boil off needed to have a total cycle to calculate COP.

    • Mats002

      Right now there is a full cycle of water boil off in the diagram at 7134 g to again 7134 g time from 01:02 to 06:13 at the same time energy in raised from 2,083.2 to 2,711.6 kWh.

      1 kWh = 3600 kJ

      • Ged

        Oh, wait, you switched to kWh instead of Wh for this post, without dividing by 1000 for the unit change. He’s measuring in Wh, which you correctly had in your first post.

        • Mats002

          Thanks, I will edit the post for that. I am using my smartphone, not the fastest way to type.

          • Ged

            Man, don’t I know it! Autocorrect has flubbed a many of my posts here when using a phone. Good luck!

  • Mats002

    I don’t understand how this develops:
    Temp is steady increasing from 200 to over 600 C in 5 hours without a correlation in increasing power in. To me that would be an increase in COP. Because of the relative low temp, boiling off water is slow, only one refill during this time and a complete cycle between refills not yet accomplished.

    Watt-hours can be used to see power in during this period, it has increased from 2000 to 2400, so 400 Wh of energy have been the input to boil off 250 g water (approx readings, it’s all there to see more exactly). Another 250 g of water boil off needed to have a total cycle to calculate COP.

    • Mats002

      Right now there is a full cycle of water boil off in the diagram at 7134 g to again 7134 g time from 01:02 to 06:13 and at the same period of time ‘energy in’ raised from 2,083.2 to 2,711.6 Wh.

      1 Wh = 3,6 kJ

      How to calculate ‘energy out’ from water boiled off:

      One liter is composed of 1,000 cubic centimeters (cc) . One cc, which is also the same as a milliliter (mL) of water weighs one gram. Therefore, a liter of water weighs one kilogram. So you got 1 kilogram of water. (It is also important to note that the density of water changes with temperature, but we will neglect those small changes to greatly simplify the calculation)

      Firstly, the more water you have, the more energy it takes. The colder the water, the more energy it takes.

      The first assumption is that the water is at room temperature, or 20 °C. First, the water must be heated to 100 °C, which takes energy. The amount of energy is given by the specific heat of water, which is 4.186 Joule/gram °C. That means that requires 4.186 Joules of energy to heat 1 kilogram of water by 1 °C. So if you have 1 kg of water at 20 °C, you have to add this much energy:

      mass*temperature change*specific heat =
      1,000 grams * (100 °C – 20 °C) * 4.186 J/g °C = 334,880 J = 334.880 kJ

      Once the water is at 100 °C, still more energy must be added. This is given by the heat of vaporization, which for water is 2261 kJoules per kilogram. So, in the example, once the 1 kg of water
      is at 100 °C, this amount of energy must be added to boil it:

      1 kg * 2261 KJoules/kilogram = 2261 kJoules

      Adding everything up we get:

      334.88 kJ + 2261 kJ = 2595.88 kJ

      In Brians experiment the mass of water boiled off in one cycle is 500g, then the energy needed for vaporization is 2261 / 2 = 1130.5 kJ.

      The ‘energy in’ for this cycle of 500g boil off was 2,711.6 – 2,083.2 = 628.4 Wh which is 3.6 x 628.4 = 2262,2 kJ.

      COP = ‘energy out’ / ‘energy in’ = 1130.5 / 2262,2 = 0.5

      There is also heat loss to the environment not accounted for. I am glad to be corrected and refined in this calculation.

      • Ged

        Oh, wait, you switched to kWh instead of Wh for this post, without dividing by 1000 for the unit change. He’s measuring in Wh, which you correctly had in your first post.

        • Mats002

          Thanks, I will edit the post for that. I am using my smartphone, not the fastest way to type.

          • Ged

            Man, don’t I know it! Autocorrect has flubbed a many of my posts here when using a phone. Good luck!

  • I just sent the following email to NASA.
    _______________________________

    Many NASA scientists have criticised Andrea Rossi in the past for trying to keep his E-Cat technology a secret so that he could turn it into a usable product for sale. Now rumors abound that NASA has achieved some degree of success with LENR technology, but is keeping the details secret. Are the rumors false? Has NASA failed to create LENR reactions, or is NASA just keeping its mouth shut on grounds of national security? The energy markets, the presidential candidates, and the general public would like to know if NASA has found its own method of producing LENR reactors and/or has replicated Rossi’s E-Cat device through the Rossi E-Cat patent that has been granted. Please give the public, which finances NASA, some information. Christopher Calder – Nonprofit food security advocate (Google *The Fusion Revolution* and *The Renewable Energy Disaster*)

    • Alain Samoun

      Christopher: I applaud a letter asking NASA to update us,the tax payers, of their progress with the LENR technology. What I disagree with is the attack against others renewable energies like solar panels and wind. These types of energies exist already on the market now, and are a part of the solution to get rid of the fossils energies responsible for climate changes.
      Thanks to many scientists and entrepreneurs like Elon Musk, the renewable energies are improving,especially with the electricity batteries and should be supported by the nations instead to rely on dirty,poisonous,dangerous for humanity carbon based ones.

      • Zephir

        The question is in which degree these “renewables” are really renewable. Right now wind and solar energy meet only about 1 percent of global
        demand; hydroelectricity meets about 7 percent. For example, to match
        the power generated by fossil fuels or nuclear power stations, the
        construction of solar energy farms and wind turbines will gobble up 15
        times more concrete, 90 times more aluminum and 50 times more iron,
        copper and glass. Also, the wind turbines only work when there’s wind,
        although not too much, and the solar panels only work during the day
        and then only when it’s not cloudy.

        http://www.climatenewsnetwork.net/renewables-need-huge-mineral-supply/
        http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n11/full/ngeo1947.html

        And cold fusion would remove the need of grid and batteries, which represent additional load of life environment by itself.

        • Alain Samoun

          Zephyr: Yes renewables” are really renewable! Not like burned oil/gas or coal that disappears in smoke and ashes, wind and sun are still around at least for our life time.
          Nobody said that solar panels and wind turbines will replace instantly and completely the fossil fuels,it’s only a step in the right direction waiting for an eventual LENR reactor.
          Also changing the type of energy has a profound impact on the societies and can save a lot of resources – Think about the life time of an electric engine vs a fuel engine for example. Grids can be made obsolete by decentralized renewables used by individuals or small communities.

          • Zephir

            /* Yes renewables” are really renewable! */

            Unfortunately they’re often not even economically viable, not to say about their sustainability. This is just a big illusion of yours. There isn’t enough biomass to replace 30% of our petroleum use.

          • Alain Samoun

            /*This is just a big illusion of yours. There isn’t enough biomass to replace 30% of our petroleum use*/

            I’m not talking biomass Zephyr,I’m talking Sun and wind…

            I’m repeating myself:

            Nobody said that solar panels and wind turbines will replace instantly and completely the fossil fuels,it’s only a step in the right direction waiting for an eventual LENR reactor.

          • Zephir

            Nope, they aren’t if you consider hard numbers. There isn’t enough biomass to replace 30% of our petroleum use. http://culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=107&Itemid=1

            We have not enough of copper, steel and concrete for to replace one sixth of world consumption of oil, coal and nuclear power with solar cells and wind plants, not to say about precious metals and another elements. I support the decentralized grids as well, but you cannot apply it at cities, where most of people lives by now.

            Feynman: “Shut up and calculate!”

      • Elon Musk is one of the biggest welfare recipients in the world. Even with all the government money given him in subsidies and mandates, Tesla still cannot generate an honest profit on cars sold. Even the federal government’s own National Research Council found that wind and solar subsidies are a failure at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and 48 billion in federal subsidies have had no significant positive effects on global warming. Socialised energy policy does not work. The free market works best at producing the best energy product at the lowest price. Given a chance, consumers make better choices on average than government. The government’s decision to force biofuels on us has skyrocketed the cost of fertilizer, farmland, and food all over the world, with a global death toll far greater than all wars and acts of terrorism combined. Malnutrition is the Number 1 cause of premature death. These subsidised industries become political lobbying monsters, and that is why most of the presidential candidates have sold out the survival of the human food supply to BIG BIOFUEL. Our politicians are political prostitutes who care more about personal power than if our grandchildren will have enough to eat.

        • Alain Samoun

          You should be proud of Elon Musk as he did not use the money he made, in selling PayPal, to play casino at Wall St. like the oil and Coal barons that you are supporting, but to develop new 21st century industries. Anyway,this thread is to follow Brian’s test I’m sorry that I answered you, but sometimes it is hard to resist to counter obvious propaganda and lies.

          End of that for me.

    • Zephir

      Do you have some source of this rumors? The NASA has been engaged in sucessfull LENR experiments for years, the COP > 3 is nothing spectacular for NASA.

      http://www.focus.it/fileflash/energia/fusioneFredda/FF_doc/1996-02-00_NASA-TM-107167.pdf

  • I just sent the following email to NASA.
    _______________________________

    Many NASA scientists have criticised Andrea Rossi in the past for trying to keep his E-Cat technology a secret so that he could turn it into a usable product for sale. Now rumors abound that NASA has achieved some degree of success with LENR technology, but is keeping the details secret. Are the rumors false? Has NASA failed to create LENR reactions, or is NASA just keeping its mouth shut on grounds of national security? The energy markets, the presidential candidates, and the general public would like to know if NASA has found its own method of producing LENR reactors and/or has replicated Rossi’s E-Cat device through the Rossi E-Cat patent that has been granted. Please give the public, which finances NASA, some information. Christopher Calder – Nonprofit food security advocate (Google *The Fusion Revolution* and *The Renewable Energy Disaster*)

    • Alain Samoun

      Christopher: I applaud a letter asking NASA to update us,the tax payers, of their progress with the LENR technology. What I disagree with is the attack against others renewable energies like solar panels and wind. These types of energies exist already on the market now, and are a part of the solution to get rid of the fossils energies responsible for climate changes.
      Thanks to many scientists and entrepreneurs like Elon Musk, the renewable energies are improving,especially with the electricity batteries and should be supported by the nations instead to rely on dirty,poisonous,dangerous for humanity carbon based ones.

      • Zephir

        The question is in which degree these “renewables” are really renewable. Right now wind and solar energy meet only about 1 percent of global
        demand; hydroelectricity meets about 7 percent. For example, to match
        the power generated by fossil fuels or nuclear power stations, the
        construction of solar energy farms and wind turbines will gobble up 15
        times more concrete, 90 times more aluminum and 50 times more iron,
        copper and glass. Also, the wind turbines only work when there’s wind,
        although not too much, and the solar panels only work during the day
        and then only when it’s not cloudy.

        http://www.climatenewsnetwork.net/renewables-need-huge-mineral-supply/
        http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n11/full/ngeo1947.html

        And cold fusion would remove the need of grid and batteries, which represent additional load of life environment by itself.

        • Alain Samoun

          Zephyr: Yes renewables” are really renewable! Not like burned oil/gas or coal that disappears in smoke and ashes, wind and sun are still around at least for our life time.
          Nobody said that solar panels and wind turbines will replace instantly and completely the fossil fuels,it’s only a step in the right direction waiting for an eventual LENR reactor.
          Also changing the type of energy has a profound impact on the societies and can save a lot of resources – Think about the life time of an electric engine vs a fuel engine for example. Grids can be made obsolete by decentralized renewables used by individuals or small communities.

          • Zephir

            /* Yes renewables” are really renewable! */

            Unfortunately they’re often not even economically viable, not to say about their sustainability. This is just a big illusion of yours. There isn’t enough biomass to replace 30% of our petroleum use.

          • Alain Samoun

            /*This is just a big illusion of yours. There isn’t enough biomass to replace 30% of our petroleum use*/

            I’m not talking biomass Zephyr,I’m talking Sun and wind…

            I’m repeating myself:

            Nobody said that solar panels and wind turbines will replace instantly and completely the fossil fuels,it’s only a step in the right direction waiting for an eventual LENR reactor.

          • Zephir

            Nope, they aren’t if you consider hard numbers. There isn’t enough biomass to replace 30% of our petroleum use, not to say about lack of fertillizers, which would keep their production sustainable. http://culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=107&Itemid=1

            We have not enough of copper, steel and concrete for to replace one sixth of world consumption of oil, coal and nuclear power with solar cells and wind plants, not to say about precious metals and another elements. I support the decentralized grids like you, but we cannot apply it at cities, where most of people lives by now. This is the actual reason, why I support the cold fusion. The dream of “renewables” would only destroy the rest of life environment for us.

            Feynman: “Shut up and calculate!” Calculate and stop dreaming about sustainable energy from renewables.

      • Elon Musk is one of the biggest welfare recipients in the world. Even with all the government money given him in subsidies and mandates, Tesla still cannot generate an honest profit on cars sold. Even the federal government’s own National Research Council found that wind and solar subsidies are a failure at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and 48 billion in federal subsidies have had no significant positive effects on global warming. Socialised energy policy does not work. The free market works best at producing the best energy product at the lowest price. Given a chance, consumers make better choices on average than government. The government’s decision to force biofuels on us has skyrocketed the cost of fertilizer, farmland, and food all over the world, with a global death toll far greater than all wars and acts of terrorism combined. Malnutrition is the Number 1 cause of premature death. These subsidised industries become political lobbying monsters, and that is why most of the presidential candidates have sold out the survival of the human food supply to BIG BIOFUEL. Our politicians are political prostitutes who care more about personal power than if our grandchildren will have enough to eat.

        • Alain Samoun

          You should be proud of Elon Musk as he did not use the money he made, in selling PayPal, to play casino at Wall St. like the oil and Coal barons that you are supporting, but instead to develop new 21st century industries. Anyway,this thread is to follow Brian’s test I’m sorry that I answered you, but sometimes it is hard to resist to counter obvious propaganda and lies.

          End of that for me.

          • Alberonn

            Cheers to that !

          • It’s often said that Solar Power tech follows Moore’s law, more or less.
            If true, the argument that solar power today is expensive and inefficient should be considered irrelevant.

            https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=efficiency+of+solar+panels+over+time&es_sm=93&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAWoVChMIzPSK7vq8yAIVR-0UCh2h9A0X&biw=960&bih=494&dpr=2#imgrc=77K0Sndt1rD7JM%3A

          • “Lies”? Everything I have said is provably true. Without mandates and subsidies, Tesla would not exist. Elon Musk’s battery technology is not efficient and is mainly a play thing for the rich, just like his cars. Accusing people who disagree with you of being agents for the coal and oil industries is typical nonsense that does not win debate points.

          • Mark S.

            Yup! Musk also bilked Fed’s for a billion for his solar panel company that eventually went bankrupt. Musk and Bernie Maddov are cut from the same cloth. Only an idiot would invest long term in Tesla. Once those cars start getting a market then all the big car manufactures with eat that puny Tesla car company just south of Fremont (old Toyota plant) for dessert. Come to think of it, I think his defunct solar planet company is close by as well.

    • Zephir

      Do you have some source of this rumors? The NASA has been engaged in sucessfull LENR experiments for years, the COP > 3 is nothing spectacular for NASA.

      http://www.focus.it/fileflash/energia/fusioneFredda/FF_doc/1996-02-00_NASA-TM-107167.pdf

  • Wishful Thinking Energy

    Test ended with no obvious signs of excess heat. Once it cools I’ll take it apart and look at the fuel. The one success is that the stainless steel tube seems to have protected the alumina tube from lithium corrosion.

    • Mats002

      Thanks Brian, I think there were many other successes with this experiment. Your DIY engineering skills are outstanding in so many subjects! The calorimetry setup is working well so you have taken LENR open science another leap forward.

      Looking forward to see more runs on this platform.

    • Sanjeev

      A very good test overall. Everything worked, no failure !
      Except may be the average power data, it gave some false positives. I still don’t understand how that happened.

      • Wishful Thinking Energy

        I apologize for not being around to address this question earlier. Average power is currently calculated as the average power since the last calorimeter refill. That means it sometimes has a very long time constant and it also can give some funky numbers at the start of a test before things are boiling etc.
        I set it up this way months ago so that I could calibrate the calorimeter at various average power settings. I probably should change it now to a couple minute running average so it would be less confusing.

        • Sanjeev

          No problems Brian, now we know so there will be no confusion. Thanks for clearing it.

    • Axil Axil

      You did not preprocess the fuel. This is required to produce the proper surface on the nickel micro particles.

      • Wishful Thinking Energy

        Axil, do you have recommendations for preprocessing the fuel other than baking it? If so, I would love to hear them.
        Also, the temperature and pressure was cycled but perhaps not in the correct ranges. Do you have recommendations for this as well?

        • Mats002
        • Axil Axil

          From the Holmlid info, fuel preparation is best done to produce Rydberg matter right on the surface of the micron powder. This is what Holmlid does with his powder.

          Step one…

          Make sure that the 5 micron COTS nickel micron powder has lots of carbon on the surface. This carbon must be graphite. If you use highly pure nickel powder, add graphite powder then bake the powder to melt the graphite into the surface of the powder. This is an attempt to produce the dirty Russian powder the Parkhomov uses.

          Step two…

          Add lots of lithium and bake the powder until it sinters into large 100 micron particle clusters. The powder should have a range of particles sizes from 100 microns down to below 5 micron particles. All the particles such be coated with a thin layer of lithium. The nickel particles should now contain lithium carbide and be eroded with nanocavities on the surface and alloyed with lithium. This alloying will keep the Lithium from the LAH available when the test run begins. The powder should look like the fuel seen in the Lugano report in appendix 3.

          The fuel analysis in the Lugano report had loads of carbon coming out of preprocessing.

          ============

          Cycle the temperature plus and minus 150C around the 1050C center point. Look for a temperature turn on the downside of this cycle. Nanoparticles are produced when the temperature and pressure goes down.

          For an explanation of this method, see my last post in the Always open thread starting with this sentence as follows:

          “IMHO, the common denominator across these LENR systems is the production of nanoparticles.”

          • Wishful Thinking Energy

            I only have Vale INCO 255, but I don’t see why this couldn’t work since you would be sintering it into larger particles anyway. For INCO 255 I suggest:
            Step 1 – Prebake INCO 255 to 200C to remove water and increase porosity.
            Step 2 – Mix INCO 255 with Li powder in Ar atmosphere.
            Step 3 – Heat INCO 255 with Li powder in Ar atmosphere to 1000C for several hours to sinter Ni into larger particles.
            Step 4 – Mix powder with LiAlH4 in Ar atmosphere.
            Step 5 – Heat to 1050C cycling +/- 150C.

          • Axil Axil

            Where is the carbon in your process? We need high carbon content on the surface of the powder to match what Rossi does in his preprocessing.

          • Wishful Thinking Energy

            Sorry, I thought 255 was higher Carbon content than it is. It is only 0.25%. I would have to add graphite. Roughly about 7% to match Parkhomov I think.

          • Axil Axil

            IMHO, you need to bake the graphite into the surface of the nickel particles before you add lithium to that surface. The lithium will then combine with the carbon to form lithium carbide. Sorry to be a nag,

          • Wishful Thinking Energy

            You’re not a nag at all, I find this fascinating. Any ideas on temperature required for graphite-nickel baking?

          • Axil Axil

            The baking temperature should be high enough to embed the graphite nanoparticles into the nickel, maybe at least 1000C. This should distress the surface of the nickel microparticles with nanocavities with a size equal to the size of the graphite particles. Use graphite particles as fine as you can get and then make them finer(grinding?). Nickel will soften and graphite will not.

          • Mats002

            Axil: Do you agree with Me that the Cat process is about combining and recombining LiH? Is it correct to say that Li is the getter of the H (loading) and because if this also the releaser of H? That is about ‘breathing’ H in and out. Which of the two Li make this H-breathing, is it the Li in LAH or the Li used in the pre-baking that is coating the Ni?

          • Axil Axil

            IMHO, the common denominator across these LENR systems is the production of nanoparticles.

            Those nanoparticles are both rydberg matter of lithium, hydrogen, and lithium hydride. In the Lugano test, there was no temperature and pressure cycle process being done, This usually produces nanoparticles.

            So where did the nanoparticles come from? They came from using the Holmlid method that produces nanoparticle from the desorption of hydrogen and lithium from lithium carbide when heated: let’s call this… using a Holmlid catalyst.

            I believe that this surprised Rossi. His reactor produced a high COP without temperature cycling.

            I say when in doubt, produce nanoparticles by doing both temperature cycling and also by using a Holmlid catalyst.

          • Wishful Thinking Energy

            Do you see Iron Oxide and Aluminum Oxide playing a role in this? I believe they were also found in the Lugano fuel.

            Graphite is on order. I hope to try it in a test next week.

          • Axil Axil

            The iron oxide particle was huge and it looks like it came from a rusty tool that removed the processed fuel. The aluminum oxide particle also was very large and it did not look like an active particle to me.

            The kind of particles that looked good were the lacey looking particles of all sizes.

  • Wishful Thinking Energy

    Test ended with no obvious signs of excess heat. Once it cools I’ll take it apart and look at the fuel. The one success is that the stainless steel tube seems to have protected the alumina tube from lithium corrosion.

    • Mats002

      Thanks Brian, I think there were many other successes with this experiment. Your DIY engineering skills are outstanding in so many subjects! The calorimetry setup is working well so you have taken LENR open science another leap forward.

      Looking forward to see more runs on this platform.

    • Sanjeev

      A very good test overall. Everything worked, no failure !
      Except may be the average power data, it gave some false positives. I still don’t understand how that happened.

      • Wishful Thinking Energy

        I apologize for not being around to address this question earlier. Average power is currently calculated as the average power since the last calorimeter refill. That means it sometimes has a very long time constant and it also can give some funky numbers at the start of a test before things are boiling etc.
        I set it up this way months ago so that I could calibrate the calorimeter at various average power settings. I probably should change it now to a couple minute running average so it would be less confusing.

        • Sanjeev

          No problems Brian, now we know so there will be no confusion. Thanks for clearing it.

    • Axil Axil

      Things that were not done to produce a success as follows:

      You did not preprocess the fuel. This is required to produce the proper surface on the nickel micro particles.

      You did not vary temperature and pressure in a cycle to produce nanoparticles.

      See page 25,26,27 of

      http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1305/1305.3913.pdf

      • Wishful Thinking Energy

        Axil, do you have recommendations for preprocessing the fuel other than baking it? If so, I would love to hear them.
        Also, the temperature and pressure was cycled but perhaps not in the correct ranges. Do you have recommendations for this as well?

        • Mats002
        • Axil Axil

          From the Holmlid info, fuel preparation is best done to produce Rydberg matter right on the surface of the micron powder. This is what Holmlid does with his powder.

          Step one…

          Make sure that the 5 micron COTS nickel micron powder has lots of carbon on the surface. This carbon must be graphite. If you use highly pure nickel powder, add graphite powder then bake the powder to melt the graphite into the surface of the powder. This is an attempt to produce the dirty Russian powder the Parkhomov uses.

          Step two…

          Add lots of lithium and bake the powder until it sinters into large 100 micron particle clusters. The powder should have a range of particles sizes from 100 microns down to below 5 micron particles. All the particles such be coated with a thin layer of lithium. The nickel particles should now contain lithium carbide and be eroded with nanocavities on the surface and alloyed with lithium. This alloying will keep the Lithium from the LAH available when the test run begins. The powder should look like the fuel seen in the Lugano report in appendix 3.

          The fuel analysis in the Lugano report had loads of carbon coming out of preprocessing.

          ============

          Cycle the temperature plus and minus 150C around the 1050C center point. Look for a temperature turn on the downside of this cycle. Nanoparticles are produced when the temperature and pressure goes down.

          For an explanation of this method, see my last post in the Always open thread starting with this sentence as follows:

          “IMHO, the common denominator across these LENR systems is the production of nanoparticles.”

          • Wishful Thinking Energy

            I only have Vale INCO 255, but I don’t see why this couldn’t work since you would be sintering it into larger particles anyway. For INCO 255 I suggest:
            Step 1 – Prebake INCO 255 to 200C to remove water and increase porosity.
            Step 2 – Mix INCO 255 with Li powder in Ar atmosphere.
            Step 3 – Heat INCO 255 with Li powder in Ar atmosphere to 1000C for several hours to sinter Ni into larger particles.
            Step 4 – Mix powder with LiAlH4 in Ar atmosphere.
            Step 5 – Heat to 1050C cycling +/- 150C.

          • Axil Axil

            Where is the carbon in your process? We need high carbon content on the surface of the powder to match what Rossi does in his preprocessing.

          • Wishful Thinking Energy

            Sorry, I thought 255 was higher Carbon content than it is. It is only 0.25%. I would have to add graphite. Roughly about 7% to match Parkhomov I think.

          • Axil Axil

            IMHO, you need to bake the graphite into the surface of the nickel particles before you add lithium to that surface. The lithium will then combine with the carbon to form lithium carbide. Sorry to be a nag,

          • Wishful Thinking Energy

            You’re not a nag at all, I find this fascinating. Any ideas on temperature required for graphite-nickel baking?

          • Axil Axil

            The baking temperature should be high enough to embed the graphite nanoparticles into the nickel, maybe at least 1000C. This should distress the surface of the nickel microparticles with nanocavities with a size equal to the size of the graphite particles. Use graphite particles as fine as you can get and then make them finer(grinding?). At high temperatures, nickel will soften and graphite will not.

          • Mats002

            Axil: Do you agree with Me that the Cat process is about combining and recombining LiH? Is it correct to say that Li is the getter of the H (loading) and because if this also the releaser of H? That is about ‘breathing’ H in and out. Which of the two Li make this H-breathing, is it the Li in LAH or the Li used in the pre-baking that is coating the Ni?

          • Axil Axil

            IMHO, the common denominator across these LENR systems is the production of nanoparticles.

            Those nanoparticles are both rydberg matter of lithium, hydrogen, and lithium hydride. In the Lugano test, there was no temperature and pressure cycle process being done, This usually produces nanoparticles.

            So where did the nanoparticles come from? They came from using the Holmlid method that produces nanoparticle from the desorption of hydrogen and lithium from lithium carbide when heated: let’s call this… using a Holmlid catalyst.

            I believe that this surprised Rossi. His reactor produced a high COP without temperature cycling. Maybe Rossi uses a constant temperature to keep the Mouse’s COP down to 1.1 to keep the Mouse from melting down.

            Rossi gave the Lugano testers a “safe” reactor, a mouse, but the Reactor at Lugano produced a huge COP. And to top that off, Parkhomov produced a reactor with a high COP using a high carbon nickel micro particle.

            Rossi then took this Holmlid catalyst idea and used it to build the E-Cat-X.

            I say when in doubt, produce nanoparticles by doing both temperature cycling and also by using a Holmlid catalyst.

          • Wishful Thinking Energy

            Do you see Iron Oxide and Aluminum Oxide playing a role in this? I believe they were also found in the Lugano fuel.

            Graphite is on order. I hope to try it in a test next week.

          • Axil Axil

            The iron oxide particle was huge and it looks like it came from a rusty tool that removed the processed fuel. The aluminum oxide particle also was very large and it did not look like an active particle to me.

            The kind of particles that looked good were the lacey looking particles of all sizes.

  • Robert Dorr

    Does Rossi in his patent mixture indicate that he used “passivated lithium” in his formulation?

    Robert Dorr

    • Robert Dorr

      The reason I ask is that “passivated lithium” has a coating on it’s surface. How would this coating react with the other substances in the mixture?

      Robert Dorr

      • Wishful Thinking Energy

        Robert, great question. Unfortunately we don’t know what type of Li powder he uses or even what type of Nickel powder. I chose passivated powder because it isn’t pyrophoric (ignites in air). Regular Li powder is pyrophoric and therefore much more difficult to handle.

        • Robert Dorr

          I assumed you were using an inert atmosphere glove box. Of corse if you weren’t, I see your need for passivated lithium.

  • Svein Utne

    Maybe it is possible to use 99.9% pure Li in “active” form. Delivered in glass filled capsels in argon instead. You can bye it on ebay for $20,- When the lithium melts it is possible to rotate or tilt the rod so the lithium will be spread out?

    • Wishful Thinking Energy

      Molten Lithium has very strong surface tension which makes it not mix with the Nickel powder. I doubt just tilting the reactor would make it mix base on observations from previous tests. That is the reason why powdered Lithium is used.

  • Wishful Thinking Energy

    Molten Lithium has very strong surface tension which makes it not mix with the Nickel powder. I doubt just tilting the reactor would make it mix base on observations from previous tests. That is the reason why powdered Lithium is used.

  • Robert Dorr

    The reason I ask is that “passivated lithium” has a coating on it’s surface. How would this coating react with the other substances in the mixture?

    Robert Dorr

    • Wishful Thinking Energy

      Robert, great question. Unfortunately we don’t know what type of Li powder he uses or even what type of Nickel powder. I chose passivated powder because it isn’t pyrophoric (ignites in air). Regular Li powder is pyrophoric and therefore much more difficult to handle.

  • Wishful Thinking Energy

    Postmortem pictures. The stainless tube held up very well. Fuel fused into a very solid cylinder. It also fused into the stainless likely due to the lithium dissolving some of the metal.

  • Wishful Thinking Energy

    Postmortem pictures. The stainless tube held up very well. Fuel fused into a very solid cylinder. It also fused into the stainless likely due to the lithium dissolving some of the metal.