MFMP Starts New Live Test: Glowstick #5

The Martin Fleischmann Memorial project has posted on its quantumheat.org website about a new test that has been started today by Alan Goldwater and Mark Jurich in Santa Cruz, California.

Details of the test setup are provided in this live document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JYO69FQLuRr5z-O4LYIgAvO0t9RRhaEpJFJWOfkPwPA/edit?usp=sharing

MFMP states in the above document that one difference between this Glowstick and past ones is they are using a HTED Catalyst

From the live document:

One such area of investigation that the MFMP had been exploring in depth during the 3rd quarter of 2015 [http://goo.gl/x6MpHs] is that of Particle 3 of the Lugano reactors fuel which is predominantly a 100um piece of Fe2O3. Analysis of previous data relating to Rossi’s work and the work of Leif Holmlid has led us to what we consider a more faithful replication of Lugano fuel, which will be run for the first time today . . .

The Chinese sourced HTED-04 catalyst has no Cr2O3 which makes it safe to use, the Cr based ones would be considered a known carcinogen. The suppliers said it contained “iron oxide, potassium oxide, calcium and magnesium, cerium oxide, other promoters and stabilizers, but no molybdenum and chromium oxide.”

Live data can be followed here: magicsound.us/MFMP/video (screen grab every 10 seconds), and here: http://data.hugnetlab.com/ (under GS5)

UPDATE: Here’s a Youtube stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opc3El8ZdXs&feature=youtu.be

  • magicsnd1

    The power data for GS5 is available at:
    https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxxJkjesxe4kNmZPTy1UUTFLcW8

    Data interval is 0.5 sec, so it’s a big file (10 MB)
    Unfortunately the data for the first hour or so of the run is not available.

  • Justa Guy

    Many good points have been mentioned here and now that things have settled down a bit, I would like to share some of my thoughts concerning this rather quick run…

    The main problem we faced turned out to be time constraints. Had we not been under pressure to do something before our time evaporated, we would have surely pretreated the fuel similar to the patent disclosure (and even remembered to mention that it was not pretreated). We did pump out the cell to about 80 microns/mT (i.e., a rough vacuum) and the fuel sat there above 100 C (180 C?) for quite some time as we tried to understand the Pressure Tranducer issue, so in a way it was treated (The evolved water vapor would have been trapped inside). We would also have included the Lithium Nanopowder, but we didn’t have the proper time to set up the inert (or more specifically, non-Oxygen) atmosphere/environment to safely load/seal the cell and prevent [excessive] reaction. We also did not finish up on a good way to integrate the chat session with Alan’s Web Page and that definitely will happen on the next round of experiments.

    The other thing that I want to mention is that from the start, this particular run was not a strict Lugano/Parkhomov replication due to the fact that a Holmlid-like Catalyst (with more than simply Iron in it) was going to be used. It was sort of a hybrid experiment and we found some way to squeeze the run in before our pre-holiday time evaporated. We can do Lugano/Parkhomov/Piantelli/Holmlid/? experiments but it will be difficult to do all of them in one experiment.

    To give you some examples of development going on, a system/technique is being engineered/tested by Alan/MFMP to quickly try different experiments using a more robust fuel capsule. If successful, it may be possible to actually perform many of the suggestions people have mentioned in less time. It could also be problematic in the short term, as some “kinks” are worked out. The capsule right now is quite thick and I have some slight concerns about that.

    Alan plans on doing a post calibration and fuel capsule removal/inspection after the Thanksgiving Holiday, before ending this particular run; it may be extended, if one of us here comes up with a clever idea before taking it apart!

    • Bob Greenyer

      Excellent summary Mark – thanks.

      • William D. Fleming

        Some of us are avidly following your efforts.

      • Axil Axil

        Some interesting feedback from Eric Walker regarding the Rossi patent

        “Among the embodiments are those in which the fuel mixture includes lithium and lithium aluminum hydride, those in which the catalyst includes a group 10 element, such as nickel in powdered form, or in any combination thereof.”

        This feedback considered the addition of palladium and/or platinum in the fuel mix.

        Note: platinum has a weight of about 195.

        I don’t know whether Rossi is now using or has used palladium in the past. But one detail in the Lugano report that only became apparent to me much later was that there appears to have been a number of heavy elements in one of the fuel assays in Appendix 3 (see the lower graph, outlined in red).

        http://i.imgur.com/7RQon11.png

        Some of these heavier masses were likely to have been compound ions. But it’s seems unlikely that 100 percent of them were. Note that palladium overlaps with m=105. Even if palladium were not present, I would not be surprised if one or more heavier elements were.

        I do not know why this was the only instance in which a graph for m>100 was shown in the appendix.

    • Axil Axil

      It is a mistake to mix the Rossi reaction with the Holmlid reaction. They are completely different and infact if the two are mixed they will work against each other. For example, Piantelli states that deuterium is a poison to his Ni.H reaction whereas Holmlid uses deuterium. I have a post submitted here at E Cat World to explain the reasons for all who cannot access The LENR forum. But for all who can, this reasoning based on the optical differences between these hydrogen isotopes can be found at

      http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2303-Polariton-engineering-imperatives/?postID=9637#post9637

      IMHO, this test was ill advised because of its attempt to mix deuterium and protium technology.

  • builditnow

    If there is some way to get to 0.5 bar absolute, that could be interesting.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Getting below 1 bar is a question of adding more free lithium NOT LiH… it gets to equilibrium at 500ºC … 0.25bar according to Wikipedia.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_aluminium_hydride

      Other than that – ZirCal getter in another part of the cell – with a separate heater that can add or remove H2 as needed.

    • Mats002

      The metal lattice is stiff at high pressure and stiffness is bad for phonons, vibrations, in the lattice. I can not link to sources now but I have read about it in more than one paper.

    • Justa Guy

      We can certainly pump out the gas to under 100 microns or so. The current transducer(s) only measure gauge pressure from 0 to 300 psi (atmosphere and above), but that can be rectified. We can stop the pumping by closing a valve at 0.5 bar absolute. We need to work on this a bit to do it safely, but that should be resolved by the time of the next runs.

      If you know of a nice 0 to approx. 300 psi absolute pressure transducer we can interface, please post the link(s)!

  • Axil Axil

    Has the fuel in this test been pretreated?

    The Rossi patent says:

    “In other embodiments, the catalyst in powdered form, has been treated to enhance its porosity. For example, the catalyst can be nickel powder that has been treated to enhance porosity thereof.”

    And

    “Preferably, the nickel has been treated to increase its porosity, for example by heating the nickel powder to for times and temperatures selected to superheat any water present in micro-cavities that are inherently in each particle of nickel powder. The resulting steam pressure causes explosions that create larger cavities, as well as additional smaller nickel particles.”

    Also

    “However, it has been found that a suitable mixture would include a starting mixture of 50% nickel, 20% lithium, and 30% LAH.”

    From the Lugano test We know that the nickel particles in the fuel were covered with lithium BEFORE insertion by Rossi into the reactor. That means that the pure lithium to the tune of 20% was added to the fuel mix during pretreatment. We also know that the temperature at pretreatment was high enough to sinter many 5 micro particles into a large 100 micron particle.

    Have these steps associated with pretreatment of the fuel been done to the fuel used in this test before this replication attempt?

    • Bob Greenyer

      Hi Axil,

      In the experiment live doc linked to above, we noted from the beginning that the there was no pre-treatment and we are aware of it’s reference in the patent and the previous recommendation by Parkhomov – it just was not done.

      We have pure lithium. We just need to run through many tests.

      • Axil Axil

        MFMP is looking for the key process that unlocks the LENR reaction. MFMP states as follows:

        “There has been little success by most replicators when attempting replications of Dr. Alexander Parkhomov, even when using the exact same fuels. It may be due to some impurity in the Mullite he first used for which he has had no analysis done and did not know the provenance – or in the later 3 day experiment, it may have been due to the make-up of his stainless steel fuel container. For this reason it is necessary to start exploring other avenues that may lead to results similar to those claimed in Lugano.”

        And yet MFMP ignores the recommendation to preprocess the fuel as follows:

        “and the previous recommendation by Parkhomov – it just was not done.”

        MFMP must do a better job at evaluating “assumptions” in its test criteria matrix available about the Rossi replication.

        • Bob Greenyer

          It was not a choice, I think it was an oversight – I’ll have to check with Alan.

          • Mats002

            Hi Bob! I think you now have reached the goals of engineering, including measurements of energy input and output for a COP well above 1, which we look for.

            No need to develop the glowstick platform further, from here everything is about procedures. Preparation of fuel, pressure management and EM stimulation is the parameter space to explore.

            There are many combinations to try, should be performed in a structured approach to narrow down the most rewarding combinations. Easy to say…

            • Bob Greenyer

              About the engineering – yes, done.

              With the right money – I’d like 20 experiments running at once – even have some spaces to do it. Crash this sucker!

              • Mats002

                Yeah! That’s the spirit ^^

                Any new sources of money in sight?

                • Bob Greenyer

                  er…. working on a solution to that

  • Bob Greenyer

    Great thoughts from Bob Higgins related to GS5 run

    “Regarding the Lugano particle 3 … the iron-rich particle, I note that it shows no signs of Na or K and the SEM showed it was not a porous particle. Because of this, I don’t think it was and F-T catalyst and I don’t think F-T catalysis is complicit in the hotCat type of device. The only thing that is probably important is the Fe2O3 as a chemical additive – perhaps to help oxidize the aluminum to take it out of the mix. At high temp where XH occurs, the Ni is coated with liquid LiH and I believe the action is at the Li-Ni interface. If this is the case, any catalyzed hydrogen form that makes its way to the surface of the LiH film, will probably not be usefully transferred through the LiH to the active boundary at the Li-Ni interface.

    In the lower temperature eCat devices operating in the 280-450°C range, the F-T catalyst is in its optimum temperature range. A porous F-T could catalyze the H2 into a species that is optimum for application to the Ni surface. Just as an example, if the H(1) RM species is formed via catalysis, it would want to stick onto the surface of the Ni like a disk magnet on my metal toolbox. This lower temperature range eCat device could still look like our Glow Stick devices, only you would want to segregate the LiAlH4 from the Ni (perhaps with a zirconia wool or alumina wool plug) so it would only supply H2 and NOT coat the Ni. You would mix the ground up F-T catalyst with the Ni as the fuel.”

  • Bob Greenyer

    Recording time lapse of main part of experiment, hours 18-57 available here:

    Download

    https://goo.gl/Z5iNo1

    Youtube

    https://youtu.be/6DqdplqEBtU

    thanks to Alan and Mark for a successful experiment and for the support for you all, particularly Ged and Sanjeev for their graphing.

    I suspect that Alan will re-heat this after thanksgiving.

  • Bob Greenyer

    We missed something in the last experiment, the H2 pressure needs needs to be below 1 bar – to allow the reversible reaction to breathe – Parkhomov said to me and Emanuele outside the Palazzio after the Padua run that it needed to be 0.5 bar, in line with wikipedia.

    Adding more free lithium advances this process by taking up the evolved H2 – adding LiH would make no difference as it is already stoichiometric (in reaction balance)

    We could wait for a LONG time, bleed at high temp and then lower temperatures – or use the Zircal getter I have proposed in the past.

    • Ged

      Bleeding it out sounds like a nice idea, easy and simple (just don’t ignite the gas coming out, of course). The getter would be easier and safer still.

      The run looks to be over now (amazing amount of pressure left over, 77 psi!), but I agree that a bleed or getter should be done next time if possible to avoid such a large amount of left over gas. Once again, we saw suggestions of excess heat, but if the high pressure is dampening it (e.g. constricting the lattice motions) then the results we have here are what we would expect, and lowering the pressure would be predicted to allow proper excess production.

      • Sanjeev

        It was a nice experiment, nothing went wrong !
        But this once again demonstrates that simply heating the Ni powder with H2 is not going to produce the effect we are after. Probably it needs a preparation of Ni and a good amount of H2 absorption before any significant excess is seen.

        • Ged

          There is a growing body of evidence suggesting that pre-treating Ni is important. I feel we are definitely narrowing down on the parameters we need–it’s now less about “what matters”, and more about “how to implement”. Alan et al have become de facto experts on reactor design now, so it’s only a matter of choosing what implementation to try next.

          This run, along with GS3 and 4, once again fits into the “no clear negative result” category. That’s how I as a scientist would classify the outcome of the experiments so far. They clearly are not negative, yet the effect is not strong enough to unequivocally say in what way they were positive, or if it’s due to the source of excess heat we are looking for.

          It’s like being a rabbit chasing a carrot on a stick. We see it, we get close, but we have yet to get that bite. On the other hand, experiments that fall in the “no clear negative result” class, are often the ones that spur the most discovery and keep us coming back for more, even if they are often the most arduous and take the greatest skill to overcome.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Yes on the pre-heat, this is said to be done by Parkhomov and not done here.

  • Justa Guy

    This is it, folks … We are running out of time for this run until
    after Thanksgiving. Alan/I have decided to chance 840 C to 850 C PID
    Temp Bump (almost 1200 C in the core) as one last attempt to see
    something. Any thoughts?

    Thanks to all for their assistance so far!

    • LuFong

      I’m just watching. It seems to me that it should be showing significant extra heat by now as per Rossi/Parkomov. Shut it down and refuel with another fuel.

      Another thought. Why not have two actives on the next run. You should have a good idea based on the initial calibration of the null and this run whether it’s working. We are looking for a COP of 2+ which should be easily detected. Trying different fuels, perhaps making them different in one way, will double your throughput. Just a thought.

    • Sanjeev

      Attached is a quick and dirty comparison of dT against calibration in the range 500-900C.
      There was some excess, although nothing significant.

      • Sanjeev

        PS: This is from the 30Sec averaged data. If you check the history data, the peak reached above 40C.

        • Ged

          Very interesting, Sanjeev. Once again, suggestions of excess (10+ C), but something preventing it from taking off (Bob’s idea of too much pressure?).

          Hopefully we can get power data to compare with too, see if that is more sensitive than the null v active method (since thermal conductivity will dampen the difference a little).

          • Bob Greenyer

            The power data will come.

            Having free Lithium will lower the melting point of Li Al mix and lower the H pressure.

        • Bob Greenyer

          I’ll ad this to the live document.

  • Ged

    Quick fix to my active vs internal temperature graph: now with 100% less backwards data! And this is why we check our timestamps.

    http://s3.postimg.org/5zw4gcznn/151117_Calibration_Active_v_Internal.png

  • Ged

    Quick fix to my active vs internal temperature graph: now with 100% less backwards data! And this is why we check our timestamps.

    http://s23.postimg.org/yyqsvmml7/151117_Calibration_Active_v_Internal.png

  • Mats002

    Pressure and temps follow so nicely, sorry to say but that is not what we looking for.

    In previous runs the pressure goes down and we speculate if the reason is ab/adsorption of H into the lattice of Ni or the formation of Rydberg matter which is also expected to lower the pressure.

    I wonder if Zephir is right in that Fe2O3 would consume the hydrogen under formation of LiO, FeO or even free iron.

    • magicsnd1

      There was one pressure drop event yesterday, during the ramp up from 180 C to 400 C. The profile looked like what Parkhomov reported and we also saw in Padua.

      Any reaction of Fe2O3 with Li would be strongly exothermic, even more than the Al thermite reaction. There’s been no sign of that and no drop in the hydrogen pressure other than what we valved off yesterday. In fact, this seems to be the tightest cell yet, thanks to highly polished sealing surfaces.

      • builditnow

        The reactor looks very hydrogen tight. Nice Job. Were the manual pressure releases those that occurred when the pressure reached around 160psi? Is the pressure drop created by the reactor the one that goes from about 135psi to about 88psi at approximately 2015-11-17 21:30 ref: http://hugnetlab.com/ GS5.

        That is a hopeful drop in pressure.
        Do you propose to later reduce the pressure to below 1 Bar?

        • Roberto Siquieros

          Parkhomhov talked about the reaction occurring when the pressure was <1 bar I think.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Yes – needs to be below 1 bar – to allow the reversible reaction to breathe.

            Adding more free lithium advances this process by taking up the free H2.