Live LENR Test By Brian Albiston (Test Now Over)

UPDATE (April 12, 2016): Here’s a link to a new test that Brian has started today:

https://freeboard.io/board/1KF7Ff

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Brian Albiston (known here on ECW as Wishful Thinking Energy) is currently performing a test on a system designed to test the MFMP ‘Signal’ recipe.  He has just posted this link here in a comment where he said ‘it’s getting interesting’:

https://dashboards.ly/ua-kAAu4KGvqjjrKjE4N3C9yL

I’m having a hard time opening the above link, but here’s a screenshot that someone sent me:

http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Brianalbiston-1024×508.jpg

Brianalbiston

Here’s a plotly link:

https://plot.ly/~fear_nuts/810/jacket-differential-temperature-vs-power-active-1/

  • e-dog

    Better luck next time!!

  • Wishful Thinking Energy

    Test charts

    • Ged

      A spectacular petering out!

      But, you advanced greatly in presentation, and more data is great. Nice work, WTE, thank you for sharing this live! Also, nice suggestions below.

      • Wishful Thinking Energy

        Likely the most beautiful plots of an electric resistance heater operation ever!

        • Mats002

          Ha ha! Yes indeed. You are doing great.

          The parameter space is narrowed down for each run, no matter if the wishes for XH come true or not. Hope me356 nailed it, some input from him might make it next time!

  • Wishful Thinking Energy

    Test ended with no signs of excess heat. Unfortunately plot.ly only allows viewing of a chart 500 times before they shut it off if you don’t have a subscription so the plots can no longer be viewed.
    Last night I took the temperature up to 1260C+ with the pressure around 0.1 bar. This should have resulted in the Lithium boiling as me356 recommends. Possible reasons it didn’t work as hoped:
    – It is very possible that the Nanoshel stabilized Lithium I have been using and supplying to MFMP has exceeded its useful shelf life. I will try again with bulk Lithium.
    – Perhaps my Nickel Hydrogenation step is flawed in some way.
    – My reactor had been used several times before and contamination is quite likely.
    – My consumer vacuum pump may not be capable of reaching the low pressures required.
    – me356 may be using some additional triggering mechanism he hasn’t told us about yet.
    – It’s all just wishful thinking.

    • Ecco

      I noticed that there hasn’t been any decrease in pressure due to LiH formation at about 600 °C. This implies that the Lithium used was rather impure (or that it wasn’t Lithium).

      • Wishful Thinking Energy

        I’ve noticed that this powdered Lithium doesn’t absorb nearly as much Hydrogen as when I’ve used bulk Lithium in the past. I would agree with your assertions.

        • Alan Smith

          Hi Brian. I suspect that CO2 passivated Nanoshell Lithium is more Lithium Carbonate than Lithium itself. Drop some in water (and at their prices not too much) and the reaction is very sluggish. Anyway, if the Lithium needs to boil (maybe) then Nano-Li hardly seems necessary since it suggests that all the jazz is in the vapour-phase. I am pondering trying Lithium/Gallium Alloy (for all sorts of reasons) in a test soon- I have a theory about it – but equally it is just in the spirit of ‘crazy science.’

          • Wishful Thinking Energy

            It does seem awfully silly to take this $30 a gram nano sized Li and immediately melt it.

          • Ecco

            If it’s mostly Lithium Carbonate, it would decompose into Li2O and CO2 at high temperature (this is reported to occur above 1300°C at atmospheric pressure), which might in part explain the slow pressure rise observed by Brian. The CO2 formed could be an unwanted product. The Lithium content of the Li2O might be able to volatilize off at high temperatures to some extent if pressure is also decreased significantly.

            So, my suggestion (or better, what I would personally attempt to do) for Brian is to:
            – Cool down the cell and vacuum off the gases contained;
            – Flush a few times with H2;
            – Apply the deepest vacuum possible (dual stage vacuum pumps usually have a terminal vacuum in the several Pa range). Having previously flushed the cell with H2 before means that there will still be a residual H2 atmosphere;
            – Apply power again, increase internal temperatures to >1200°C.

    • Sanjeev

      Its an achievement that it survived that temperature.
      Should have tried with at least a few bars of H2 also at over 1100C.
      How much H2 was absorbed in hydrogenation step?

      • Wishful Thinking Energy

        The point of this test was to try out me356 extreme low pressure triggering claims. That’s why I didn’t try it with H2. That said, I haven’t broken it down yet so I could always add a couple of bars and reaheat.
        I don’t have any good way of knowing how much was absorbed. The pressure always drops on the absorbtion step, but I suspect that is due to a leak somewhere.

  • Wishful Thinking Energy

    Temperature cycling….COP will be inaccurate while cycling.

    • David Dragon

      Nice Data, thx for sharing, good luck!

    • Mats002

      Probably dumb question – I noticed ambient temp has increased from 25 to 35 C which is understandable after pushing more than 7200 Wh into the room, probably not too large of a volume.

      Are calculations taking this into account? How?

    • Ted-X

      Try cryogenic pre-treatment of nickel (liquid N2 plus crushing but not milling). I think that this is the trick to make the secret sauce. There are some indications that this is the way to go.
      Pro publico bono..

      • Mats002

        – How do you want your Nickel sir?
        – Crushed, not milled, thanks!

        • Been there, Seen it

          Carbonyl nickel, please, because that’s macro-porous. As log as I remove all the absorbed CO before I use it for whatever, it will be all right.

  • Wishful Thinking Energy

    Sorry, I didn’t realize Frank had posted the link. I’ll start checking the comments here.

    I decreased the pressure several times as recommend by me356. Unfortunately I didn’t see any sort of jump in power output like he did. I did notice on one of the pressure drops that my Geiger counter jumped to 3 times background for a couple of seconds. I’ve noticed this a couple of times before on previous experiments. Interestingly on the previous experiment it was when pressure was increased (correlation does not imply causation right). It very quickly returned to background after the pressure drop.

    • Ecco

      me356 suggests that Li should be evaporating. Perhaps you could try lowering pressure significantly, down to the several millibar range if possible. A triggering step is also needed to observe a reaction – you could try switching power on/off quickly a few times after that to see if it yields any effect.

      Just a few ideas.

      http://i.imgur.com/FU6UD0S.png

      • Wishful Thinking Energy

        I can try lowering the pressure more. I had it lower a couple of hours ago and it has slowly climbed up. I don’t know if this is because temperature has increased or if Lithium is evaporating?

        • Mike Henderson

          Dalton’s law says the partial pressure of an ideal gas in a mixture of ideal gases is independent of the pressures of those other gases. Lowering the pressure should have no effect on the amount of Lithium in the vapor phase.

          That said, dropping the pressure will remove stuff that reacts with Li causing it to not behave as an ideal gas.

          This page gives the partial pressure of Li at various temperatures:
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapor_pressures_of_the_elements_(data_page)

          500 degrees C = 10^-6 Atmosphere
          720 degrees C = 10^-4
          870 degrees C = 10^-2
          1064 degrees C = 10^-1
          1340 degrees C = 1

          • Andreas Moraitis

            I wonder why nobody has tried potassium so far, which has been the first candidate for the “catalyst” in Rossi’s old reactors. One could reach sufficient pressure at about 760C. No problems with coils, thermocouples etc. to be expected.

            • Bob Greenyer

              We want to do this moving forward.

        • Been there, Seen it

          The vapor pressure graph above is really helpful… After you’ve loaded the pestle & mortar mixed Ni + Li the procedure is: 1) evacuate to remove air; 2) fill with pure H2 to >~ 30 psia; 3) perform pressure test; 4) heat slowly to remove surface O from Ni surfaces and carbonate from Li surfaces by eventually going all the way up to temp required for LiCO3 breakdown; let H2O and CO2 out, (but don’t let the Li boil as yet), cool down, then evacuate and refill with pure H2; 5) repeat step #4 perhaps; 6) evacuate and this time hold pressure at <~while heating

      • Sanjeev

        I think someone needs to also try the high voltage DC setup asap. Even this “extremely confidential” slide of DGT shows it. H2 can be ionized easily by HV anode/cathode inside the core tube.

        I suspect me356 is using something like this to start/stop the reaction.

        http://www.quantumheat.org/images/Gamma/Screen%20Shot%202016-02-24%20at%2004.12.56.png

        • Bob Greenyer

          He is building an HV setup.

          • Sanjeev

            Excellent!
            But he already got heat.

        • Axil Axil

          The Defkalion system was a failure because the spark disrupted the superconductive environment on the high pressure hydride. DGT produced a constant and robust x-ray emission that is not seen is the Rossi type reactor. much power is wasted when x-ray are produced instead of heat. The use of spark excitation is only useful in the fuel preparation process. I beleive that Rossi uses an arc to produce his fractured nickel powder.

    • Ged

      Very interesting, WTE. Could be the reactor just needs time and cycling, as MFMP saw in GS5.2, to kick on like your last run.

      Science is tricky. I personally, know first hand a lab working with mice that had a very cool phenotype with a certain genetic knockout strain (gene physically deleted). But then, for three years, the phenotype disappeared and it was as if they had the gene again. Test after test after test was run to find out what changed. Every genetic test showed the gene was gone just like before, so the testing branched out to absolutely anything else people could think of–from the food to even the very vibrations of the building. No variable could be pinned down as different to explain the sudden loss of the phenotype–even with geographically independent labs working with the same strain of animal. And then, just as abruptly, the phenotype reappeared exactly as it was before, with nothing having been changed on the investigator’s end.

      That’s the beautiful pain of science. Even when we think we know everything there is to know about controlling a system, even when it’s as clear cut and dry is “does or does not have”, all our expectations can be turned on their head and then flipped right back round again with us doing nothing on our parts. There is always a reason, always an answer, always a variable; question is, do we have the technology and insight to find it.

      • LION

        SPACE is not devoid of qualities, this is something modern science has yet to learn, that is why PATTERNS repeat themselves over TIME with slight variations, plus there is the esoteric. By this I mean” GOD it is in whom we live and move and have our Being”, and some times strange things happen because (teaching is taking place)- because we are apart of THIS LIFE .AWARENESS evolves and changes with what we call Time because it is itself CYCLIC. Waves of activity, Consciousness, Awakening to that which IS.

    • Been there, Seen it

      For triggering, see the Piantelli patent. Quick pressure changes MIGHT do it, or perhaps a really sharp poke with a stick (seriously!) to jolt the nickel-hydride crystals. Alternative is to wait patiently for a cosmic ray to go through there. But that might be a long wait if your cell is small. My 6 liter reactor used to get hit (by a cosmic ray) once or twice a week…

  • Mats002

    Nice new UX for this run. The picture show the lead jacket that is used for thermalization of radiation (if any). The Glowstick like reactor lay in the front and can be pressure controlled. Not expecting COP > 2 I see. The speedometer can not go higher than that.

    • Sanjeev

      Agree. This has to be the prettiest presentation of a lenr experiment till date.

      • Mats002

        COPometer increasing from 0.84 to 0.96 (at 783 C core) – will it go above the magic 1?

        • Sanjeev

          Its jumping up and down. But the Jacket dT wants to catch the calibration it seems.

          • Ged

            If it took MFMP several cyclings over the better part of a day, I guess we’ll have to wait. Have to agree with everyone else that the presentation is really pretty.

            Edit: Albeit, it is at COP 1 now.

      • artefact

        A chat window would be cool but it looks nice.

        • Mats002

          Indeed. COP 0.98 now at 1000 C core…

  • Ecco

    Wishful Thinking Energy: do you have the capability of decreasing hydrogen pressure below 1 bar while the experiment is running?

  • Wishful Thinking Energy

    Post run calibration completed and can be seen here compared with the fueled run:
    https://plot.ly/825/~fear_nuts/
    Every effort was made to make the post calibration as close to the active run as possible, including Hydrogen in the cell to account for it’s high thermal conductivity.
    It is not much, but there is a definite shift in the data in the fueled run. I estimate that there is about a 3-4 deg C shift in the fueled run corresponding to a COP of ~1.1. A lot was learned on this test so hopefully we can improve on that COP from here.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Thank you, Brian, for carrying out these experiments and sharing the data, but even more for the well thought-out methodology and the responsible presentation of the results.

    • Mats002

      Great job Brian! How is 3-4 degrees difference translated to COP 1.1? Of course 1.1 can be due to a systematic error but I believe in your results and think this is the way to success.

      As you say next step is to increase the effect – what is your thoughts on how to do that? More fuel / another mix / run to higher temps or ..?

      One parameter that is still unexplored is electrical stimulation through the core. At the higher temperatures the core should be conductive so stimulation might be possible by clips at the ends of the reactor tube maybe?

      • Wishful Thinking Energy

        I come up with ~ 1.1 COP by looking at how many Watts would be required to achieve the same temperature differential. So I estimate around 50 Watts to achieve the same temperature differential. So for an input power of 550 Watts this would actually be slightly less than a 1.1 COP.
        I would like to explore higher temps and I think we are far from the optimal fuel mix. I hope to try as many different types of Nickel as I can get my hands on. I can use this test as a baseline to know when I’m headed in the right direction.
        I think electrical stimulation might be important, but I need to limit the parameter space of what I’m exploring so I’ll just stick with my “dirty” AC for now.

        • Mats002

          Sounds wise to limit the parameter space until some kind of optimum is found at the current setup. Hope you will get the scintilator from MFMP, might be some important finding with that 🙂

        • psi2u2

          Do you have facilities for ash analysis?

    • Ged

      I know this got kinda missed due to all the rapid news going on, but nice work! Great post calibrations. It’s a good foundation to build from. Thank you for your efforts!

  • Axil Axil

    It is becoming clear that the LENR reaction involves high pressure chemistry to generate metalized compounds involved in the production of the superconductivity and electromagnetic ordering required in exploiting chemical based nuclear effects.

    The question that now needs to be answered through research is how self-assembly of chemical compounds operating at room temperature can generate nanostructures that generate high pressure molecular characteristics at room temperatures.

    For example, carbon nanotubes must be ground on a particular substrate to provide a structural template upon which their crystal structures can form.

    From the research of Holmlid, we know that chemical catalysts based on potassium doped graphite are used to produce metalized hydrides that show LENR activity through the generation of high pressure chemistry catalysis. More explicitly, Rossi uses mica in his reactor and other LENR workers use powdered quartz in their fuel mix. This speaks to the possibility that hexagonal and trigonal chemical substrates are providing templates for the fabrication of metalized hydrides.

    In order to more fully study how this substrate based nanoparticle generation process might work, the LENR researcher could use the Molecular Foundry, a nanoscience User Facility located at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, California. This research center is one of five Nanoscale Science Research Centers sponsored by the United States Department of Energy. The Molecular Foundry provides users from around the world with access to cutting-edge nanoscience expertise and instrumentation in a collaborative, multidisciplinary environment.

    Users of the Molecular Foundry are provided with free access to instruments, techniques and collaborators for nanoscience research that is in the public domain and intended for open publication. Proposals for user projects are solicited to promote interdisciplinary collaboration among scientists studying nanoscale phenomena in materials science, physics, electrical engineering, environmental engineering, biology and chemistry in six interdependent facilities:

    • 1 Imaging and Manipulation of Nanostructures

    • 2 Nanofabrication

    • 3 Theory of Nanostructured Materials

    • 4 Inorganic Nanostructures

    • 5 Biological Nanostructures

    • 6 Organic and Macromolecular Synthesis

    See

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

    The US government has funded this freely available research capability as a way to support open source research capacity within the U.S. to advance the competitiveness and leadership of the U.S. in nano materials expertise and R&D.

    See

    http://foundry.lbl.gov/

    http://www2.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/MSD-Foundry-rating.html

    For the research center most convenient to you see

    http://science.energy.gov/bes/suf/user-facilities/nanoscale-science-research-centers/

    Be advised, if you decide to use this research resource, it would be prudent to keep your application secret because the LENR naysayers will attempt to kill your application. At the current juncture it is prudent to avoid the use of the word or concept ‘LENR’ in your dealing with the US government.

    http://science.energy.gov/~/media/bes/suf/images/user-facilities/nanoscience-centers/tmf-cantilevered-building-thumb.jpg

  • Mats002

    Hi Brian, I am browsing through the data files in the dropbox folder and the latest file ‘Calorimeter_2016-03-30_21;13.csv’ says you had a COP at around 1.8 for hours starting at 2016-03-30 21:16 (local time I presume) at ~130 W Average and 540 C in core.

    I try to find the file before where the supposed high COP started but the large file before (Calorimeter_2016-03-29_15;33.csv) ends with COP about 1 at 330 W Average. This file ends at 2016-03-30 21:12, seams to be a small gap of 4 minutes in the data where power in goes down from 330 W to 130 W, giving a temp fall in Core from 760 to 540 C, but this give a COP rise to 1.8.

    Strange event or I misinterpret the data at hand.

    • Wishful Thinking Energy

      I think what you are seeing is an artificial rise in COP from thermal mass. I changed the temperature setpoint from ~760C to 550C and let it soak at 550C so that I could do a sweep from 550C to 1050C. For about a half hour after the drop from 760C to 550C the estimated COP was artificially high as the reactor and lead jacket cooled to the new setpoint.

  • Wishful Thinking Energy

    The experiment is still going. The links:
    https://plot.ly/816/~fear_nuts/
    https://plot.ly/818/~fear_nuts/
    are updated every couple of hours. The presumed excess appeared to be going away for the last several hours but may be coming back. The last climb from 750 C followed calibration more closely until it reached about 1020 C where it started to climb above calibration again. All of my pictures and test data can be found here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/p5qvihosyjpt0uo/AACxW36ZNpRmQFpH8FUpZct0a?dl=0

    • Sanjeev

      It looks like there is an opening on the right side for radiation to reach the dosimeter. But what if the radiation is directional and stronger coming from sides instead of axial?
      Another question – what is the cut off for your RD1212 model? (Kev and frequencies)

      • Wishful Thinking Energy

        The RD1212 claims:
        Scale range of Gamma-radiation energy (MeV)
        0.1 – 1.25
        Scale range of X-ray radiation energy (MeV)
        0.03 – 3.00
        Scale range of Beta-radiation energy (MeV)
        0.25 –

        So it claims to go to 30 keV, but anything that low probably wouldn’t make it to it. This is the problem with having a lead jacket, there isn’t a good place to measure the radiation. I’ve placed it where there is an opening in the lead jacket, but it is a good 9 inches away from the fuel.

        • Bob Greenyer

          This is a good experiment iteration whatever Brian – Keep it up!

          • Been there, Seen it

            Good morning Bob. I trust you have had a mutually beneficial meeting with me356. But why has MFMP GS5.3 been shutdown and abandoned? Has everybody gone on holiday – just when you were perhaps on the brink of success? Nobody answered my question: “What is the pressure as of now?” Your co-workers all seem to have assumed the cell is leaking and the test is over. Do they all have PhD physics degrees (that are blinding them from seeing the unexpected)? If the answer to my question is: “14.7 psia” then I agree the cell is leaking. If the answer to my question is something else, then GS5.3 is waiting there, ready for resurrection, i.e. another run up to ~800C & wait patiently for the “Signal” to be seen, like in GS5.2. Perhaps if you call Edmund and ask him to go look at the P guage…

            • Bob Greenyer

              It will be at a convenient time – I have written to him to say that my time is better from Thursday having just got back from Holland. I need to start publishing all the media from GS 5.3 and do a little bit of paid work for my animation business.

              The GS5.3 cell has to pause for Alan’s planned trip, Mark may do something.

        • Sanjeev

          The ranges look good for our purpose.
          However for the next run, I’d recommend removing the lead jacket (at least from the front side) and placing the dosimeter facing the reactor, so that it sees the entire reactor. It can be insulated from heat using something which allows the low energy gamma/xray to pass.
          At this time, it sees a tiny cross section of the reactor from an angle where the radiation amount would be lowest. I guess the lead is there to thermalize the gamma, but I don’t think there will be that much radiation there. Anyhow, since MFMP didn’t see a lot of excess heat with this recipe, the chances of it occurring are less. There are good chances of radiation, the signal, which should be the first objective of the experiment. Its encouraging that you saw some glimpses of it already.

    • e-dog

      Thanks Brian!

  • e-dog

    Hi Brian, Experiment still going??
    Would it be too much to ask if you could publish some pics of your testing set up? Would be great to see.
    Cheers

  • Mats002

    Chrome works fine for me too.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Brian: Thanks for the updates it is appreciated.

  • Wishful Thinking Energy

    Two new links:
    https://plot.ly/816/~fear_nuts/
    https://plot.ly/818/~fear_nuts/
    RIght now I’m just holding power constant so there isn’t much to see. I did just witness something interesting though. I reduced pressure to ~0.25 bar several hours ago to see if it had any effect on estimated COP. I didn’t notice much difference so I just added Hydrogen in to bring it to around 1 bar. When I added the Hydrogen my Geiger counter went from ~13 uSv to ~30 uSv for about 15 seconds. This sounds very much like what MFMP observed when they would add fresh Hydrogen to their Celiani cells. I added additional Hydrogen to bring it up to ~9 psig but the effect did not repeat.

    • Sanjeev

      Are you also measuring x-rays/gamma?

      • Wishful Thinking Energy

        Sanjeev, I only have a Radex RD1212 Geiger counter. It’s a good device for the class it’s in, but it will not give me any sort of spectrum of the observed energy.

    • Mats002

      Wow! Parkhomov and MFMP was below (near) 0.5 bar – can you try that procedure again at a lower pressure?

      • Wishful Thinking Energy

        I’ll try and repeat it later today.

      • Wishful Thinking Energy

        I vacuumed it down and repeated the procedure (as close as I could) with no radiation increase observed. The fuel was only at ~830C instead of 1020C like last time. Perhaps that made a difference.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Hi Brian,

      The decay time is about right given the distance of the detector and the magnitude of the change is in line with our 2013 Celani cell data. Interesting.

      I think you are now in need of a NaI scintillator.

  • Wishful Thinking Energy

    Test is back on. I’ll post if there is anything else interesting.

    • Frank Acland

      Did you fix the problem, Brian?

      • Wishful Thinking Energy

        The problem went away when it cooled down. I won’t be able to investigate what happened until I’m home and can spend some time with it. For the time being it seems to be operating fine. I’ll try and get Plot.ly working again soon.

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      It seems like a very promising test and a very important one for MFMP too. Please keep us informed; your effort is very much appreciated!

  • e-dog

    Good luck Brian!

  • Wishful Thinking Energy

    I think what you are seeing was a software crash in the middle of the night. I think it occurred at about 2200 hours.

  • artefact

    Andrea Rossi
    March 29, 2016 at 1:44 PM
    DEAR READERS:
    WE HAVE RECEIVED RIGHT NOW THE ERV’S REPORT WHICH HAS BEEN DELIVERED TO INDUSTRIAL HEAT AND TO MYSELF.
    While I cannot release the report publicaly at this time, I can state that I am very pleased with the results.
    I hope that Industrial Heat and I will be able to release the report publicaly in the near future.
    May God help us for the hard work waiting for us all.
    Warm Regards,
    Dr Andrea Rossi, CEO of Leonardo Corporation

    • Bob Greenyer

      Great!

      • http://lenrftw.net LENR G

        And thank goodness they didn’t get it on April 1st!

        • Mats002

          Yes! I was thinking the same. Popcorn! (I save the big bucket for the public release)

          • Bob Greenyer

            I have a bottle of Piantelli’s Chianti to share with the team in Santa Cruz… Thanks to a donor

            • Mats002

              I will have a glass of water with the popcorn outdoor on the veranda at -5 C, cloudy skies. But I will be happy anyway, you are all welcome to join in!

              • Mats002

                Oh – and I will put my Piantelli hat on 😉

                • Bob Greenyer

                  Now you are talking!

            • Dms

              I may open mine as well if we get to see the ERV or we get another confirmation of your team’s results. I will take either.

              • Bob Greenyer

                Well, Brian or SKINR or me356 all have a shot before us. Our calibration starts on the 5th – so some details should be released from the ERV before then.

              • Bob Greenyer

                ooo – maybe we can have a live google hangout raising of the glasses!

                • Dms

                  I would be honored!

        • sam

          They received the report on Martin Fleischmann birthday.
          He would have been 89.

  • Wishful Thinking Energy

    And Rossi is pleased!

  • http://lenrftw.net LENR G

    ROSSI and IH HAVE RECEIVED THE ERV REPORT.

  • JDM

    Check Rossi blog for good news!

  • Wishful Thinking Energy

    Fuel was 3.02g Ni, 0.324g Li, 0.469g LiAlH4, mixed in mortar and pestle in Argon. Nickel was reduced using procedure very close to MFMP recommended procedures.

    • Mats002

      Another great step forward, you take the lead again with the lead jacket!

      Looks interesting at 17-18 hour where two high temp platoes have decreasing average power in.

      I am soo curious what will happen at 1200 – 1300 C in core. Next time!

      • Bob Greenyer

        This is a real material contribution to the evolution of experiment design and well instrumented. Even without having time to do a fully acceptable calibration, Brian is showing some interesting data.

        This is one to watch – good job Brian.

  • Wishful Thinking Energy

    Calibration charts:
    https://plot.ly/803/~fear_nuts/
    https://plot.ly/813/~fear_nuts/
    Unfortunately the calibration only went up to 1000C and about 540W input. I pushed the test a little past this and so the calibration is based upon the polynomial fit past this point.
    This was intended to be a quick test to flesh out problems in the system. As it so happens I think it also produced interesting data. More tests will follow.

  • Wishful Thinking Energy

    Unfortunately as I tried to push the temperature higher my test automation system went haywire and I had to end the test. I’m assuming a thermocouple failure was putting noise on the ground for all of my thermocouples. All of the test data can be found here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/p5qvihosyjpt0uo/AACxW36ZNpRmQFpH8FUpZct0a?dl=0

    • Gerard McEk

      The graphs look promising, Brian. I hope you will see the signal soon.
      Regarding the TC: Are you able to fully insulate it? I expect that at high temperatures the Al2O3 starts to conduct electricity, which will disturb your measurement and control loop. Good Luck!!

      • Wishful Thinking Energy

        The TC all have an Inconel jacket. If this jacket failed then yes, it is likely that is what caused the problem.

      • Been there, Seen it

        Mullite Al2O3 is likely to cause problems at >~1100C with becoming a conductor – so wrecking thermocouples and if using bulk lithium Li will attack it too on the inside. If using mullite, I suggest you stay below ~1000C.

        Nickel needs to macro-porous – so, in other words, made by deposition from nickel carbonyl

    • Been there, Seen it

      >>Brian, Please see my suggestions in my post on your thread (that I accidentally posted below the following one by Gerard McEk)… As I said, good luck!

  • Gerard McEk

    Most important graph is the differential temperature (upper left). The estimated calibration is clearly lower than the measured temperature of the jackets. It would have been better that the calibration showed full range measured values. This was obviously not possible and therefore I think it is far too early to celebrate victory now. Only when a step change was shown, I would be more curious.

  • Wishful Thinking Energy
  • Mats002

    Me too have problem with the dashboards.ly link. Only white space.

    • artefact

      both links work for me.

      • Mats002

        I doesn’t work with Safari in my smart phone. Computer ok.

    • Bob Greenyer

      If you had adblock on – it does not work.

      Works nice in Firefox