RE: [Vo]:Jiang reports successful Lugano replication
From: Jed Rothwell JR: 405 deg C is a huge difference. Yes, but it is proof of nothing other than an inverted temperature profile. * Assuming the temperature difference is real, and not an instrument artifact, it is proof that a great deal of heat originated from inside the reactor, OK. But is it chemical heat? Jiang used 20 times more active fuel (!!!), compared to Parkhomov or Rossi. And the active run was not long enough – only a few hours. He has arguably not eliminated a chemical contribution with this short run, since the LAH has significant chemical energy (in addition to whatever LENR takes place). Jiang says “the amount of powder fuels (Ni + 10% (in weight) LiAlH4) is 20 g -- filled in a nickel cell.” If you count the nickel cell itself as also being active, then this is more than a factor of 20 greater than Rossi. It should be noted that tanked hydrogen is available in addition, which should be unnecessary so disconnect it. The chemical energy of LAH phase-change and of hot hydrogen escaping from LAH can appear as excess heat in the core, at least to the extent it is retarded from transfer to the surface. The core fuel was held in a vacuum, so chemical heat is retarded. Due to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, a passive system cannot move heat from a cold source to a hot destination, but the law permits extreme minimization of thermal flux so the temperature gradient becomes amplified in a vacuum. Bottom line - If additional chemical heat, fueled by LAH in the core is retarded by the vacuum conditions, it appears to have a much larger signature than the un-retarded joule equivalent. The solution, and the proper technique, is not a mystery – 1) provide a much longer run time. (factor of 10x) 2) use adequate thermocouples (at least for the core) 3) show a similarly long calibration run 4) use 2 grams of LAH without nickel, and without the nickel tube, in the calibration run (to provide the identical chemical energy). A good substitute for the nickel would be 18 grams of aluminum or magnesium powder. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Jiang reports successful Lugano replication
Bob Higgins wrote. "Type B thermocouples are expensive; even for fine wire, short, uninsulated couples, because they are made from platinum. They may be 10x more expensive than type-K and extension wires are just as expensive. Additionally the signal level is smaller with type-B which means more noise in the measurement." Type S is Platinum/Rhodium and has a higher output than type B that uses platinum/with some Rhodium on the platinum side. This is more stable for really extended times at high temperature as it reduces Platinum diffusion to the Rhodium leg. It does have a lower output than type S. We also found that the wire diameter needs to be >15 thou diameter as the platinum forms crystals nearly that big, in say a year, that causes failure.
Re: [Vo]:Jiang reports successful Lugano replication
Jones Beene wrote: > Ø JR: 405 deg C is a huge difference. > > Yes, but it is proof of nothing other than an inverted temperature > profile. > Assuming the temperature difference is real, and not an instrument artifact, it is proof that a great deal of heat originated from inside the reactor, and not from the heater. How much is difficult to say, but I agree with Jiang that by any reasonable estimate it would be more than a chemical reaction can produce. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Jiang reports successful Lugano replication
I skimmed through it, one thing that struck me was that they hit 1372°C for 10 minutes. I have serious doubts that their stainless steel vessel could have survived such a temperature (barely bellow melting) - which makes me suspicious of an error somewhere, this is above where k-type thermocouples would typically be expected to be accurate or reliable. Also melting point depression would have melted nickel powder at such temps destroying (what I thought was important) nickel surface morphology. They seem to have good resources so hoping they do better calorimetry in future. On 31 May 2015 at 04:19, Bob Higgins wrote: > Type B thermocouples are expensive; even for fine wire, short, uninsulated > couples, because they are made from platinum. They may be 10x more > expensive than type-K and extension wires are just as expensive. > Additionally the signal level is smaller with type-B which means more noise > in the measurement. > > > On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Jed Rothwell > wrote: > >> a.ashfield wrote: >> >> Beats me why they don't use type S or type B thermocouples that are >>> common in the glass industry. >>> >> >> That probably would be better. You should suggest it to Jiang. (His >> e-mail in the slides. He is a good guy.) >> >> The K-type thermocouple maxed out. >> >> They have to replace the inner thermocouple (T3) in any case. >> >> - Jed >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:Jiang reports successful Lugano replication
Type B thermocouples are expensive; even for fine wire, short, uninsulated couples, because they are made from platinum. They may be 10x more expensive than type-K and extension wires are just as expensive. Additionally the signal level is smaller with type-B which means more noise in the measurement. On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > a.ashfield wrote: > > Beats me why they don't use type S or type B thermocouples that are >> common in the glass industry. >> > > That probably would be better. You should suggest it to Jiang. (His e-mail > in the slides. He is a good guy.) > > The K-type thermocouple maxed out. > > They have to replace the inner thermocouple (T3) in any case. > > - Jed > >
RE: [Vo]:Jiang reports successful Lugano replication
From: Jed Rothwell Can someone please describe how they are measuring output power? Where is the evidence of gain? * It is basically a temperature comparison, which is not the best method, but the temperature difference is large. “Not the best method”? Without proper calibration, this is not a method at all. Even with calibration, it is considered sub-standard. 1) Where is the calibration ? 2) Type K is a general purpose thermocouple which may be used up to 1260 °C in an inert atmosphere. In oxidizing atmospheres the safe limit is 800 °C. Type K should never have been used in air (or hydrogen) above 800 °C. 3) One thermocouple failed prematurely, which can be expected when operating in air, and this implies the others are compromised. 4) Without proper working thermocouples, and without proper calibration, this report should never have been published. Jiang has a nice looking setup here, so how hard would it have been to do it right? * * JR: 405 deg C is a huge difference. Yes, but it is proof of nothing other than an inverted temperature profile. * Assuming the thermocouples are working correctly, this indicates that much of the heat originates from inside the cell rather than the resistance heater. It is hard to judge how much heat there is. Yes, it does look like heat originates inside the cell but without calorimetry, we have no proof of anything other than an inverted temperature profile – for which there is the mundane explanation. Most of us want to believe that an inverted temperature profile means net gain, but that is not necessarily true. When hydrogen expands, such as when it is released from a compound like LAH – it HEATS up, instead of cools down. This is because of the low inversion temperature of hydrogen. This heating factor can add heat to the inside of the cell, which is chemical in nature. If and when calorimetry proves there is gain above chemical, then we can eliminate the inversion temperature of hydrogen as contributory BUT NOT BEFORE. In short – some of all of the temperature difference here can be explained as the heating effect of hydrogen being released from LAH – and only calorimetry will prove otherwise.
Re: [Vo]:Jiang reports successful Lugano replication
a.ashfield wrote: Beats me why they don't use type S or type B thermocouples that are common > in the glass industry. > That probably would be better. You should suggest it to Jiang. (His e-mail in the slides. He is a good guy.) The K-type thermocouple maxed out. They have to replace the inner thermocouple (T3) in any case. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Jiang reports successful Lugano replication
Oops. I should have said: Evidence for excess heat is found because T2 is much hotter than T1. *T1 is touching the resistance heater*, which should be the hottest place in the system. Heat escapes by various paths, but no matter how complicated those paths are, I am pretty sure that with no reaction in the cell, a thermocouple touching the electric heater should be the hottest in the system. All the heat originates there. Every other spot in the cell has to be cooler than that. Just because the cell core is hotter, that does not prove it is producing cold fusion heat. It might be a chemical reaction. But Jiang says the reaction continues for such a long time that is ruled out: "The calculated energy density is 4 orders of magnitude greater than the value of gasoline. Therefore, the origin of excess heat cannot be explained by any chemical energy." - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Jiang reports successful Lugano replication
Jones Beene wrote: Can someone please describe how they are measuring output power? > > > > Where is the evidence of gain? > It is basically a temperature comparison, which is not the best method, but the temperature difference is large. Look at the full sized slides here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/267085905/New-Result-on-Anomalous-Heat-Production-in-Hydrogen-loaded In Fig. 1, you see thermocouples T1, T2 and T3. T1 is sandwiched between the resistance heater and the cell. T2 is between the outer cell and the inner cell. T3 is inside, touching the powder. Unfortunately, T3 stopped working, so it is out of the picture. Evidence for excess heat is found because T2 is much hotter than T1. T2 is touching the resistance heater, which should be the hottest place in the system. Granted, not much hotter, because it is all metal, which conducts heat easily. However, T1 is not hotter. Jiang writes: "The T2 temperature placed on the outer surface of the fuel cell is about 405 deg C greater than the T1 temperature, T1 is placed on the outer surface of the reaction chamber and near the heater." 405 deg C is a huge difference. Assuming the thermocouples are working correctly, this indicates that much of the heat originates from inside the cell rather than the resistance heater. It is hard to judge how much heat there is. The resistance heater supplies 780 W. T2 is a K-type thermocouple that maxes out at 1372 deg C. The temperature might have been higher than that. Figure 7b shows the T2 reaching it is maximum reading and then making a straight line. I think it would be difficult to estimate power, but on the other hand I think it is clear that much of the heat originates from inside the cell. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Jiang reports successful Lugano replication
Daniel Rocha wrote: There is a successful reproduction of a test yesterday by MFMP. > Here are spreadsheets showing the MFMP results from May 28, 2015: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15ODbN9Oq6Pjyp9A61hdX0-fBJIXBBKMk7Ei06PzTc-Q/htmlview?sle=true#
RE: [Vo]:Jiang reports successful Lugano replication
Beats me why they don't use type S or type B thermocouples that are common in the glass industry.
RE: [Vo]:Jiang reports successful Lugano replication
Can someone please describe how they are measuring output power? Where is the evidence of gain? Did they leave out some of the text? From: Jed Rothwell The slides are here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/267085905/New-Result-on-Anomalous-Heat-Production-in-Hydrogen-loaded
Re: [Vo]:Jiang reports successful Lugano replication
The slides are here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/267085905/New-Result-on-Anomalous-Heat-Production-in-Hydrogen-loaded Daniel Rocha wrote: There is a successful reproduction of a test yesterday by MFMP. > Yes. Jiang's test was on May 4 at the China Institute of Atomic Energy, Beijing, China. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Jiang reports successful Lugano replication
There is a successful reproduction of a test yesterday by MFMP.
