Thanks Bob, that is great information but I still have a nagging concern that thermal loading is more important than anyone is currently aware and that XH needs an environment that is robustly subtracting heat away from an otherwise self destructing cell to rise above the noise. IMHO researchers need to perform something equivalent to an isometric where they are vigorusly fighting their own heating effort via thermal loading and then repeatedly push the drive thru the threshold temp while slowly increasing the load..and …with luck..decreasing the drive [I think this what Rossi has been doing]. The stories about life after death, evaporating water and explosions where reactors were left leaning in a bucket of water may have created a thermal gradient centered about the waterline that eventually favored a particular area within the tube and powders with just the right properties to run away…. Shot gunning by accident. Fran
From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 9:33 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Questions Raised by Parkhomov Experiment Failure Fran, I have seen exactly this done by Dennis Cravens. Dennis composed a set of experiments in a single tube, along with control materials, running along its length with gas permeable separators. All were exposed to the same hydrogen isotope mix, and the whole tube was ostensibly uniformly heated. Then he could use an IR pyrometer, and run it along the length of the tube and see the temperature of the controls and each of the experiments. Dennis is a master of this, running almost every experiment with a simultaneous control/blind/dummy. It may be harder, but possible, to do this at such high pressures as seems is required in a Parkhomov-like experiment. The long tube, compression seal is well suited to this because it can be sealed cold with the experiments carefully loaded into sections. Alumina is a relatively poor thermal conductor (about the same as stainless), to experiments could easily show hot spots and not have them blurred out by the thermal conductivity of the tube. From the lesson I learned from Dennis, the most valuable part of multiple experiments is to have a control and an active sample in the same tube. Then, for the bulk of the screening, you could simply measure that the active portion is hotter than the control, and by how much. This is much quicker than calorimetry, though you will want to do calorimetry as well to convince yourself and others that there is really XH there. From an engineer's perspective, I want to run an experiment with just the LiAlH4 and determine the full pressure profile vs. temperature. Then do the same with the Ni + other catalysts and look not only for XH, but for changes in the pressure profile. I also plan to collect the product gas for analysis in a sample cylinder at the end of the experiment. Opportunities there are to look for enhancements of hydrogen isotopes and for He. Bob On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 4:56 AM, Roarty, Francis X <francis.x.roa...@lmco.com<mailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com>> wrote: Good Points Bob and taken with Axil’s reply re arc gap vs RF by Rossi begs a question.. how hard would it be to design and monitor an array of experiments inside a single reactor tube.. stepped or tapered mini cells inside a single tube with a variable exterior thermal gradient – metrics could be collected into arrays at different levels of submersion /cooling for each mini cell where each cell represents different variables of powder and geometries.. shot gunning may be the quickest way to identify the most important variables.. multiple heating wires and pwm of the source could even allow more variability.. IMHO minimal telemetry could quickly isolate the most important variables and then we can worry about meticulous measurements. Fran From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com<mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>] Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2015 9:01 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Questions Raised by Parkhomov Experiment Failure From the pictures I saw, Parkhomov changed to use a separate tube for the heater. If nichrome does make a difference, it would have to be against the alumina reactor tube. So, if you use the heater tube, it wouldn't make any difference if it was kanthal or nichrome - the H2 would leak out of the gap between. I think it less likely that having the heater wire in proximity to the main reactor tube makes or if it is nichrome makes any difference. The inside of the tube is coated with Li-Al-Ni alloy that would fill any porosity in the alumina. Examining the alumina shards from the MFMP Bang! experiment, I saw no evidence of penetration or erosion of the alumina tube. For more likely is that the experiment could have been a success, as MFMP's experiment could have been a success. In Parkhomov's new design, there is increased insulation around the reactor tube (the air gap,the second alumina tube with the heater coil, and the additional alumina cement around the coil). Only this time, the heater wire is on the outside of the insulation. If he heats the reactor tube to where XH occurs, the temperature may quickly rise out of control and cause the reactor tube to break open. This is due to the increased thermal resistance to ambient or to the calorimeter water. When the heater is turned off, he still has all of that alumina wrapped around the reactor tube. In previous experiments when Parkhomov insulated the reactor in alumina powder, it caused the reactor tubes to break. On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Jack Cole <jcol...@gmail.com<mailto:jcol...@gmail.com>> wrote: The failure of Parkhomov's experiment raises a few questions that hopefully he can answer with future experiments. There was some potentially bad news from Greenyer's visit including that his original supply of nickel has been exhausted except for 1 gram. http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2015/03/02/parkhomov-demonstration-fails/ Jack
