Open Power Association replicating Parkhomov E-Cat

Fig-1 Heating resistance of ceramics
Fig-1 Heating resistance of ceramics
The Open Power Association at Hydrobetatron.org has published Report No. 11 describing the set-up for an upcoming replication of the Parkhomov-style E-Cat.

Results of the experiments will be reported at the upcoming 19th International Conference on Cold Fusion this April 2015.

What follows is a slightly-modified google-translated English translation of the report. Open Power’s Ugo Abundo provided these pictures of the construction of the cell. See more detailed photos and read the original report in Italian here.


Report No. 11: Design of re-runs and enhancements of A. Parkhomov reactor (inspired by the E-cat) at Open Power Lab

Fig-6 Steel pipe containment
Fig-6 Steel pipe containment
The experimental campaign ITAbetatron will also include the replication of the process that is believed to take place in the E-cat and the study of its variants, with the aim of enhancing its performances such as controllability, efficiency, etc. by the adoption of specific criteria that inform such our experimentation.

Based on the recent experiments of the Russian scientist Alexander Parkhomov, of independent reports on E-cat, and the experiments began by the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project, we must put the emphasis on the serious safety problems, both in the preparation of reagents and in the execution of experiments.

In this regard, we will provide the details of the equipments that have been chosen to carry out the campaign, just launched, the results of which will be presented and discussed at the conference ICCF19 on April 2015.

The experimental set-up is divided into 4 sections, modularly composable:

1) gas supply, with refillable cylinders of hydrogen adsorbed on metal powders, and cylinders of Argon, with adjustment of individual pressures and the possibility of mixing;

Fig-24 Glove box operating
Fig-24 Glove box operating
2) room glove-box manipulation in an inert atmosphere, for the loading of reactive species in the capsules steel interchangeable;

3) the reaction chamber for housing the reactors, by containing them in an inert atmosphere in a pressurizable container and very resistant mechanically;

4) the discharge section, with safety valve, expansion tank and filtered collection of the powders in case of explosion, chemical abatement of hydrogen.

Composing subsystems 1), 2) and 4), we get the gaming system in preparation safety of reagents, composing subsystems 1), 3) and 4) is obtained in the reaction system security.

Fig-13 Detail tube thermocouple
Fig-13 Detail tube thermocouple
The reactor consists of a ceramic tube which houses an externally wrapped around resistance Nichrome, having access internally to a tube removable and interchangeable housing-sealable stainless steel samples at the ends by means of threaded screws sealed with stops in thread-adhesive ceramic by high temperatures, for containment of reagents.

This tube is wrapped in tape, ceramic fiber for high temperature, and has a ceramic tube in direct contact with the ceramic tube interior, for the accommodation of the thermocouples.

The whole is inserted in a copper coil for the cooling water or air, further insulated and contained in a stainless steel tube exterior.

The apparatus constituting the group-reactor heater-chiller, is contained in the chamber 3), powered by the subsystem 1) and connected to the subsystem 4).

A variac guide sending the current, once the rectified by a bridge, to the heater, and a watt meter records the power fed after filtering with a low-pass filter and an isolation transformer.

Fig-14 Complete line test reactor
Fig-14 Complete line test reactor
The measurements of the thermocouples are recorded by the computer interface.

The difficulty to operate at the high temperatures involved has made necessary tests of thermal resistance tests of the apparatus, as well as the dangerousness of the reagents has required the adoption of manipulation in an inert atmosphere, with recovery of any dust in totally enclosed system.

Ugo Abundo
Open Power

See more photos and read the original report in Italian here.

Special LENR issue of Current Science available now

currentSciece108n4-420x566CURRENT SCIENCE
Volume 108 – Issue 4 : 25 February 2015

Special Section: Low Energy Nuclear Reactions

Preface (491) | February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
Srinivasan, M.; Meulenberg, A.

Cold fusion: comments on the state of scientific proof (495) | February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
McKubre, Michael C. H.

Extensions to physics: what cold fusion teaches (499) | February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
Meulenberg, A.

Phonon models for anomalies in condensed matter nuclear science (507) | February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
Hagelstein, Peter L.; Chaudhary, Irfan U.

Development status of condensed cluster fusion theory (514) | February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
Takahashi, Akito

Model of low energy nuclear reactions in a solid matrix with defects (516) | February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
Sinha, K. P.

Selective resonant tunnelling – turning hydrogen-storage material into energetic material (519) | February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
Liang, C. L.; Dong, Z. M.; Li, X. Z.

Coherent correlated states of interacting particles – the possible key to paradoxes and features of LENR (524) | February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
Vysotskii, Vladimir I.; Vysotskyy, Mykhaylo V.

How the explanation of LENR can be made consistent with observed behaviour and natural laws (531) | February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
Storms, Edmund

Introduction to the main experimental findings of the LENR field (535) | February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
Storms, Edmund

Review of materials science for studying the Fleischmann and Pons effect (540) | February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
Violante, V.; Castagna, E.; Lecci, S.; Sarto, F.; Sansovini, M.; Torre, A.; La Gatta, A.; Duncan, R.; Hubler, G.; El Boher, A.; Aziz, O.; Pease, D.; Knies, D.; McKubre, M.

Highly reproducible LENR experiments using dual laser stimulation (559) | February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
Letts, Dennis

Sidney Kimmel Institute for Nuclear Renaissance (562) | February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
Hubler, G. K.; El-Boher, A.; Azizi, O.; Pease, D.; He, J. H.; Isaacson, W.; Gangopadhyay, S.; Violante, V.

Progress towards understanding anomalous heat effect in metal deuterides (565) | February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
Azizi, O.; El-Boher, A.; He, J. H.; Hubler, G. K.; Pease, D.; Isaacson, W.; Violante, V.; Gangopadhyay, S.

Replicable cold fusion experiment: heat/helium ratio (574) | February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
Lomax, Abd ul-Rahman

Observation of radio frequency emissions from electrochemical loading experiments (578) | February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
Kidwell, D. A.; Dominguez, D. D.; Grabowski, K. S.; DeChiaro Jr, L. F.

Condensed matter nuclear reactions with metal particles in gases (582) | February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
Cravens, Dennis; Swartz, Mitchell R.; Ahern, Brian

Use of CR-39 detectors to determine the branching ratio in Pd/D co-deposition (585) | February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
Mosier-Boss, P. A.; Forsley, L. P.; Roussetski, A. S.; Lipson, A. G.; Tanzella, F.; Saunin, E. I.; McKubre, M.; Earle, B.; Zhou, D.

Brief summary of latest experimental results with a mass-flow calorimetry system for anomalous heat effect of nano-composite metals under D(H)-gas charging (589) | February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
Kitamura, A.; Takahashi, A.; Seto, R.; Fujita, Y.; Taniike, A.; Furuyama, Y.

Condensed matter nuclear science research status in China (594) | February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
Dong, Z. M.; Liang, C. L.; Li, X. Z.

Dry, preloaded NANOR®-type CF/LANR components (595) | February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
Swartz, Mitchell R.; Verner, Goyle M.; Tolleson, Jeffrey W.; Hagelstein, Peter L.

Directional X-ray and gamma emission in experiments in condensed matter nuclear science (601) | February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
Hagelstein, Peter L.

Observation and investigation of anomalous X-ray and thermal effects of cavitation (608) | February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
Vysotskii, V. I.; Kornilova, A. A.; Vasilenko, A. O.

Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project status review (614) | February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
Valat, Mathieu; Hunt, Ryan; Greenyer, Bob

Observation of neutrons and tritium in the early BARC cold fusion experiments (619) | February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
Srinivasan, Mahadeva

Introduction to isotopic shifts and transmutations observed in LENR experiments (624) | February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
Srinivasan, Mahadeva

Transmutation reactions induced by deuterium permeation through nano-structured palladium multilayer thin film (628) | February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
Iwamura, Yasuhiro; Itoh, Takehiko; Tsuruga, Shigenori

Biological transmutations (633) | February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
Biberian, Jean-Paul

Microbial transmutation of Cs-137 and LENR in growing biological systems (636) | February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
Vysotskii, V. I.; Kornilova, A. A.

Energy gains from lattice-enabled nuclear reactions (641) | February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
Nagel, David J.

Lattice-enabled nuclear reactions in the nickel and hydrogen gas system (646) | February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
Nagel, David J.

Summary report: ‘Introduction to Cold Fusion’ – IAP course at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA (653) | February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
Verner, Gayle; Swartz, Mitchell; Hagelstein, Peter

Status of cold fusion research in Japan (655) | February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
Kitamura, Akira

Condensed matter nuclear reaction products observed in Pd/D co-deposition experiments (656) | February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
Mosier-Boss, P. A.; Forsley, L. P.; Gordon, F. E.; Letts, D.; Cravens, D.; Miles, M. H.; Swartz, M.; Dash, J.; Tanzella, F.; Hagelstein, P.; McKubre, M.; Bao, J.

MFMP Dog Bone Week ends with cell-popping bang

Live Open Science at the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project had a high-intensity moment today as they tested a sealant on the ends of the Alexander Parkhomov type experiment.

Watch video of the cell-popping pressurized reactor in Bang! Safety First on the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project Youtube channel.

The video documents how just two minutes before the test reactor shell shattered, MFMP members Bob Greenyer, Ryan Hunt, and Alan Goldwater erected a “blast shield” to protect against any debris should a failure occur.

“Yes, cause at some point we’re going to have some molten lithium in there and I’m not sure I want that – or even vapor lithium – coming at us, so perhaps we should retire to a different distance?” Bob Greenyer can be heard saying on the video.

Published on Feb 6, 2015 from Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project Youtube channel:

After successfully testing a new sealing method for simple reactor core manufacture, MFMP team members next experiment passes through the “Parkhomov threshold”, that is temperatures above which Dr. Alexander Parkhomov reported first seeing ‘excess heat’. As a precaution, the team erect a blast shield… and not a moment too soon!

NOTE: Look at the area of the ceramic outer tube just after the event.

As Francesco Celani says – Safety, Safety, Safety.

The video shows the effectiveness of Aluminum ferrule based swageloks sealing the 1/4 inch reactor tube to high pressures. Simple, fast, cheap, repeatable

It is not yet clear what exactly happened at this time. The test of the compression sealant was successful, and the endcap was secure. A surge in temperature is then followed by the reactor shattering.

“At least we know we have pressure.” says Ryan Hunt, just seconds after the pop.

The temperature readings before the cell popped.
The temperature readings before the cell popped.
Reactor just after explosive event.
Reactor just after explosive event.

The event concluded a week of scheduled tests, broadcast live on their Youtube channel.

From the February 3, 2015, Ryan Hunt posted:

Bob Greenyer and Alan Goldwater are here to help execute a rapid series of live experiments. We have assembled all the test equipment we had hoped for. Now it is time to see how they work together. We have an ambitious plan with several tests, but the thermal assessment is the top priority. In the event that we run into some serious snags, be prepared for the plans to change and tests to be dropped.

The Time Line of events was forecast as:

Tests are defined in more detail below.

Monday, Feb 2

Team assembles, Test equipment set up, integrated, and prepared. Lots of reading the manuals!

Tuesday

Starting at 9 am local time, or so.

Test 1: Calibration with Thermocouples, Optris camera, and Williamson Pyrometer.
livelink: http://youtu.be/0DY4TJmCJS8

Test 2: Fat coil dog bone with internal heat source

Test 3: Assessment of Alan’s calibrated alumina temperature sources

Wednesday

Test 4: Powder Test in sealed Alumina tube

Tests 5, 6, 7, …: Powder Test in sealed Alumina tube

Iterate and try different ideas while we have the team assembled

Thursday

Test X: High Temp Inconel Heater Dogbone Calibration

Other tests as deemed worthy

Friday, Feb 6

Team Leaves, wrap up

Beyond:

Discuss and write up

Whatever happened in the test today, it is a reminder that anybody contemplating experiments in energy must proceed with the utmost caution.

Practice science responsibly and gather experienced partners for safe and successful results.

button-MFMP-200x200_3The Live Open Science of MFMP utilizes the digital space to communicate and collaborate on a global. The research is focused on discovering the nature of a source of dense, ultra-clean energy from a plentiful fuel.

What no institution in the U.S. dare do, the MFMP collective puts together on fly specks.

Be a part of the MFMP Live Open Science collective with your financial support..


PARTIAL transcript of Reactor Failure Event Feb 6

00.08 “Yes, cause at some point we’re going to have some molten lithium in there I’m not sure I want that or even vapor lithium coming at us, so perhaps we should retire to a different distance?”

” ..can’t …flying particles is what I had in mind …(?)”

“I can hide behind the monitor there, but Ryan, from where your sitting, it’s probably easiest here since you’re in the line of fire…”

00:38 “We’re just erecting a blast shield out of respect.”

“Gonna do the infrared camera filter thing,
00:52 OK ready, it looks a bit like this …
ready, it looks a bit like this …

“Well, the photos I’ve taken look pretty much bang on,
so we’ll get those over to you at some point.”

01:13 “The Williamson is reading about 1027 degrees approximately.”

01:25 “On the chart here, we’re seeing 952.”

It’s interesting that ….

01:39 “It’s 797 to 834, about 38 degrees difference,

01:57 and now it’s 927 to 956.”

Ryan Hunt: “That’s 25. So yeah, that’s a little closer.”

Bob Greenyer: “What’s the Geiger counter doing? Not a lot….”

2:20 – 2:29 silence

2:30 POP!

“Well that was exciting!”

“Did you hear it?”

“Was the shield a good idea?”

“The shield was a good idea.”

“The shield was a good idea.”

“We have no silicon carbide element, and we have a vaporised reactor. So, was that a runaway reaction? We were in the domain of Parkhomov?”

“Well at least we know we have pressure.”

“Even though we shouldn’t have pressure at that temperature…”

Well, no, … the last …

“Oh my, that was exciting. Oh guys, that vaporised, it utterly, utterly vaporised, ….”

“Well, time to go and take some closer up pictures.”

“Well, bear in mind that there’s lithium-aluminium-hydride around, so perhaps we should open a few doors.”

“Does anybody know what that is supposed to smell like?”

“Uh, death.”


Related Links

Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project at QuantumHeat.org

Alexander Parkhomov type experiment.

Cold Fusion: the “heirs” of Fleischmann candidates for the Nobel Peace Prize

MIT goes Live with Cold Fusion 101

Cold Fusion 101: Introduction to Excess Power in Fleischmann-Pons Experiments starts tomorrow morning 10:30AM Cambridge-time Tuesday, January 20 on the campus of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and runs through Friday, January 23.

LIVESTREAM ON ColdFusionNow Youtube Channel google+ here!

Led by Dr. Peter Hagelstein of MIT and Dr. Mitchell Swartz of JET Energy, Inc, the course examines the experimental work of Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, and theorizes on an explanation. For more, see Cold Fusion 101 at MIT for 2015

Cold Fusion Now’s MIT Special Correspondant Jeremy Rys will be attending the course to document the lectures – and possibly live-stream from the event.

Go to the Cold Fusion Now Youtube channel tomorrow Tuesday morning January 20 at 10:30AM-2:30PM MIT-time (4:30PM-8:30PM Paris, 12:30AM-4:30AM Tokyo) and see and hear the lecture live.

Watch Cold Fusion 101
10:30AM-2:30PM MIT-time on the
Cold Fusion Now Youtube google+

Cold Fusion Now New Fire by Nixter

Related Links

World Time Buddy

A Russian Experiment: High Temperature, Nickel, Natural Hydrogen by Michael C.H. McKubre

This is a re-post of an article written by Michael C.H. McKubre and published in Infinite Energy Magazine issue #119.

The original article can be found here.

A Russian Experiment: High Temperature, Nickel, Natural Hydrogen
by
Michael C.H. McKubre

[Editor’s Note: Alexander Parkhomov’s E-Cat experiment report was issued on December 25, 2014. We have uploaded the original Russian report by Alexander Parkhomov and his English translation.]

The first thing to record is that the document under consideration is an informal, preliminary research note available to me only in English translation of the Russian original. Despite that it reads well. Alexander Parkhomov is a “known” scientist from a highly reputable Institution, Lomonosov Moscow State University, which I have visited on several occasions. He has published work with friends of mine including Yuri Bazhutov (Chairman of ICCF13 and member of the IAC) and Peter Sturrock (Stanford University). These are both very capable senior scientists so that when this research is prepared for formal publication I am sure we can anticipate a complete and solid report.

In the meantime I will comment briefly on what is presented. Because of the community interest in the topic and the apparently clear and elegant nature of the experiment, Parkhomov’s preliminary report has already received an astonishing amount of discussion on the CMNS news group. What is stated in this preliminary report is encouraging, potentially even interesting, but one is struck by material information that is not made available in this report. Much, most or all of this added detail apparently is available to the author so one must await further elucidation from Parkhomov or a serious engineering effort at replication before final conclusions can be arrived at.

Although clearly motivated by the Rossi “Lugano” experiment it is not correct to call either a replication of the other or of any before. These are new experiments, with new characteristics, and some common features. As shown below the reactor active core consists of nickel powder intermixed with a hydrogen (lithium and aluminum) source, LiAlH4, enclosed in an alumina tube and confined with bonded ceramic plugs. This core is surrounded by a helically wound, coaxial electrical heater extended in length to provide closely uniform heating. The whole is potted in ceramic cement to incorporate a single sense thermocouple.

Fig. 1 Design of the reactor.
Fig. 1 Design of the reactor.

To this extent this configuration mirrors the Rossi reactor recently reported from Lugano although we do not know the similarity or differences between the Ni samples used in each.[1] Since LiAlH4 decomposes to liquid and H2 gas at the temperature of operation its source and nature of are presumed not to make much difference although the impurity content (unstated) may. Also different is the nature of the electrical input used for heating. For Parkhomov this is unspecified. The Rossi effort at Lugano employed 3-phase (50 Hz.) power for the calorimetric input and thermal stimulus but also includes an unknown amount of power in unstated form as a trigger. No such trigger apparently was used by Parkhomov.

The two experiments diverge radically in their chosen means of calorimetry. Parkhomov states that the “Rossi reactor technique based on thermovision camera observation is too complex,” with which I tend to agree. The chosen mean of calorimetry on the new report is to employ the latent heat of vaporization of water — the well known amount of heat required to boil water to steam, in this case at ambient pressure. The heater/reactor combination shown above was enclosed with partial insulation inside a rectangular metal box that was contacted on 5 of 6 surfaces by water.

There are some second order effects that might pertain to this boiling water calorimetry but the method is “tried and true.” It has been employed accurately for well over 100 years and in a slightly different form (boiling liquid nitrogen) was the method selected in recent SRI calorimetry.[2] With simple precautions such a calorimeter should be accurate within a few percent over a wide range of powers and reactor temperatures. One must be concerned to interrogate the heat that leaves the calorimeter by means other than as steam escaping at ambient pressure, that water does not leave the vessel in the liquid phase as splattered droplets or mist (fog), and to accurately measure the water mass loss (or its rate to determine output power). Obviously one also needs to accurately and completely measure the electrical input power.

Although this last issue has been recently (and anciently) raised it is very rarely a problem. Measurement of current, voltage and time (power and energy) are some of the measurements most easily and commonly made. Parkhomov does not supply details of the electrical power or its measurement and he is very much encouraged to do this in his formal reporting. I have no reason, however, to doubt the input power statements. Splatter and mist are issues of observation and calibration and heat leaks are a matter of calibration. Much detail is missing here. Full information about the calibration(s) must be provided in any formal report and full resolution of the question “what do the data tell us?” awaits this detail.


Infinite_energy_logo2

Get Infinite Energy now!


In the meantime what can we learn? Parkhomov states without showing that data that: “The power supplied to the heater stepwise varied from 25 to 500 watts.” The thermocouple in the reactor reached 1000°C approximately 5 hours after initial heating. It would be very nice to have these early-time data together with the data for calibration with which to compare; the greatest weakness of this report is the paucity of data. We are forced basically to rely on three data pairs that I have re-tabulated below from the Parkhomov report with some calculated numbers. Three time intervals are reported of varying duration (Row 2) in which the cell reported an average temperature resulting from the stated average electrical input power, and accumulated the stated Energy In. Parkhomov states from his calibration (not shown) that the heat leak from the system to the ambient is 155 W with the boiler at 100°C. From this heat leak rate we can calculate the energy that leaves in each interval through the insulation and from the mass of water lost we can calculate the heat that leaves as steam by using the known latent heat of vaporization of water (40.657 kJ /Mole or 2258.7 kJ / kg of H2O). The sum of these is the Total Energy Output, the second half of our three data pairs.

Tab-data-MM-analysis

These tabulated data (although few) exhibit an impressive set of characteristics:

  • Excess energies of ~120 to ~1900 kJ in 40-50 minutes.
  • Energy output greater than heat leak rate for the two higher input powers so that even if this loss approaches zero there is still calculated excess energy.
  • Percentage excess energies (and therefore average power) of ~20-160% with increasing input power and temperature.
  • Average excess powers of ~50 to nearly 800 W with a very small “fuel” load (0.9g of Ni).
  • Excess power densities of ~60 to nearly 900 W g-1 of Ni, well within “useful” regimes and consistent with previous CMNS results.
  • Excess power densities for the small reaction volume (~1 cm3) of ~50 to nearly 800 W cm-3.

All of these characteristics are exceptionally favorable. In the “plus column” we can also add that the experiment should be very easy to reproduce and we will hopefully soon have well-engineered replication attempts and conceivably confirmations. The experiment also does not appear to need stimulation[3] other than heat, hydrogen and possibly lithium or the need for solid-nickel/molten-metal interaction. So what are the worries? A very large amount has been said about this experiment in part because of the spectacular character of the tabulated data. Over and above the obvious need for calibration data and complete run-time data (ideally in the form of numbers not just plots) not everybody is happy. Why not?

Although others may have further points to add I would summarize three major concerns expressed[4] with the material that has been presented (rather than what was not):

The unexpected behavior of the Temperature at high power. When excess power (of apparently considerable power density) is being created one would expect to see the temperature of the source to be increasingly elevated. The observed trend is not in the “right” direction.

A plot of the data tabulated by Parkhomov for Reactor Temperature vs. Input Power is a stunningly good fit to a parabola. Because of limits of accuracy and precision experimentalists normally expect such close fits to be the result of calculation, not measurement. The goodness of fit may be explicable by the author or just be a fascinating coincidence.

A temperature arrest of approximately 8 minutes occurred at the end of the experiment after the rapid power and temperature drop following heater failure. This “Heat after Death” episode was preceded by a similar period of apparent temperature fluctuation. Either episode or both might be important signals of the underlying heat generation process or may signal sensor failure. It is difficult to resolve this ambiguity without redundant temperature measurement.

In the absence of relevant calibration data at least, and (better) a finite element model of the complex heat flow from the system as well, one can use only experience and intuition to predict what the reactor thermocouple sensor should register as a consequence of changing input power. The input power to the helical heater has a known (distributed) location. The excess power, however, while (presumably) volumetrically constrained has no defined or necessarily stationary position within the fuel volume. Even the first step of heat flow is therefore complex but an argument has been made qualitatively that, all else being equal, if you add a heat source the temperature should go up. Does it?

Let’s look first at a plot of percent excess power (left vertical axis) and temperature (right vertical axis, °C) as a function of input power (W). Three different colored curves are plotted for three different postulated values of the conductive heat leak from the calorimeter: red (155 W) the heat leak power calibrated by Parkhomov and assumed to be constant throughout the active run; blue (102 W) the value that makes the excess power for the first data point zero, as a conservative internal calibration; green (0 W) no heat leak, the most conservative estimate possible for this term. There is nothing at all surprising about this set of curves, and something quite encouraging. The observed excess power cannot be explained by an error in the conductive heat leak or any changing value of that parameter. The temperature of the reactor rises monotonically and smoothly with increasing excess and total power.

Now let’s look at the same data plotted against the measured reactor temperature below. Here we see some indication of the first concern enumerated above. Although slight, the curvature of this family of curves is up suggesting that as the excess (and total) power measured calorimetrically by the released steam increases, so also does the rate of heat (or temperature) loss from the thermocouple sensor. Although this might indicate a measurement problem (unknowable without calibration data) note that the deviation cause by this curvature is well within the variation bounded by the assumed heat leak to the ambient and might easily be caused by a relatively small change in this calibrated “constant.”

At least two unincluded heat loss term are known that must cause the heat leak constant to change in the direction to cause upward curvature: radiant heat loss from the reactor to the enclosing metal box at higher temperature; increased convective transport from the enclosing metal box to the inner wall of the “steamer” at higher rates of steam bubble evolution. I do not know whether the shape of the curve is a problem or is not. The point that I would like to re-reinforce is that we can only answer such questions definitively and thus gain confidence in the data and therefore knowledge if we have direct access to calibration data in the relevant temperature regime. I would also like to see a good thermal model as the reactor/calorimeter system is nowhere near as simple as it seems having several parallel and series heat transport paths. I realize that such model would be labor intensive and/or expensive to develop so lets start with the calibration. How does the system behave with no possibility of excess power?

As a comment in conclusion, there are gaps and unexplained effects in the data set, notably in the missing calibration data, and the foreground data record is slight. Nevertheless the experiment is clearly specified, easily performed, elegant and sufficiently accurate (with relevant calibration). I would recommend that the experiment be attempted by anyone curious and with the facilities to do so safely, exactly as described. Anything else or more runs the risk of teaching us nothing. I await further word from Parkhomov and reports from further replication teams.

Footnotes:
[1] Parkhomov has stated that the NI used to charge his reactor had an initial grain size of ~10µ and specific area ~1000 cm2/g.
[2] SRI DTRA report and ICCF17 proceedings.
[3] Note that the lack of need for stimulation is very good for demonstration but undesirable for control and thus technology.
[4] The first two points were elaborated initially by Ed Storms, who may make them more strongly than I do here.

About the Author: Dr. Michael McKubre is Director of the Energy Research Center of the Materials Research Laboratory at SRI International. He received B.Sc., M.Sc. and Ph.D. in chemistry and physics at Victoria University (Wellington, New Zealand). He was a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Southampton University, England. Dr. McKubre joined SRI as an electrochemist in 1978. He is an internationally recognized expert in the study of electrochemical kinetics and was one of the original pioneers in the use of ac impedance methods for the evaluation of electrode kinetic processes. Dr. McKubre has been studying various aspects of hydrogen and deuterium in metals since he joined SRI in 1978, the last 25 years with a close focus on heat measurements. He was recognized by Wired magazine as one of the 25 most innovative people in the world. Dr. McKubre has conducted research in CMNS since 1989.

***********************************END RE-POST

Related Links

Russian scientist replicates Hot Cat test: “produces more energy than it consumes”

Interview with Yuri Bazhutov by Peter Gluck

Infinite Energy Magazine

Q&A with Jack Cole on new Hot Cat replication, experiment completion

A new replication attempt of the Andrea Rossi E-Cat technology has been announced by Jack Cole on http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2015/01/13/hot-cat-replication-attempt/.

The Universal LENR Reactor was designed by Dale Basgall and Jack Cole and they have been posting updates since September 2012.

Nikita Alexandrov, President, Permanetix Corporation has contacted the lab and generated these details about the experiment.

 
Photo: Reaction chamber in operation. Note that the true light color was orange. Courtesy Jack Cole.
 

Q&A with Jack Cole and Nikita Alexandrov

Q A replication of the Rossi type Ni-H LENR system was posted to your website. Were you the one who performed this experiment or was it someone else?

A Yes, I was the one who performed the experiment.

Q Can you go into detail regarding the nickel powder ie: grain size, composition, purity, source, batch number, etc?

A INCO Type 255 Nickel Powder (2.2 to 2.8 um particle size). Purchased on Ebay. I also use Fe2O3 added to the nickel.

Q Can you explain which type thermocouple/DAQ system you were using?

A I’m using a type K thermocouple of the type frequently used in kilns. I use a USB thermocouple adapter that has it’s own software (http://www.pcsensor.com/index.php?_a=product&product_id=49). The power data is acquired directly from the programmable DC power supply using a Visual Basic .NET program that I wrote. The VB program samples and adjusts power levels every 5 seconds to compensate for changing resistance to maintain a constant power output.

Q Can you explain which sources you ordered your alumina materials from?

A I purchased a 12″ alumina tube from Amazon and cut it into 3″ sections. It is 3/8″ OD and 1/4″ ID. The experiment was conducted with a 3″ tube.

Q Can you explain the geometry of your reactor and heating coils as well as method of sealing?

A The heating element is simply coiled Kanthal. The seal is not hermetic (it leaks hydrogen). I tested with a dangerous gas detector and it was leaking up to the last power step. After that point, I detected no more hydrogen. It was either sealed at that point or no more hydrogen was being produced. Based on the description of how Rossi sealed his reactor in the Lugano report, I find it unlikely his seal was hermetic (unless he found a very clever method of sealing the tube).

Q Can you explain which hydrogen carrier you used? In the report it was implied it was not LiAlH4, was it magnesium based – if you do not want to go into detail can you just confirm it was not a gas or which elements were present?

A I used lithium hydroxide and aluminum powder. The advantage with this method is that it does not start producing significant amounts of hydrogen until the LiOH melts at 480C. Earlier experiments were performed with KOH and aluminum powder. It starts producing hydrogen after 100C (presumably when the water absorbed in the KOH is liberated as steam). I haven’t seen any research discussing these facts as most research looks at combining water with these elements at room temperature to produce hydrogen. I don’t add any water (not really needed since these compounds absorb water from the air). The hydrogen production can be quite vigorous as I found out in an earlier copper tube experiment where the end cap was shot across the room into the basement wall.

Q Can you tell me if you made a blank, sealed reactor for the calibration?

A The calibration (control run) was performed with the same cell with one end sealed. The lack of seal on one end is a potential limitation. What bolsters the results is that the apparent excess heat has been decreasing (makes it less likely that the lack of seal on one end gave a bad calibration). Additionally, the Delta T at the first two power steps was almost identical between the control and experimental run. Hydrogen production started at the third power step.

Q Can you tell me how many trials you performed with this system before you saw xP?

A I performed many experiments with different types of tubes before this (brass, copper, and stainless steel). The trouble with all those is the melting temperatures and difficulty sealing. Copper is easy to seal, but you have to keep it below 150C to keep the solder from melting. You can get hydrogen with KOH and aluminum at that level (which produces chemical heat). I had promising results with alumina on my first run (but I used it as it’s own calibration comparing the lower temperature curve to the higher temperature curve–certainly not ideal). Part of the difficulty has been finding the right heating element diameter to match with my DC supply to be able to produced the needed heating levels. I have done probably 15 experiments with alumina tubes, but I had the best configuration for making measurements on the last one that I reported on.

Q Would you be interested in having a sample of your spent nickel material analyzed for elemental transmutations?

A I’ll keep it after I’m done with it in case this could be done in the future. Right now, I need to work on calorimetry to verify this in a more rigorous way.

Q Would you feel comfortable having me post your answers publicly, online and not just to the private mailing list?

A You can use it in whatever way you like. Keep in mind that I am not yet convinced by these results and there is more work to be done. I might yet discover that there is a simple conventional explanation that is not LENR. The results have to convince me, and I’m not to that point yet.

Q Thanks so much, this will really help educate the general community.

Top