Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[Axil Axil]

It is hard to believe that the video feeds are the best part of a second
out of sync. This dereliction of instrumentation would be a mortal sin
against science. We must understand that such a problem can get people to
follow false leads and waste tons of time trying to figure  out a pressure
related problem that does not exist or the opposite. This is just as bad as
water in the steam type issue that we have spent days and days talking
about. This is a shot at process that naysayers can use to discredit LENR
experimentation as science.

The video is an important scientific tool to understand what is happening
in and experiment. It must be calibrated as rigorously as the heat sensors.

At this moment, I trust MFMP has setup the video properly and the fault is
a hot spot failure of the core.

On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 7:25 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> The video frame of the BANG has 3 different video streams merged into
> different sections of the frame.
>
> It is likely that the video stream containing the VI display was in sync
> with the audio and the video stream of the white hot dogbone was ahead of
> the audio stream as well as the video stream containing the VI display.
>
> Yes, if this is the case, someone _really_ screwed up this video - very
> badly.
>
> On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> The VI display held stead at 79.7 until the instant of the bang when it
>> changed instantly to 76.9. the other field also changed in like sequence.
>> This tells me that the sound and video is in sync. These two indicators are
>> electrical flows to the heater coil. The heat suffered a shock at bang
>> onset.
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 6:04 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>>
>>> Looking at the BANG video 
>>> starting at 2:29, it seems likely that the sound track is behind the video
>>> track.
>>>
>>> Why?
>>>
>>> Because the events of 2:29 to 2:30 include a clear mechanical
>>> displacement of the right end of the tube that goes so far as to
>>> mechanically displace the red-stripped device in the extreme upper right of
>>> the video frame -- all before the BANG.  It seems likely that this
>>> mechanical displacement was the actual BANG event with the sound coming
>>> nearly a second later.
>>>
>>> Given that disparity, it seems pretty likely that any change in the heat
>>> profile during 2:29 to 2:30 is the result of the breach, not its cause.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>>
 The devil is in the details. IMHO, the primary cause of the failure was
 not pressure related. When the video of the event is viewed at 1/4 speed,
 at 2.29 a white spot caused by high heat buildup first appears in the field
 of scarlet near the point of failure. This bit of evidence shows that the
 power produced at 2.29 is greatly increasing. This overheat reaction is not
 caused by a short circuit in the heater element because the power is steady
 at that time. As 2:29 progresses the white spot grows in size.

 The area of white expands throughout the 2.30 timeframe and at the end
 of that time period, the power to the heater surges as the heater begins to
 short out. The exploding sound occurs at the end of 2:30. The area of white
 is at its maximum at the end of 2.30 and begins to return to scarlet
 stating at 2:31 as hydrogen is venting from the tube. The power going
 through the heater is at its maximum at 2:32 until 2.34. The power is
 minimized at 2:35. The heater is completely shorted at 2:55 with 0 current
 flow.

 There is a fration of a second starting at 2:29 before the tube
 fractured as marked by the sound of explosion near the end of 2:30  when
 high heat is building up at the point of failure. The hydrogen detection
 instrument sounds produced by venting hydrogen does not begin until
 2.30 after the sound of the explosion. This failure was caused by explosive
 overheating.

 On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 4:12 PM, a.ashfield 
 wrote:

>  Jones Beene wrote:
>
> "If the failure was only pressure-related, it would happen near the 
> middle of
> the cavity, which is the region of least structural strength against 
> internal
> pressure - but since the failure (apparently) happened at almost exactly 
> the
> place where the temperature gradient would be maximized – that explanation
> seems to fit the circumstances."
>
> I find it far more likely to be determined by a defect in the Al2O3 tube. 
> The ceramic is very brittle.
> I have had those thermocouple tubes break for no apparent reason when 
> inserting them in a furnace.
> They also require handling with reasonable care.
>
>

>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[James Bowery]

The video frame of the BANG has 3 different video streams merged into
different sections of the frame.

It is likely that the video stream containing the VI display was in sync
with the audio and the video stream of the white hot dogbone was ahead of
the audio stream as well as the video stream containing the VI display.

Yes, if this is the case, someone _really_ screwed up this video - very
badly.

On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> The VI display held stead at 79.7 until the instant of the bang when it
> changed instantly to 76.9. the other field also changed in like sequence.
> This tells me that the sound and video is in sync. These two indicators are
> electrical flows to the heater coil. The heat suffered a shock at bang
> onset.
>
> On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 6:04 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
>> Looking at the BANG video 
>> starting at 2:29, it seems likely that the sound track is behind the video
>> track.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> Because the events of 2:29 to 2:30 include a clear mechanical
>> displacement of the right end of the tube that goes so far as to
>> mechanically displace the red-stripped device in the extreme upper right of
>> the video frame -- all before the BANG.  It seems likely that this
>> mechanical displacement was the actual BANG event with the sound coming
>> nearly a second later.
>>
>> Given that disparity, it seems pretty likely that any change in the heat
>> profile during 2:29 to 2:30 is the result of the breach, not its cause.
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>> The devil is in the details. IMHO, the primary cause of the failure was
>>> not pressure related. When the video of the event is viewed at 1/4 speed,
>>> at 2.29 a white spot caused by high heat buildup first appears in the field
>>> of scarlet near the point of failure. This bit of evidence shows that the
>>> power produced at 2.29 is greatly increasing. This overheat reaction is not
>>> caused by a short circuit in the heater element because the power is steady
>>> at that time. As 2:29 progresses the white spot grows in size.
>>>
>>> The area of white expands throughout the 2.30 timeframe and at the end
>>> of that time period, the power to the heater surges as the heater begins to
>>> short out. The exploding sound occurs at the end of 2:30. The area of white
>>> is at its maximum at the end of 2.30 and begins to return to scarlet
>>> stating at 2:31 as hydrogen is venting from the tube. The power going
>>> through the heater is at its maximum at 2:32 until 2.34. The power is
>>> minimized at 2:35. The heater is completely shorted at 2:55 with 0 current
>>> flow.
>>>
>>> There is a fration of a second starting at 2:29 before the tube
>>> fractured as marked by the sound of explosion near the end of 2:30  when
>>> high heat is building up at the point of failure. The hydrogen detection
>>> instrument sounds produced by venting hydrogen does not begin until
>>> 2.30 after the sound of the explosion. This failure was caused by explosive
>>> overheating.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 4:12 PM, a.ashfield 
>>> wrote:
>>>
  Jones Beene wrote:

 "If the failure was only pressure-related, it would happen near the middle 
 of
 the cavity, which is the region of least structural strength against 
 internal
 pressure - but since the failure (apparently) happened at almost exactly 
 the
 place where the temperature gradient would be maximized – that explanation
 seems to fit the circumstances."

 I find it far more likely to be determined by a defect in the Al2O3 tube. 
 The ceramic is very brittle.
 I have had those thermocouple tubes break for no apparent reason when 
 inserting them in a furnace.
 They also require handling with reasonable care.


>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[Axil Axil]

The VI display held stead at 79.7 until the instant of the bang when it
changed instantly to 76.9. the other field also changed in like sequence.
This tells me that the sound and video is in sync. These two indicators are
electrical flows to the heater coil. The heat suffered a shock at bang
onset.

On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 6:04 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> Looking at the BANG video 
> starting at 2:29, it seems likely that the sound track is behind the video
> track.
>
> Why?
>
> Because the events of 2:29 to 2:30 include a clear mechanical displacement
> of the right end of the tube that goes so far as to mechanically displace
> the red-stripped device in the extreme upper right of the video frame --
> all before the BANG.  It seems likely that this mechanical displacement was
> the actual BANG event with the sound coming nearly a second later.
>
> Given that disparity, it seems pretty likely that any change in the heat
> profile during 2:29 to 2:30 is the result of the breach, not its cause.
>
> On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> The devil is in the details. IMHO, the primary cause of the failure was
>> not pressure related. When the video of the event is viewed at 1/4 speed,
>> at 2.29 a white spot caused by high heat buildup first appears in the field
>> of scarlet near the point of failure. This bit of evidence shows that the
>> power produced at 2.29 is greatly increasing. This overheat reaction is not
>> caused by a short circuit in the heater element because the power is steady
>> at that time. As 2:29 progresses the white spot grows in size.
>>
>> The area of white expands throughout the 2.30 timeframe and at the end of
>> that time period, the power to the heater surges as the heater begins to
>> short out. The exploding sound occurs at the end of 2:30. The area of white
>> is at its maximum at the end of 2.30 and begins to return to scarlet
>> stating at 2:31 as hydrogen is venting from the tube. The power going
>> through the heater is at its maximum at 2:32 until 2.34. The power is
>> minimized at 2:35. The heater is completely shorted at 2:55 with 0 current
>> flow.
>>
>> There is a fration of a second starting at 2:29 before the tube fractured
>> as marked by the sound of explosion near the end of 2:30  when high heat is
>> building up at the point of failure. The hydrogen detection instrument
>> sounds produced by venting hydrogen does not begin until 2.30 after the
>> sound of the explosion. This failure was caused by explosive overheating.
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 4:12 PM, a.ashfield 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>  Jones Beene wrote:
>>>
>>> "If the failure was only pressure-related, it would happen near the middle 
>>> of
>>> the cavity, which is the region of least structural strength against 
>>> internal
>>> pressure - but since the failure (apparently) happened at almost exactly the
>>> place where the temperature gradient would be maximized – that explanation
>>> seems to fit the circumstances."
>>>
>>> I find it far more likely to be determined by a defect in the Al2O3 tube. 
>>> The ceramic is very brittle.
>>> I have had those thermocouple tubes break for no apparent reason when 
>>> inserting them in a furnace.
>>> They also require handling with reasonable care.
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[James Bowery]

Looking at the BANG video 
starting at 2:29, it seems likely that the sound track is behind the video
track.

Why?

Because the events of 2:29 to 2:30 include a clear mechanical displacement
of the right end of the tube that goes so far as to mechanically displace
the red-stripped device in the extreme upper right of the video frame --
all before the BANG.  It seems likely that this mechanical displacement was
the actual BANG event with the sound coming nearly a second later.

Given that disparity, it seems pretty likely that any change in the heat
profile during 2:29 to 2:30 is the result of the breach, not its cause.

On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> The devil is in the details. IMHO, the primary cause of the failure was
> not pressure related. When the video of the event is viewed at 1/4 speed,
> at 2.29 a white spot caused by high heat buildup first appears in the field
> of scarlet near the point of failure. This bit of evidence shows that the
> power produced at 2.29 is greatly increasing. This overheat reaction is not
> caused by a short circuit in the heater element because the power is steady
> at that time. As 2:29 progresses the white spot grows in size.
>
> The area of white expands throughout the 2.30 timeframe and at the end of
> that time period, the power to the heater surges as the heater begins to
> short out. The exploding sound occurs at the end of 2:30. The area of white
> is at its maximum at the end of 2.30 and begins to return to scarlet
> stating at 2:31 as hydrogen is venting from the tube. The power going
> through the heater is at its maximum at 2:32 until 2.34. The power is
> minimized at 2:35. The heater is completely shorted at 2:55 with 0 current
> flow.
>
> There is a fration of a second starting at 2:29 before the tube fractured
> as marked by the sound of explosion near the end of 2:30  when high heat is
> building up at the point of failure. The hydrogen detection instrument
> sounds produced by venting hydrogen does not begin until 2.30 after the
> sound of the explosion. This failure was caused by explosive overheating.
>
> On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 4:12 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:
>
>>  Jones Beene wrote:
>>
>> "If the failure was only pressure-related, it would happen near the middle of
>> the cavity, which is the region of least structural strength against internal
>> pressure - but since the failure (apparently) happened at almost exactly the
>> place where the temperature gradient would be maximized – that explanation
>> seems to fit the circumstances."
>>
>> I find it far more likely to be determined by a defect in the Al2O3 tube. 
>> The ceramic is very brittle.
>> I have had those thermocouple tubes break for no apparent reason when 
>> inserting them in a furnace.
>> They also require handling with reasonable care.
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[Axil Axil]

The devil is in the details. IMHO, the primary cause of the failure was not
pressure related. When the video of the event is viewed at 1/4 speed, at
2.29 a white spot caused by high heat buildup first appears in the field of
scarlet near the point of failure. This bit of evidence shows that the
power produced at 2.29 is greatly increasing. This overheat reaction is not
caused by a short circuit in the heater element because the power is steady
at that time. As 2:29 progresses the white spot grows in size.

The area of white expands throughout the 2.30 timeframe and at the end of
that time period, the power to the heater surges as the heater begins to
short out. The exploding sound occurs at the end of 2:30. The area of white
is at its maximum at the end of 2.30 and begins to return to scarlet
stating at 2:31 as hydrogen is venting from the tube. The power going
through the heater is at its maximum at 2:32 until 2.34. The power is
minimized at 2:35. The heater is completely shorted at 2:55 with 0 current
flow.

There is a fration of a second starting at 2:29 before the tube fractured
as marked by the sound of explosion near the end of 2:30  when high heat is
building up at the point of failure. The hydrogen detection instrument
sounds produced by venting hydrogen does not begin until 2.30 after the
sound of the explosion. This failure was caused by explosive overheating.

On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 4:12 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

>  Jones Beene wrote:
>
> "If the failure was only pressure-related, it would happen near the middle of
> the cavity, which is the region of least structural strength against internal
> pressure - but since the failure (apparently) happened at almost exactly the
> place where the temperature gradient would be maximized – that explanation
> seems to fit the circumstances."
>
> I find it far more likely to be determined by a defect in the Al2O3 tube. The 
> ceramic is very brittle.
> I have had those thermocouple tubes break for no apparent reason when 
> inserting them in a furnace.
> They also require handling with reasonable care.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[Terry Blanton]

My guess is that a critical parameter is mass of reactant ratio to
volume inside the reactor.

RE: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[a.ashfield]

Jones Beene wrote:

"If the failure was only pressure-related, it would happen near the middle of
the cavity, which is the region of least structural strength against internal
pressure - but since the failure (apparently) happened at almost exactly the
place where the temperature gradient would be maximized – that explanation
seems to fit the circumstances."

I find it far more likely to be determined by a defect in the Al2O3 tube. The 
ceramic is very brittle.
I have had those thermocouple tubes break for no apparent reason when inserting 
them in a furnace.
They also require handling with reasonable care.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

[mixent]

In reply to  Craig Haynie's message of Sun, 08 Feb 2015 04:44:49 -0500:
Hi,

The bursting pressure of a pipe/tube is related to diameter, wall thickness, and
tensile strength, not just the last.

>Pressure inside the dog bone is calculated to have been near 19,861 psi 
>at the time of failure.
>
>https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BWYbi6tBHcjZ4PyQ0BaWn-G1NkdQdkirb-_Qx2HypKs/edit
>
>Craig
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[Bob Higgins]

Bob Greenyer comments that on the last 2 MFMP experiments, the resulting
sintered Ni + Li, Al mass slid out of the alumina tube with no apparent
sticking/sintering to the alumina.  Thus, a reactor that is safely
open-able after the reaction provides opportunity to sample the ash, and
with the correct plumbing, the gas may also be sampled.  Subsequently the
same reactor could be used again.

Since the plan to use the "easier Parkhomov design" with the Swagelok
termination uses substantially off-the-shelf components, and no glue
(reproducibility issue), the replication can be done many times with less
speculation of what changed between trials going forward.  OTOH, it is hard
to guarantee reproducibility if glued end seals are used.  Parkhomov is a
careful experimenter and he seems to have mastered the seals.

Alan Goldwater's tests of the seals have really moved this project forward.

On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> For some of the deviations, there was no good excuse.  For some, there is
> good reason.  MFMP has had difficulty replicating the Parkhomov seals, and
> does not yet have the right size alumina parts for proper Parkhomov
> replication.  And in the Parkhomov design, it is hard to tell if the seal
> failed or the device just didn't work.  The best data from the experiment
> just completed is that the sealing of the compression fitting with the
> aluminum ferrule was good.  This is a serious win, because it permits
> analytical plumbing to be attached to a Parknomov-like device.  This
> analytical plumbing will allow real time pressure measurement, post
> experiment gas sampling for analysis, gas venting to safely open the
> reactor, and an ability to open the reactor without cutting the tube (but
> it is not clear that it will be possible to sample the Ni materials without
> sectioning).  And, the plumbing will subtend no significant expansion
> volume.
>
> MFMP is getting ready to publish my proposed plumbing design for attaching
> to a Parkhomov-like reactor, probably on Facebook.
>

RE: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[Jones Beene]

From: Bob Higgins 
*   
*   For some of the deviations, there was no good excuse.  For some, there 
is good reason… The best data from the experiment just completed is that the 
sealing of the compression fitting with the aluminum ferrule was good.  This is 
a serious win, because it permits analytical plumbing to be attached to a 
Parknomov-like device.  This analytical plumbing will allow real time pressure 
measurement, post experiment gas sampling for analysis, gas venting to safely 
open the reactor, and an ability to open the reactor without cutting the tube….

Coincidentally, Peter just posted on the more general subject “creative 
replication.” It is controversial, some would say “unscientific” (not)… but 
there is no doubt it is a gamble and an expedient in a “risk vs. rewards” 
tradeoff. 

In an ideal world, sure – go for accuracy first - but that can add months or 
years to the task. 

Instead, and luckily - the overriding dynamic here is that Parkhomov was 
successful with a less than faithful replication of Rossi, and he managed to 
move the field forward - because of that variation, since everything he did 
differently adds significantly to the knowledge base in a way that faithful 
replication can never do. It also means that the underlying experiment is 
robust but not well understood.

And furthermore, the creative enhancement gamble can pay-off handsomely in 
expediency - with months or time being shaved off of development. If we 
correctly judge that Rossi himself missed as much as he got right, then the 
risk of a false “enhancement” is minimal. Now, with a dozen or more new players 
entering the fray (as it appears) – some with their own creative slant on 
replication, and others going for more faithful versions – this is where it 
really gets interesting.

We could be at a tipping point, folks. It is an exciting time.

Jones
  

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[AlanG]

My notes on sealing tests using the Parkhomov cement formulation can be 
seen at:

http://www.evernote.com/l/AXeKakT2sSpFMpLYlLx85OpP_c-MaaApbfs/

Dr Parkhomov has provided some additional details, which I will try in 
the coming week. My conclusion so far is that a  cement that contains 
water as this one does will not seal the inside of a small-bore tube due 
to shrinkage as the cement cures.


On 2/8/2015 9:56 AM, James Bowery wrote:
In an experiment where replication is everything, it takes a pretty 
compelling reason to deviate from the exact protocol and the 
justification for such deviation should be carefully documented prior 
to the experimental run.


Where is this documentation for the justification for departure 
from Parkhomov's protocol?


On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Bob Higgins > wrote:


I think estimations of the gas pressure inside the dogbone reactor
tube at failure are probably substantial over-estimates.  We don't
really know how much volume was displaced by the Ni, so the volume
estimate for the chamber is probably only accurate +100%/-50%. 
The volume of the system can and should be measured prior to start

of the experiment.  This can be done with a calibrated piston
plumbed into the system.  Decrease the volume by 1cc using the
piston and see how the pressure changes.

Second, there is a hot volume and a cold volume, but only one
pressure.  Third, we don't know what is happening chemically
inside the hot chamber.  Sure there is decomposition, but there
are probably also other hydride formations occurring at that
pressure and temperature (note that there was added zirconium).
Perhaps there was even ammonia formation which would reduce the
pressure; and this could condense in the cold side.  Fourth, the
LiAlH4 weight added is probably only known +/- 20%.

The summary is we really won't know what the pressure profile was
in this experiment and we won't know until it is carefully
measured.  There is no real point to the wild speculation.  It
will just have to be measured.

On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Jones Beene mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> wrote:

Yes, that isthe good news- thatthe compression fitting works,
and if the problem relates to thermal stress, there is an easy
way to fix that also.

To minimize thermal stress – theheater wire could be
“feathered in” from both ends, whenit iswoundso that there is
an intermediate zone of heat which is less than the fully
woundwire, but greater thanthe unheated zone.The idea is to
spread out the areas of highest temperature gradient, to
reduce thermal stress.

*From:*_Bob Higgins_

Ryan Hunt reports that the failure mode was NOT the
compression fitting giving way under pressure - the fitting
remained intact.  This experiment was of the "easier
Parkhomov" design, posted previously where the seal was made
with a compression fitting, in this case with the use of a
soft aluminum ferrule at the suggestion of Alan Goldwater. 
Alan's tests suggested the compression fitting would hold and

it did! \

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[Bob Higgins]

For some of the deviations, there was no good excuse.  For some, there is
good reason.  MFMP has had difficulty replicating the Parkhomov seals, and
does not yet have the right size alumina parts for proper Parkhomov
replication.  And in the Parkhomov design, it is hard to tell if the seal
failed or the device just didn't work.  The best data from the experiment
just completed is that the sealing of the compression fitting with the
aluminum ferrule was good.  This is a serious win, because it permits
analytical plumbing to be attached to a Parknomov-like device.  This
analytical plumbing will allow real time pressure measurement, post
experiment gas sampling for analysis, gas venting to safely open the
reactor, and an ability to open the reactor without cutting the tube (but
it is not clear that it will be possible to sample the Ni materials without
sectioning).  And, the plumbing will subtend no significant expansion
volume.

MFMP is getting ready to publish my proposed plumbing design for attaching
to a Parkhomov-like reactor, probably on Facebook.

On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 10:56 AM, James Bowery  wrote:

> In an experiment where replication is everything, it takes a pretty
> compelling reason to deviate from the exact protocol and the justification
> for such deviation should be carefully documented prior to the experimental
> run.
>
> Where is this documentation for the justification for departure
> from Parkhomov's protocol?
>
> On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Bob Higgins 
> wrote:
>
>> I think estimations of the gas pressure inside the dogbone reactor tube
>> at failure are probably substantial over-estimates.  We don't really know
>> how much volume was displaced by the Ni, so the volume estimate for the
>> chamber is probably only accurate +100%/-50%.  The volume of the system can
>> and should be measured prior to start of the experiment.  This can be done
>> with a calibrated piston plumbed into the system.  Decrease the volume by
>> 1cc using the piston and see how the pressure changes.
>>
>> Second, there is a hot volume and a cold volume, but only one pressure.
>> Third, we don't know what is happening chemically inside the hot chamber.
>> Sure there is decomposition, but there are probably also other hydride
>> formations occurring at that pressure and temperature (note that there was
>> added zirconium).  Perhaps there was even ammonia formation which would
>> reduce the pressure; and this could condense in the cold side.  Fourth, the
>> LiAlH4 weight added is probably only known +/- 20%.
>>
>> The summary is we really won't know what the pressure profile was in this
>> experiment and we won't know until it is carefully measured.  There is no
>> real point to the wild speculation.  It will just have to be measured.
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>>
>>>  Yes, that is the good news - that the compression fitting works, and
>>> if the problem relates to thermal stress, there is an easy way to fix that
>>> also.
>>>
>>> To minimize thermal stress – the heater wire could be “feathered in”
>>> from both ends, when it is wound so that there is an intermediate zone
>>> of heat which is less than the fully wound wire, but greater than the
>>> unheated zone. The idea is to spread out the areas of highest
>>> temperature gradient, to reduce thermal stress.
>>>
>>> *From:* *Bob Higgins* 
>>>
>>> Ryan Hunt reports that the failure mode was NOT the compression fitting
>>> giving way under pressure - the fitting remained intact.  This experiment
>>> was of the "easier Parkhomov" design, posted previously where the seal was
>>> made with a compression fitting, in this case with the use of a soft
>>> aluminum ferrule at the suggestion of Alan Goldwater.  Alan's tests
>>> suggested the compression fitting would hold and it did!  \
>>>
>>
>>
>

[Vo]:more about creative replications

[Peter Gluck]

Dear Friends,

Have just published:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/02/yves-henri-prums-lenr-replication-day.html

My very best wishes, including replication triumphs to you!
Peter

-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[James Bowery]

In an experiment where replication is everything, it takes a pretty
compelling reason to deviate from the exact protocol and the justification
for such deviation should be carefully documented prior to the experimental
run.

Where is this documentation for the justification for departure
from Parkhomov's protocol?

On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> I think estimations of the gas pressure inside the dogbone reactor tube at
> failure are probably substantial over-estimates.  We don't really know how
> much volume was displaced by the Ni, so the volume estimate for the chamber
> is probably only accurate +100%/-50%.  The volume of the system can and
> should be measured prior to start of the experiment.  This can be done with
> a calibrated piston plumbed into the system.  Decrease the volume by 1cc
> using the piston and see how the pressure changes.
>
> Second, there is a hot volume and a cold volume, but only one pressure.
> Third, we don't know what is happening chemically inside the hot chamber.
> Sure there is decomposition, but there are probably also other hydride
> formations occurring at that pressure and temperature (note that there was
> added zirconium).  Perhaps there was even ammonia formation which would
> reduce the pressure; and this could condense in the cold side.  Fourth, the
> LiAlH4 weight added is probably only known +/- 20%.
>
> The summary is we really won't know what the pressure profile was in this
> experiment and we won't know until it is carefully measured.  There is no
> real point to the wild speculation.  It will just have to be measured.
>
> On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>>  Yes, that is the good news - that the compression fitting works, and if
>> the problem relates to thermal stress, there is an easy way to fix that
>> also.
>>
>> To minimize thermal stress – the heater wire could be “feathered in”
>> from both ends, when it is wound so that there is an intermediate zone
>> of heat which is less than the fully wound wire, but greater than the
>> unheated zone. The idea is to spread out the areas of highest
>> temperature gradient, to reduce thermal stress.
>>
>> *From:* *Bob Higgins* 
>>
>> Ryan Hunt reports that the failure mode was NOT the compression fitting
>> giving way under pressure - the fitting remained intact.  This experiment
>> was of the "easier Parkhomov" design, posted previously where the seal was
>> made with a compression fitting, in this case with the use of a soft
>> aluminum ferrule at the suggestion of Alan Goldwater.  Alan's tests
>> suggested the compression fitting would hold and it did!  \
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[Bob Higgins]

I think estimations of the gas pressure inside the dogbone reactor tube at
failure are probably substantial over-estimates.  We don't really know how
much volume was displaced by the Ni, so the volume estimate for the chamber
is probably only accurate +100%/-50%.  The volume of the system can and
should be measured prior to start of the experiment.  This can be done with
a calibrated piston plumbed into the system.  Decrease the volume by 1cc
using the piston and see how the pressure changes.

Second, there is a hot volume and a cold volume, but only one pressure.
Third, we don't know what is happening chemically inside the hot chamber.
Sure there is decomposition, but there are probably also other hydride
formations occurring at that pressure and temperature (note that there was
added zirconium).  Perhaps there was even ammonia formation which would
reduce the pressure; and this could condense in the cold side.  Fourth, the
LiAlH4 weight added is probably only known +/- 20%.

The summary is we really won't know what the pressure profile was in this
experiment and we won't know until it is carefully measured.  There is no
real point to the wild speculation.  It will just have to be measured.

On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>  Yes, that is the good news - that the compression fitting works, and if
> the problem relates to thermal stress, there is an easy way to fix that
> also.
>
> To minimize thermal stress – the heater wire could be “feathered in” from
> both ends, when it is wound so that there is an intermediate zone of heat
> which is less than the fully wound wire, but greater than the unheated
> zone. The idea is to spread out the areas of highest temperature
> gradient, to reduce thermal stress.
>
> *From:* *Bob Higgins* 
>
> Ryan Hunt reports that the failure mode was NOT the compression fitting
> giving way under pressure - the fitting remained intact.  This experiment
> was of the "easier Parkhomov" design, posted previously where the seal was
> made with a compression fitting, in this case with the use of a soft
> aluminum ferrule at the suggestion of Alan Goldwater.  Alan's tests
> suggested the compression fitting would hold and it did!  \
>

RE: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[Jones Beene]

Yes, that is the good news - that the compression fitting works, and if the 
problem relates to thermal stress, there is an easy way to fix that also.

To minimize thermal stress – the heater wire could be “feathered in” from both 
ends, when it is wound so that there is an intermediate zone of heat which is 
less than the fully wound wire, but greater than the unheated zone. The idea is 
to spread out the areas of highest temperature gradient, to reduce thermal 
stress.

From: Bob Higgins  

Ryan Hunt reports that the failure mode was NOT the compression fitting giving 
way under pressure - the fitting remained intact.  This experiment was of the 
"easier Parkhomov" design, posted previously where the seal was made with a 
compression fitting, in this case with the use of a soft aluminum ferrule at 
the suggestion of Alan Goldwater.  Alan's tests suggested the compression 
fitting would hold and it did!  \

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[ChemE Stewart]

Maybe submersing in water bath would help even temp profile

On Sunday, February 8, 2015, Bob Cook  wrote:

>  I think the failure was caused by a brittle fracture of the alumina tube
> due to thermal stresses, internal micro stresses caused by micro bubble
> formation and resulting embrittlement.
>
> Bob
>
> Sent from Windows Mail
>
> *From:* Bob Higgins
> 
> *Sent:* ‎Friday‎, ‎February‎ ‎6‎, ‎2015 ‎1‎:‎00‎ ‎PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> 
>
> Ryan Hunt reports that the failure mode was NOT the compression fitting
> giving way under pressure - the fitting remained intact.  This experiment
> was of the "easier Parkhomov" design, posted previously where the seal was
> made with a compression fitting, in this case with the use of a soft
> aluminum ferrule at the suggestion of Alan Goldwater.  Alan's tests
> suggested the compression fitting would hold and it did!  Using the
> compression fitting is a real win because it completely avoids the
> problematic sealing of the ends with cement while providing an opportunity
> to instrument the reaction vessel.
>
> When this failure occurred, it appeared to be a raw ceramic body failure.
> This could easily have come from too much pressure coming from a too large
> charge of LiAlH4 for the vacant volume inside the apparatus.  MFMP will
> extract that volume information and relate it to the weight of LiAlH4 that
> was added, as being a benchmark for too much LiAlH4.  The tube used was
> 1/4" OD, but at the moment, I am not sure if it was a 4mm ID tube or a 1/8"
> ID tube.  The Parkhomov tube had an ID of half of its OD.
>
> Bob Higgins
>
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 11:39 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint  > wrote:
>
>> At 2:29/2:30 into the short segment posted by Craig, it looks like the
>> right-side end-plug, or whatever is sticking out that end, blows out.  And
>> I use that term specifically since one also sees some hint of a pressure
>> release.  Whether that release is at an appropriate level is apparently
>> debatable...
>> -mark iverson
>>
>

RE: [Vo]:what is needed to give rise to visible Cherenkov radiation?

[Jones Beene]

 

The holding tank for the fuel rods is filled with borated water. The 
neutron-boron reaction produces fast ions, which thermalize by knocking 
electrons free from water molecules – as does the other isotope decay reactions 
from the rods. Electrons of about 200-300 keV cause the glow – when they 
further thermalize.

 

This can happen in air - as well as water – and with the same eerie blue glow. 
We know the mechanism fairly well, since Cherenkov-like radiation will be 
generated in an electron microscope, or cyclotron, or other beam line in air. 
Here is a photo of the blue glow.

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/Cyclotron_with_glowing_beam.jpg/300px-Cyclotron_with_glowing_beam.jpg

  

 

From: Bob Cook 

 

The Cherenkov radiation I have seen is primarily blue.   It is associated with 
the high energy particles emitted from spent fuel in a water storage pool and I 
think is associated with the slowing down of the particles in water, as you 
suggest.  I also think it is associated with the neutrons that come from the 
decay of fission products.  The charged particles are slowed down in a short 
distance.  The neutrons cause the bluish glow at a distance from the source.  
This may also be due to scattering of the  blue light which is not absorbed 
like red in the water.   

 

I would agree that the EM radiation that is caused by either charged particles 
or neutrons is broad band as you suggest.

 

Bob

 

Sent from Windows Mail

 

From: Eric Walker  
Sent: ‎Saturday‎, ‎February‎ ‎7‎, ‎2015 ‎9‎:‎20‎ ‎PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

 

On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 1:49 PM,  wrote:

 

I have a different question altogether. How does one distinguish between
Cherenkov radiation and light emitted by recombining ion - electron pairs?
(Where fast particles are responsible for creating the pairs.)

 

I believe Cherenkov radiation is broadband.  I read today that it is 
distinguishable, nonetheless, from bremsstrahlung.  In the case of 
bremsstrahlung you need noticeable acceleration (e.g., a bending motion or a 
collision), whereas Cherenkov radiation arises from constructive interference 
when a charged particle exceeds the phase velocity of light in a medium.  So 
you can distinguish the two in the case of a relativistic heavy ion.  In that 
case the trajectory of the ion will be straight (so no bremsstrahlung) but it 
will give rise to Cherenkov radiation.

 

My understanding is that Cherenkov radiation is broadband because the fast 
particle slowly decelerates, leading the frequency at which constructive 
interference to change over time.

 

Please carefully vet anything I have said here.

 

Eric

 

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[Bob Cook]

I think the failure was caused by a brittle fracture of the alumina tube due to 
thermal stresses, internal micro stresses caused by micro bubble formation and 
resulting embrittlement.


Bob






Sent from Windows Mail





From: Bob Higgins
Sent: ‎Friday‎, ‎February‎ ‎6‎, ‎2015 ‎1‎:‎00‎ ‎PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com





Ryan Hunt reports that the failure mode was NOT the compression fitting giving 
way under pressure - the fitting remained intact.  This experiment was of the 
"easier Parkhomov" design, posted previously where the seal was made with a 
compression fitting, in this case with the use of a soft aluminum ferrule at 
the suggestion of Alan Goldwater.  Alan's tests suggested the compression 
fitting would hold and it did!  Using the compression fitting is a real win 
because it completely avoids the problematic sealing of the ends with cement 
while providing an opportunity to instrument the reaction vessel. 



When this failure occurred, it appeared to be a raw ceramic body failure.  This 
could easily have come from too much pressure coming from a too large charge of 
LiAlH4 for the vacant volume inside the apparatus.  MFMP will extract that 
volume information and relate it to the weight of LiAlH4 that was added, as 
being a benchmark for too much LiAlH4.  The tube used was 1/4" OD, but at the 
moment, I am not sure if it was a 4mm ID tube or a 1/8" ID tube.  The Parkhomov 
tube had an ID of half of its OD.




Bob Higgins




On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 11:39 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint  wrote:

At 2:29/2:30 into the short segment posted by Craig, it looks like the 
right-side end-plug, or whatever is sticking out that end, blows out.  And I 
use that term specifically since one also sees some hint of a pressure release. 
 Whether that release is at an appropriate level is apparently debatable...
-mark iverson

RE: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

[Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.]

Nit pick:   The stress in the end caps is twice that of the body if I remember 
my  Mech E statics classes correctly.



Hoyt Stearns

Scottsdale, Arizona US



From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
Sent: Sunday, February 8, 2015 8:52 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project



Although hydrogen is released from metal hydrides at rates which increase with 
increasing temperature– the fallacy of a few of these calculations is that the 
release is also pressure dependent; and thus the release will slow or stop at 
high pressure. Therefore the release is self-regulating.



Jack could be closer to the mark in suggesting that the failure was due to 
thermal stress. In fact, this type of failure could happen with only a few bar 
of pressure.



If the failure was only pressure-related, it would happen near the middle of 
the cavity, which is the region of least structural strength against internal 
pressure - but since the failure (apparently) happened at almost exactly the 
place where the temperature gradient would be maximized – that explanation 
seems to fit the circumstances.





From: Jack Cole



I wonder to what extent the temperature gradient could have been a factor in 
the failure with one end of the tube being much cooler (the part that is 
outside of the heating element with the compression fitting on it).  Perhaps 
this would reduce the amount of pressure the alumina could contain?



Mark Jurich wrote:



I believe there maybe an error in this pressure estimate





---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

[Bob Cook]

I would say that the thermal gradients are important in the stress profile of 
the tube and could easily lead to failure in combination with the pressure.  
The alumina has some mechanical properties, including fracture toughness, since 
it is not an jnfinitely  ducctile material.  Small defects in the alumina will 
accumulate hydrogen because of its mobility at temperature and form small gas 
bubbles at the defects.  This is a common issue with hydrogen embrittlement of 
weld metal and base metal that creates high internal gas pressures at the 
discontinuities and can lead to gross failure of the base metal in combination 
with other stresses.   Fracture mechanics design calculation applicable to the 
alumina would allow designing the tube to avoid failure, if failure of the tube 
is not wanted.


The analyses of determination of embrittlement is an easy problem with the 
right software and knowledge of defects in the alumina and its hydrogen 
permeability with temperature.  


Acoustic emission sensors could be attached to the alumina  to monitor the 
micro cracking to determine the location of defects and high stress regions.  
Such would be a desirable pre -test  evaluation to understand the condition of 
the alumina reactor tube, hydrogen permeability with temperature and the 
effects of thermal stresses and temperature gradients.


Bob



Sent from Windows Mail





From: Mark Jurich
Sent: ‎Sunday‎, ‎February‎ ‎8‎, ‎2015 ‎2‎:‎56‎ ‎AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com





I believe there maybe an error in this pressure estimate and that the 
calculated pressure will be exactly half of 19,861 psi (i.e., 9,930.5 psi). 
Although 0.0141 moles of Hydrogen are released, 0.00706 moles of Hydrogen 
Gas (H2) are released.  I don't believe that free H atoms/ions contribute to 
the gas pressure in the free volume of the cell, and that the actual gas 
there is H2 Gas.

Please see the following post for the details:

https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg101557.html

Mark Jurich

-Original Message- 
From: Craig Haynie
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2015 1:44 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

Pressure inside the dog bone is calculated to have been near 19,861 psi
at the time of failure.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BWYbi6tBHcjZ4PyQ0BaWn-G1NkdQdkirb-_Qx2HypKs/edit

Craig

Re: [Vo]:what is needed to give rise to visible Cherenkov radiation?

[Bob Cook]

Eric--


The Cherenkov radiation I have seen is primarily blue.   It is associated with 
the high energy particles emitted from spent fuel in a water storage pool and I 
think is associated with the slowing down of the particles in water, as you 
suggest.  I also think it is associated with the neutrons that come from the 
decay of fission products.  The charged particles are slowed down in a short 
distance.  The neutrons cause the bluish glow at a distance from the source.  
This may also be due to scattering of the  blue light which is not absorbed 
like red in the water.   


I would agree that the EM radiation that is caused by either charged particles 
or neutrons is broad band as you suggest.


Bob






Sent from Windows Mail





From: Eric Walker
Sent: ‎Saturday‎, ‎February‎ ‎7‎, ‎2015 ‎9‎:‎20‎ ‎PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com







On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 1:49 PM,  wrote:



I have a different question altogether. How does one distinguish between
Cherenkov radiation and light emitted by recombining ion - electron pairs?
(Where fast particles are responsible for creating the pairs.)




I believe Cherenkov radiation is broadband.  I read today that it is 
distinguishable, nonetheless, from bremsstrahlung.  In the case of 
bremsstrahlung you need noticeable acceleration (e.g., a bending motion or a 
collision), whereas Cherenkov radiation arises from constructive interference 
when a charged particle exceeds the phase velocity of light in a medium.  So 
you can distinguish the two in the case of a relativistic heavy ion.  In that 
case the trajectory of the ion will be straight (so no bremsstrahlung) but it 
will give rise to Cherenkov radiation.




My understanding is that Cherenkov radiation is broadband because the fast 
particle slowly decelerates, leading the frequency at which constructive 
interference to change over time.




Please carefully vet anything I have said here.




Eric

RE: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

[Jones Beene]

Although hydrogen is released from metal hydrides at rates which increase with 
increasing temperature– the fallacy of a few of these calculations is that the 
release is also pressure dependent; and thus the release will slow or stop at 
high pressure. Therefore the release is self-regulating.

 

Jack could be closer to the mark in suggesting that the failure was due to 
thermal stress. In fact, this type of failure could happen with only a few bar 
of pressure.

 

If the failure was only pressure-related, it would happen near the middle of 
the cavity, which is the region of least structural strength against internal 
pressure - but since the failure (apparently) happened at almost exactly the 
place where the temperature gradient would be maximized – that explanation 
seems to fit the circumstances.

 

 

From: Jack Cole 

 

I wonder to what extent the temperature gradient could have been a factor in 
the failure with one end of the tube being much cooler (the part that is 
outside of the heating element with the compression fitting on it).  Perhaps 
this would reduce the amount of pressure the alumina could contain?

 

Mark Jurich wrote:

 

I believe there maybe an error in this pressure estimate 

 

Re: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

[Jack Cole]

I wonder to what extent the temperature gradient could have been a factor
in the failure with one end of the tube being much cooler (the part that is
outside of the heating element with the compression fitting on it).
Perhaps this would reduce the amount of pressure the alumina could contain?

On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 4:56 AM, Mark Jurich  wrote:

> I believe there maybe an error in this pressure estimate and that the
> calculated pressure will be exactly half of 19,861 psi (i.e., 9,930.5 psi).
> Although 0.0141 moles of Hydrogen are released, 0.00706 moles of Hydrogen
> Gas (H2) are released.  I don't believe that free H atoms/ions contribute
> to the gas pressure in the free volume of the cell, and that the actual gas
> there is H2 Gas.
>
> Please see the following post for the details:
>
> https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg101557.html
>
> Mark Jurich
>
> -Original Message- From: Craig Haynie
> Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2015 1:44 AM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project
>
> Pressure inside the dog bone is calculated to have been near 19,861 psi
> at the time of failure.
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BWYbi6tBHcjZ4PyQ0BaWn-
> G1NkdQdkirb-_Qx2HypKs/edit
>
> Craig
>
>

[Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

[Mark Jurich]

I believe there maybe an error in this pressure estimate and that the 
calculated pressure will be exactly half of 19,861 psi (i.e., 9,930.5 psi). 
Although 0.0141 moles of Hydrogen are released, 0.00706 moles of Hydrogen 
Gas (H2) are released.  I don't believe that free H atoms/ions contribute to 
the gas pressure in the free volume of the cell, and that the actual gas 
there is H2 Gas.


Please see the following post for the details:

https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg101557.html

Mark Jurich

-Original Message- 
From: Craig Haynie

Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2015 1:44 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

Pressure inside the dog bone is calculated to have been near 19,861 psi
at the time of failure.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BWYbi6tBHcjZ4PyQ0BaWn-G1NkdQdkirb-_Qx2HypKs/edit

Craig

Re: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

[Craig Haynie]

Pressure inside the dog bone is calculated to have been near 19,861 psi 
at the time of failure.


https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BWYbi6tBHcjZ4PyQ0BaWn-G1NkdQdkirb-_Qx2HypKs/edit

Craig