[Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

[Mark Jurich]

 I wrote:

   |  With this LAH mass, the Ideal Gas Law Maximum Pressure comes out as  8388 
psi,
   |  and using the van der Waals equation of state, approx. 1.07 times that, 
or 8976 psi.

I just went thru the van der Waals equation of state calculation, and the 
pressure comes
out to be 9641 psi or 15% more (not 8976 psi or 7% more).

The van der Waals Equation of State for this case is:

p[psi] = 14.6959488 psi  +  ((wR(T+273.15)) / (v-wb))  –  a(w/v)^2

where
R = 0.06355261 [ml][psi] / ([K][mgLAH])
a[H2] = 0.0099592 [ml^2][psi] / [mgLAH^2]
b[H2] = 0.001402 [ml] / [mgLAH]

and the parameters specific to this experiment/test are:

w = 105 mgLAH
v = 1.06 ml
T= 1057 C

Mark Jurich

Re: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

[Mark Jurich]

I indeed found an error I had made in the calculation directly below, but the 
discrepancy between the first MFMP revision still exists.

Here is what I believe is the equation Alan would use, neglecting the value of 
the delivered volume of total charge to the cell:

mLAH  = mtotal  /  (1 + VRxDR)

where mLAH = Mass of Lithium Aluminum Hydride,
   mtotal = TOTAL charge/fuel Mass (0.67 g),
   VR = Volume Ratio (Ni Volume) / (LAH Volume) (2.5)
  &  DR = Density Ratio (Ni Density) / (LAH Density) (2.1545 = 1.06/0.492)

Using this equation, I calculate the mass of LAH at 0.105 g (or 105 mg)
and the Ni mass at 0.67 g – 0.105 g = 0.565 g (or 565 mg),
instead of the mistakes of 124 mg & 546 mg, in the post directly below.

... In the first MFMP Revision, DR = 9.714 (8.908/0.917), so I calculate the 
mass of LAH at 0.0265 g
(instead of the mistake 0.0276 g, below), in disagreement with the value of 
0.0197 g.

It would be nice if we can resolve this discrepancy.

With this LAH mass, the Ideal Gas Law Maximum Pressure comes out as  8388 psi,
and using the van der Waals equation of state, approx. 1.07 times that, or 8976 
psi.

This is using 1.06 ml as the free volume and 1057 C as the temperature.

Mark Jurich

-Original Message- 
From: Mark Jurich 
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 6:00 PM 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project 

If one takes the MFMP measured densities along with the volume ratio 2.5 
(neglecting the delivered volume value as data), one gets:

mass Li(AlH4) = 124 mg
mass Ni = 0.67 - .124 = 546 mg

This is similar to the way Alan calculated it in the Revision, but I 
couldn't recreate his exact value in that revision ( 0.0197 g; I get 0.0276 
g), so I may have an error in the above values

The maximum pressure comes out to be approx. 9480 psi ... If one uses the 
van der Waals Equation of State instead of the Ideal Gas Law, the maximum 
pressure will be approx. 1.07 times that (10,144 psi).

... Anything over 10,000 psi is not good.  Consider the fact that an abrupt 
pressure change may cause the Alumina to crack (just like an abrupt 
temperature change causes glass to crack).  If the pressure rushed up to 
such a value, it may be the cause.  I believe this data is probably 
tabulated somewhere for Alumina, at high temperatures.  We need to find a 
paper or some values.

Mark Jurich

-Original Message- 
From: Mark Jurich
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 5:33 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

Correction (typo) on Mass Ni (Original Message) ... Should be 563.3 mg ...

The Measured Density by MFMP for Li(AlH4) is 0.492 g/cc.  If I use that
value instead of 0.74 times 0.917 g/cc (0.74 is theoretical maximum packing
density for identical spheres), which is 0.679 g/cc, I get:

   Mass Li(AlH4) = 77.3 mg
   Mass Ni = 592.7 mg
   Density Ni = 1.509 g/cc

I need to double-check these.

Mark Jurich

-Original Message- 
From: Mark Jurich
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 4:57 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

FYI:

I just made a calculation where I assumed the Li(AlH4) Powder density to be
0.74 times 0.917 g/cc.  I then calculated the remaining 3 unknowns:

   Mass Li(AlH4) = 106.6 mg
   Mass Ni = 6282.6 mg
   Density Ni = 1.434 g/cc

I assumed the delivered volume was 0.55 cc (0.5 to 0.6 cc)

I then went searching for the Ni Density by the manufacturer of the actual
Ni used, by first trying to identify the manufacturer at the MFMP Site (via
EverNote).  I then saw that MFMP have determined the density to be 1.06 g/cc
just a short while ago .  This is close...

...More when I find out more.

Mark Jurich


-Original Message- 
From: AlanG
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 8:44 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

Mark, the powders were already inside the glove box when the scale (also
inside the box) failed, so volume measurements were the only data I had
available. As a result, precise mass measurement was not possible, nor
was determination of exact densities by measurement. The relative
density of the powders was taken from the bulk densities as given in the
respective Wikipedia entries. Unknowns include the packing ratio of each
of the powders. They are both finely divided but not nano scale, so
assuming a similar packing seems reasonable in the absence of other data.

The volumes were calculated from dimensions of the actual components
used, measured with a digital caliper. The space between the filler rod
and the ID of the tube is significant and was included in my
calculation. The possible vacant volume within the powder mass was not
included, nor was the possible absorption of H2 into the nickel, which
we think was minimal given the time scale of the experiment.

Regarding the calculation itself, the mass of the fuel was determined
accurately by weighing the loaded cell after sealing and removal from
the glove box. This was d

[Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

[Mark Jurich]

If one takes the MFMP measured densities along with the volume ratio 2.5 
(neglecting the delivered volume value as data), one gets:


mass Li(AlH4) = 124 mg
mass Ni = 0.67 - .124 = 546 mg

This is similar to the way Alan calculated it in the Revision, but I 
couldn't recreate his exact value in that revision ( 0.0197 g; I get 0.0276 
g), so I may have an error in the above values


The maximum pressure comes out to be approx. 9480 psi ... If one uses the 
van der Waals Equation of State instead of the Ideal Gas Law, the maximum 
pressure will be approx. 1.07 times that (10,144 psi).


... Anything over 10,000 psi is not good.  Consider the fact that an abrupt 
pressure change may cause the Alumina to crack (just like an abrupt 
temperature change causes glass to crack).  If the pressure rushed up to 
such a value, it may be the cause.  I believe this data is probably 
tabulated somewhere for Alumina, at high temperatures.  We need to find a 
paper or some values.


Mark Jurich

-Original Message- 
From: Mark Jurich

Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 5:33 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

Correction (typo) on Mass Ni (Original Message) ... Should be 563.3 mg ...

The Measured Density by MFMP for Li(AlH4) is 0.492 g/cc.  If I use that
value instead of 0.74 times 0.917 g/cc (0.74 is theoretical maximum packing
density for identical spheres), which is 0.679 g/cc, I get:

  Mass Li(AlH4) = 77.3 mg
  Mass Ni = 592.7 mg
  Density Ni = 1.509 g/cc

I need to double-check these.

Mark Jurich

-Original Message- 
From: Mark Jurich

Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 4:57 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

FYI:

I just made a calculation where I assumed the Li(AlH4) Powder density to be
0.74 times 0.917 g/cc.  I then calculated the remaining 3 unknowns:

  Mass Li(AlH4) = 106.6 mg
  Mass Ni = 6282.6 mg
  Density Ni = 1.434 g/cc

I assumed the delivered volume was 0.55 cc (0.5 to 0.6 cc)

I then went searching for the Ni Density by the manufacturer of the actual
Ni used, by first trying to identify the manufacturer at the MFMP Site (via
EverNote).  I then saw that MFMP have determined the density to be 1.06 g/cc
just a short while ago .  This is close...

...More when I find out more.

Mark Jurich


-Original Message- 
From: AlanG

Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 8:44 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

Mark, the powders were already inside the glove box when the scale (also
inside the box) failed, so volume measurements were the only data I had
available. As a result, precise mass measurement was not possible, nor
was determination of exact densities by measurement. The relative
density of the powders was taken from the bulk densities as given in the
respective Wikipedia entries. Unknowns include the packing ratio of each
of the powders. They are both finely divided but not nano scale, so
assuming a similar packing seems reasonable in the absence of other data.

The volumes were calculated from dimensions of the actual components
used, measured with a digital caliper. The space between the filler rod
and the ID of the tube is significant and was included in my
calculation. The possible vacant volume within the powder mass was not
included, nor was the possible absorption of H2 into the nickel, which
we think was minimal given the time scale of the experiment.

Regarding the calculation itself, the mass of the fuel was determined
accurately by weighing the loaded cell after sealing and removal from
the glove box. This was divided by the volume mix ratio, then by the
estimated relative density ratio of the two powders to get the mass of
the LiAlH4 in the cell. The amount of H was then found simply by the
ratio of standard atomic weights. As you correctly pointed out earlier,
the equivalent molar amount must be based on the H2 molecules in the
gas, and that was the final figure used to calculate the pressure.

If I missed something important in my analysis, I'd be happy to know,
and make further corrections.

AlanG

On 2/10/2015 11:30 PM, Mark Jurich wrote:

New MFMP Charge Analysis regarding the Explosion Run:

http://bit.ly/1z61hEB  (5 hours ago)

This is a shocker to me.  Here are the changes to the last values (first 
analysis):


Free Volume for Gas: 1.09 ml --> 1.06 ml (not a large change) (Recall that 
Parkhomov estimates 2 ml in his experiment(s))
Weight Amount of Li(AlH4): 134 mg --> 19.7 mg (!!!)(Recall 
that Parkhomov/Translation states 100 mg)


With these new values, the calculated pressure become approx. 1500 psi, 
which agrees with my calculation.  But this new weight amount of Li(AlH4) 
is totally strange to me.  The analysis goes on to state that this 
pressure is in line with Parkhomov's estimates, but as far as I 
understand, using far less Li(AlH4) than Parkhomov.  The only value I have 
ever seen stated by Parkhomov is 100 mg, or a factor of 5 t

Re: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

[Mark Jurich]

Correction (typo) on Mass Ni (Original Message) ... Should be 563.3 mg ...

The Measured Density by MFMP for Li(AlH4) is 0.492 g/cc.  If I use that 
value instead of 0.74 times 0.917 g/cc (0.74 is theoretical maximum packing 
density for identical spheres), which is 0.679 g/cc, I get:


  Mass Li(AlH4) = 77.3 mg
  Mass Ni = 592.7 mg
  Density Ni = 1.509 g/cc

I need to double-check these.

Mark Jurich

-Original Message- 
From: Mark Jurich

Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 4:57 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

FYI:

I just made a calculation where I assumed the Li(AlH4) Powder density to be
0.74 times 0.917 g/cc.  I then calculated the remaining 3 unknowns:

  Mass Li(AlH4) = 106.6 mg
  Mass Ni = 6282.6 mg
  Density Ni = 1.434 g/cc

I assumed the delivered volume was 0.55 cc (0.5 to 0.6 cc)

I then went searching for the Ni Density by the manufacturer of the actual
Ni used, by first trying to identify the manufacturer at the MFMP Site (via
EverNote).  I then saw that MFMP have determined the density to be 1.06 g/cc
just a short while ago .  This is close...

...More when I find out more.

Mark Jurich


-Original Message- 
From: AlanG

Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 8:44 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

Mark, the powders were already inside the glove box when the scale (also
inside the box) failed, so volume measurements were the only data I had
available. As a result, precise mass measurement was not possible, nor
was determination of exact densities by measurement. The relative
density of the powders was taken from the bulk densities as given in the
respective Wikipedia entries. Unknowns include the packing ratio of each
of the powders. They are both finely divided but not nano scale, so
assuming a similar packing seems reasonable in the absence of other data.

The volumes were calculated from dimensions of the actual components
used, measured with a digital caliper. The space between the filler rod
and the ID of the tube is significant and was included in my
calculation. The possible vacant volume within the powder mass was not
included, nor was the possible absorption of H2 into the nickel, which
we think was minimal given the time scale of the experiment.

Regarding the calculation itself, the mass of the fuel was determined
accurately by weighing the loaded cell after sealing and removal from
the glove box. This was divided by the volume mix ratio, then by the
estimated relative density ratio of the two powders to get the mass of
the LiAlH4 in the cell. The amount of H was then found simply by the
ratio of standard atomic weights. As you correctly pointed out earlier,
the equivalent molar amount must be based on the H2 molecules in the
gas, and that was the final figure used to calculate the pressure.

If I missed something important in my analysis, I'd be happy to know,
and make further corrections.

AlanG

On 2/10/2015 11:30 PM, Mark Jurich wrote:

New MFMP Charge Analysis regarding the Explosion Run:

http://bit.ly/1z61hEB  (5 hours ago)

This is a shocker to me.  Here are the changes to the last values (first 
analysis):


Free Volume for Gas: 1.09 ml --> 1.06 ml (not a large change) (Recall that 
Parkhomov estimates 2 ml in his experiment(s))
Weight Amount of Li(AlH4): 134 mg --> 19.7 mg (!!!)(Recall 
that Parkhomov/Translation states 100 mg)


With these new values, the calculated pressure become approx. 1500 psi, 
which agrees with my calculation.  But this new weight amount of Li(AlH4) 
is totally strange to me.  The analysis goes on to state that this 
pressure is in line with Parkhomov's estimates, but as far as I 
understand, using far less Li(AlH4) than Parkhomov.  The only value I have 
ever seen stated by Parkhomov is 100 mg, or a factor of 5 times more, by 
weight.


Am I missing something here?  This is a tremendous change that I'm having 
a hard time comprehending.  I'm looking into the MFMP Calculation further, 
right now.


Thanks,
Mark Jurich

-Original Message- From: Mark Jurich
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2015 2:56 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

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.

htt

[Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

[Mark Jurich]

FYI:

I just made a calculation where I assumed the Li(AlH4) Powder density to be 
0.74 times 0.917 g/cc.  I then calculated the remaining 3 unknowns:


  Mass Li(AlH4) = 106.6 mg
  Mass Ni = 6282.6 mg
  Density Ni = 1.434 g/cc

I assumed the delivered volume was 0.55 cc (0.5 to 0.6 cc)

I then went searching for the Ni Density by the manufacturer of the actual 
Ni used, by first trying to identify the manufacturer at the MFMP Site (via 
EverNote).  I then saw that MFMP have determined the density to be 1.06 g/cc 
just a short while ago .  This is close...


...More when I find out more.

Mark Jurich


-Original Message- 
From: AlanG

Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 8:44 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

Mark, the powders were already inside the glove box when the scale (also
inside the box) failed, so volume measurements were the only data I had
available. As a result, precise mass measurement was not possible, nor
was determination of exact densities by measurement. The relative
density of the powders was taken from the bulk densities as given in the
respective Wikipedia entries. Unknowns include the packing ratio of each
of the powders. They are both finely divided but not nano scale, so
assuming a similar packing seems reasonable in the absence of other data.

The volumes were calculated from dimensions of the actual components
used, measured with a digital caliper. The space between the filler rod
and the ID of the tube is significant and was included in my
calculation. The possible vacant volume within the powder mass was not
included, nor was the possible absorption of H2 into the nickel, which
we think was minimal given the time scale of the experiment.

Regarding the calculation itself, the mass of the fuel was determined
accurately by weighing the loaded cell after sealing and removal from
the glove box. This was divided by the volume mix ratio, then by the
estimated relative density ratio of the two powders to get the mass of
the LiAlH4 in the cell. The amount of H was then found simply by the
ratio of standard atomic weights. As you correctly pointed out earlier,
the equivalent molar amount must be based on the H2 molecules in the
gas, and that was the final figure used to calculate the pressure.

If I missed something important in my analysis, I'd be happy to know,
and make further corrections.

AlanG

On 2/10/2015 11:30 PM, Mark Jurich wrote:

New MFMP Charge Analysis regarding the Explosion Run:

http://bit.ly/1z61hEB  (5 hours ago)

This is a shocker to me.  Here are the changes to the last values (first 
analysis):


Free Volume for Gas: 1.09 ml --> 1.06 ml (not a large change) (Recall that 
Parkhomov estimates 2 ml in his experiment(s))
Weight Amount of Li(AlH4): 134 mg --> 19.7 mg (!!!)(Recall 
that Parkhomov/Translation states 100 mg)


With these new values, the calculated pressure become approx. 1500 psi, 
which agrees with my calculation.  But this new weight amount of Li(AlH4) 
is totally strange to me.  The analysis goes on to state that this 
pressure is in line with Parkhomov's estimates, but as far as I 
understand, using far less Li(AlH4) than Parkhomov.  The only value I have 
ever seen stated by Parkhomov is 100 mg, or a factor of 5 times more, by 
weight.


Am I missing something here?  This is a tremendous change that I'm having 
a hard time comprehending.  I'm looking into the MFMP Calculation further, 
right now.


Thanks,
Mark Jurich

-Original Message- From: Mark Jurich
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2015 2:56 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

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

[mixent]

In reply to  Bob Cook's message of Wed, 11 Feb 2015 20:38:23 +:
Hi,
[snip]
>
>
>I would use the value for the density of LiAlH listed in the handbook of 
>chemistry and physics as a density.  This will allow a better determination of 
>the actual mass of the LiAlH using a packing factor for nano particles of 
>about 0.7 meaning about 30% of the volume is actual crystaline ALiAlH.  

I think it means that about 70% is solid material, and 30% is space. (I get a
figure of 0.74).

>The 30% assumes spherical particles.  Different shapes generally make for a 
>larger void fraction.  They do not pack as well as spheres.  
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

[Bob Cook]

I would use the value for the density of LiAlH listed in the handbook of 
chemistry and physics as a density.  This will allow a better determination of 
the actual mass of the LiAlH using a packing factor for nano particles of about 
0.7 meaning about 30% of the volume is actual crystaline ALiAlH.  The 30% 
assumes spherical particles.  Different shapes generally make for a larger void 
fraction.  They do not pack as well as spheres.  


However, a void measurement can be determined by making a slurry of the LiAlH 
in an organic solvent and actually determining the volume of the voids by 
measuring the total volume dry and the volume of the solvent and slurry.  Make 
sure the solvent does not react with or dissolve the LiAlH.  DO NOT USE WATER.


The following is a catalogue listing for LiAlH Power, which identifies the .91 
density for the powder.   It also has other information, including safety info, 
for this substance.  It is not clear if the .91 DENSITY is for the powder or 
the crystal solid of the substance.  That is the reason to check the Handbook 
for the density of the crystal. 


Bob Cook






Sent from Windows Mail





From: Bob Cook
Sent: ‎Wednesday‎, ‎February‎ ‎11‎, ‎2015 ‎10‎:‎01‎ ‎AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com





Alan, Mark, etal.,




For spheres packed tightly the vacant volume fraction is about 30%.  If the 
density of Li-Al-H is 1, the density of the packed material does not change, 
however the volume of the actual crystalline solid substance is still 1.  From 
what has been reported I would guess the LiAlH is about 1.2 density.













 sent from Windows Mail





From: AlanG
Sent: ‎Wednesday‎, ‎February‎ ‎11‎, ‎2015 ‎8‎:‎47‎ ‎AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com





Mark, the powders were already inside the glove box when the scale (also 
inside the box) failed, so volume measurements were the only data I had 
available. As a result, precise mass measurement was not possible, nor 
was determination of exact densities by measurement. The relative 
density of the powders was taken from the bulk densities as given in the 
respective Wikipedia entries. Unknowns include the packing ratio of each 
of the powders. They are both finely divided but not nano scale, so 
assuming a similar packing seems reasonable in the absence of other data.

The volumes were calculated from dimensions of the actual components 
used, measured with a digital caliper. The space between the filler rod 
and the ID of the tube is significant and was included in my 
calculation. The possible vacant volume within the powder mass was not 
included, nor was the possible absorption of H2 into the nickel, which 
we think was minimal given the time scale of the experiment.

Regarding the calculation itself, the mass of the fuel was determined 
accurately by weighing the loaded cell after sealing and removal from 
the glove box. This was divided by the volume mix ratio, then by the 
estimated relative density ratio of the two powders to get the mass of 
the LiAlH4 in the cell. The amount of H was then found simply by the 
ratio of standard atomic weights. As you correctly pointed out earlier, 
the equivalent molar amount must be based on the H2 molecules in the 
gas, and that was the final figure used to calculate the pressure.

If I missed something important in my analysis, I'd be happy to know, 
and make further corrections.

AlanG

On 2/10/2015 11:30 PM, Mark Jurich wrote:
> New MFMP Charge Analysis regarding the Explosion Run:
>
> http://bit.ly/1z61hEB  (5 hours ago)
>
> This is a shocker to me.  Here are the changes to the last values 
> (first analysis):
>
> Free Volume for Gas: 1.09 ml --> 1.06 ml (not a large change) (Recall 
> that Parkhomov estimates 2 ml in his experiment(s))
> Weight Amount of Li(AlH4): 134 mg --> 19.7 mg (!!!)
> (Recall that Parkhomov/Translation states 100 mg)
>
> With these new values, the calculated pressure become approx. 1500 
> psi, which agrees with my calculation.  But this new weight amount of 
> Li(AlH4) is totally strange to me.  The analysis goes on to state that 
> this pressure is in line with Parkhomov's estimates, but as far as I 
> understand, using far less Li(AlH4) than Parkhomov.  The only value I 
> have ever seen stated by Parkhomov is 100 mg, or a factor of 5 times 
> more, by weight.
>
> Am I missing something here?  This is a tremendous change that I'm 
> having a hard time comprehending.  I'm looking into the MFMP 
> Calculation further, right now.
>
> Thanks,
> Mark Jurich
>
> -Original Message----- From: Mark Jurich
> Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2015 2:56 AM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project
>
> 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 Hydrog

Re: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

[Bob Cook]

My last comment should have read ….about 1.2 for the density of the LiAlH fuel 
or what ever.




Bob Cook






Sent from Windows Mail





From: AlanG
Sent: ‎Wednesday‎, ‎February‎ ‎11‎, ‎2015 ‎8‎:‎47‎ ‎AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com





Mark, the powders were already inside the glove box when the scale (also 
inside the box) failed, so volume measurements were the only data I had 
available. As a result, precise mass measurement was not possible, nor 
was determination of exact densities by measurement. The relative 
density of the powders was taken from the bulk densities as given in the 
respective Wikipedia entries. Unknowns include the packing ratio of each 
of the powders. They are both finely divided but not nano scale, so 
assuming a similar packing seems reasonable in the absence of other data.

The volumes were calculated from dimensions of the actual components 
used, measured with a digital caliper. The space between the filler rod 
and the ID of the tube is significant and was included in my 
calculation. The possible vacant volume within the powder mass was not 
included, nor was the possible absorption of H2 into the nickel, which 
we think was minimal given the time scale of the experiment.

Regarding the calculation itself, the mass of the fuel was determined 
accurately by weighing the loaded cell after sealing and removal from 
the glove box. This was divided by the volume mix ratio, then by the 
estimated relative density ratio of the two powders to get the mass of 
the LiAlH4 in the cell. The amount of H was then found simply by the 
ratio of standard atomic weights. As you correctly pointed out earlier, 
the equivalent molar amount must be based on the H2 molecules in the 
gas, and that was the final figure used to calculate the pressure.

If I missed something important in my analysis, I'd be happy to know, 
and make further corrections.

AlanG

On 2/10/2015 11:30 PM, Mark Jurich wrote:
> New MFMP Charge Analysis regarding the Explosion Run:
>
> http://bit.ly/1z61hEB  (5 hours ago)
>
> This is a shocker to me.  Here are the changes to the last values 
> (first analysis):
>
> Free Volume for Gas: 1.09 ml --> 1.06 ml (not a large change) (Recall 
> that Parkhomov estimates 2 ml in his experiment(s))
> Weight Amount of Li(AlH4): 134 mg --> 19.7 mg (!!!)
> (Recall that Parkhomov/Translation states 100 mg)
>
> With these new values, the calculated pressure become approx. 1500 
> psi, which agrees with my calculation.  But this new weight amount of 
> Li(AlH4) is totally strange to me.  The analysis goes on to state that 
> this pressure is in line with Parkhomov's estimates, but as far as I 
> understand, using far less Li(AlH4) than Parkhomov.  The only value I 
> have ever seen stated by Parkhomov is 100 mg, or a factor of 5 times 
> more, by weight.
>
> Am I missing something here?  This is a tremendous change that I'm 
> having a hard time comprehending.  I'm looking into the MFMP 
> Calculation further, right now.
>
> Thanks,
> Mark Jurich
>
> -Original Message----- From: Mark Jurich
> Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2015 2:56 AM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project
>
> 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

[Bob Cook]

Alan, Mark, etal.,


For spheres packed tightly the vacant volume fraction is about 30%.  If the 
density of Li-Al-H is 1, the density of the packed material does not change, 
however the volume of the actual crystalline solid substance is still 1.  From 
what has been reported I would guess the LiAlH is about 2





 sent from Windows Mail





From: AlanG
Sent: ‎Wednesday‎, ‎February‎ ‎11‎, ‎2015 ‎8‎:‎47‎ ‎AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com





Mark, the powders were already inside the glove box when the scale (also 
inside the box) failed, so volume measurements were the only data I had 
available. As a result, precise mass measurement was not possible, nor 
was determination of exact densities by measurement. The relative 
density of the powders was taken from the bulk densities as given in the 
respective Wikipedia entries. Unknowns include the packing ratio of each 
of the powders. They are both finely divided but not nano scale, so 
assuming a similar packing seems reasonable in the absence of other data.

The volumes were calculated from dimensions of the actual components 
used, measured with a digital caliper. The space between the filler rod 
and the ID of the tube is significant and was included in my 
calculation. The possible vacant volume within the powder mass was not 
included, nor was the possible absorption of H2 into the nickel, which 
we think was minimal given the time scale of the experiment.

Regarding the calculation itself, the mass of the fuel was determined 
accurately by weighing the loaded cell after sealing and removal from 
the glove box. This was divided by the volume mix ratio, then by the 
estimated relative density ratio of the two powders to get the mass of 
the LiAlH4 in the cell. The amount of H was then found simply by the 
ratio of standard atomic weights. As you correctly pointed out earlier, 
the equivalent molar amount must be based on the H2 molecules in the 
gas, and that was the final figure used to calculate the pressure.

If I missed something important in my analysis, I'd be happy to know, 
and make further corrections.

AlanG

On 2/10/2015 11:30 PM, Mark Jurich wrote:
> New MFMP Charge Analysis regarding the Explosion Run:
>
> http://bit.ly/1z61hEB  (5 hours ago)
>
> This is a shocker to me.  Here are the changes to the last values 
> (first analysis):
>
> Free Volume for Gas: 1.09 ml --> 1.06 ml (not a large change) (Recall 
> that Parkhomov estimates 2 ml in his experiment(s))
> Weight Amount of Li(AlH4): 134 mg --> 19.7 mg (!!!)
> (Recall that Parkhomov/Translation states 100 mg)
>
> With these new values, the calculated pressure become approx. 1500 
> psi, which agrees with my calculation.  But this new weight amount of 
> Li(AlH4) is totally strange to me.  The analysis goes on to state that 
> this pressure is in line with Parkhomov's estimates, but as far as I 
> understand, using far less Li(AlH4) than Parkhomov.  The only value I 
> have ever seen stated by Parkhomov is 100 mg, or a factor of 5 times 
> more, by weight.
>
> Am I missing something here?  This is a tremendous change that I'm 
> having a hard time comprehending.  I'm looking into the MFMP 
> Calculation further, right now.
>
> Thanks,
> Mark Jurich
>
> -Original Message----- From: Mark Jurich
> Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2015 2:56 AM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project
>
> 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

[AlanG]

Mark, the powders were already inside the glove box when the scale (also 
inside the box) failed, so volume measurements were the only data I had 
available. As a result, precise mass measurement was not possible, nor 
was determination of exact densities by measurement. The relative 
density of the powders was taken from the bulk densities as given in the 
respective Wikipedia entries. Unknowns include the packing ratio of each 
of the powders. They are both finely divided but not nano scale, so 
assuming a similar packing seems reasonable in the absence of other data.


The volumes were calculated from dimensions of the actual components 
used, measured with a digital caliper. The space between the filler rod 
and the ID of the tube is significant and was included in my 
calculation. The possible vacant volume within the powder mass was not 
included, nor was the possible absorption of H2 into the nickel, which 
we think was minimal given the time scale of the experiment.


Regarding the calculation itself, the mass of the fuel was determined 
accurately by weighing the loaded cell after sealing and removal from 
the glove box. This was divided by the volume mix ratio, then by the 
estimated relative density ratio of the two powders to get the mass of 
the LiAlH4 in the cell. The amount of H was then found simply by the 
ratio of standard atomic weights. As you correctly pointed out earlier, 
the equivalent molar amount must be based on the H2 molecules in the 
gas, and that was the final figure used to calculate the pressure.


If I missed something important in my analysis, I'd be happy to know, 
and make further corrections.


AlanG

On 2/10/2015 11:30 PM, Mark Jurich wrote:

New MFMP Charge Analysis regarding the Explosion Run:

http://bit.ly/1z61hEB  (5 hours ago)

This is a shocker to me.  Here are the changes to the last values 
(first analysis):


Free Volume for Gas: 1.09 ml --> 1.06 ml (not a large change) (Recall 
that Parkhomov estimates 2 ml in his experiment(s))
Weight Amount of Li(AlH4): 134 mg --> 19.7 mg (!!!)
(Recall that Parkhomov/Translation states 100 mg)


With these new values, the calculated pressure become approx. 1500 
psi, which agrees with my calculation.  But this new weight amount of 
Li(AlH4) is totally strange to me.  The analysis goes on to state that 
this pressure is in line with Parkhomov's estimates, but as far as I 
understand, using far less Li(AlH4) than Parkhomov.  The only value I 
have ever seen stated by Parkhomov is 100 mg, or a factor of 5 times 
more, by weight.


Am I missing something here?  This is a tremendous change that I'm 
having a hard time comprehending.  I'm looking into the MFMP 
Calculation further, right now.


Thanks,
Mark Jurich

-Original Message- From: Mark Jurich
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2015 2:56 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

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

[Bob Cook]

Mark--


The density for the Li-Al-H in the HUG report seems low to me.  It will float 
on water.


Check that density.


Bob






Sent from Windows Mail





From: Mark Jurich
Sent: ‎Tuesday‎, ‎February‎ ‎10‎, ‎2015 ‎11‎:‎30‎ ‎PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com





New MFMP Charge Analysis regarding the Explosion Run:

http://bit.ly/1z61hEB  (5 hours ago)

This is a shocker to me.  Here are the changes to the last values (first 
analysis):

Free Volume for Gas: 1.09 ml --> 1.06 ml (not a large change)  (Recall that 
Parkhomov estimates 2 ml in his experiment(s))
Weight Amount of Li(AlH4): 134 mg --> 19.7 mg (!!!)(Recall 
that Parkhomov/Translation states 100 mg)

With these new values, the calculated pressure become approx. 1500 psi, 
which agrees with my calculation.  But this new weight amount of Li(AlH4) is 
totally strange to me.  The analysis goes on to state that this pressure is 
in line with Parkhomov's estimates, but as far as I understand, using far 
less Li(AlH4) than Parkhomov.  The only value I have ever seen stated by 
Parkhomov is 100 mg, or a factor of 5 times more, by weight.

Am I missing something here?  This is a tremendous change that I'm having a 
hard time comprehending.  I'm looking into the MFMP Calculation further, 
right now.

Thanks,
Mark Jurich

-Original Message- 
From: Mark Jurich
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2015 2:56 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

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

[Mark Jurich]

New MFMP Charge Analysis regarding the Explosion Run:

http://bit.ly/1z61hEB  (5 hours ago)

This is a shocker to me.  Here are the changes to the last values (first 
analysis):


Free Volume for Gas: 1.09 ml --> 1.06 ml (not a large change)  (Recall that 
Parkhomov estimates 2 ml in his experiment(s))
Weight Amount of Li(AlH4): 134 mg --> 19.7 mg (!!!)(Recall 
that Parkhomov/Translation states 100 mg)


With these new values, the calculated pressure become approx. 1500 psi, 
which agrees with my calculation.  But this new weight amount of Li(AlH4) is 
totally strange to me.  The analysis goes on to state that this pressure is 
in line with Parkhomov's estimates, but as far as I understand, using far 
less Li(AlH4) than Parkhomov.  The only value I have ever seen stated by 
Parkhomov is 100 mg, or a factor of 5 times more, by weight.


Am I missing something here?  This is a tremendous change that I'm having a 
hard time comprehending.  I'm looking into the MFMP Calculation further, 
right now.


Thanks,
Mark Jurich

-Original Message- 
From: Mark Jurich

Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2015 2:56 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

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

[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]: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]: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

[Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

[Mark Jurich]

This is all true.  The only reason I mentioned this, is that MFMP has gone to 
the trouble of adding this beautifully working extension (which is 
non-Parkhomov), they might as well use it to research other deviations once 
some type of replication is done, especially if the design hasn’t been 
solidified yet...

... Perhaps bringing in H2 Gas or D2 Gas (if you’re rich!) would also be 
possible. 

From: Bob Higgins 
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 2:55 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

Well, this is only sort-of possible.  The capillary nature of the plumbing will 
make it difficult to get much of a vacuum on the portion of the reactor that 
has the bulk of the volume, but it could be possible to reduce the atmosphere 
by an order of magnitude. 

Then you have to deal with the fact that this is yet another departure from 
replication.  We don't really know that the oxygen, nitrogen, and argon are not 
involved in the reaction.  Removing these gasses will certainly alter the 
chemistry of the reaction. Neither Parkhomov nor Rossi removed the atmosphere.  
It might turn out to be something that improves the reaction, but it is another 
departure from replication.


On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Mark Jurich  wrote:

  FYI:

  MFMP might also want to use this plumbing setup to pump out the headspace at 
the start of the run, pulling 30” of vacuum on it, to remove any 
nitrogen/oxygen/etc.

  Mark Jurich


  From: Bob Higgins 
  Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 1:57 PM
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

  I wouldn't call that bizarre, I would call that a sense of self-preservation 
kicking in.   

  Remember that these fellows have come together for only a limited time to run 
these experiments.  It could be that the appropriate plumbing was not readily 
available to hook up the pressure sensor in a way that did not open up a large 
gas volume.  The volume inside the Parkhomov alumina tube is really small.  
Maintaining that small volume is important to generate the high pressures as 
the LiAlH4 decomposes.  To use the long tube (so as to get the compression 
fitting away from the heat), almost all of the volume must be filled with 
alumina rod and then what is connected on the end to the compression fitting 
must also be minimum volume.  Otherwise, the pressure measured would not be 
representative of what it was inside Parkhomov's reactor.  I am working on 
plumbing to make such measurements using 1/16" stainless tubing having a 0.006" 
bore with appropriately small other fittings to minimize the dead gas volume in 
the plumbing.

  What I particularly don't like about just using a cap on the end is that the 
really high pressure is likely to remain even after the reactor cools to room 
temperature.  How do you bleed out the gas to open the tube safely?

  My objective is to measure the pressure over the course of the reaction, have 
a way to capture the product gas in a sample cylinder for analysis, and have a 
way to bleed off any remaining pressure when cool.

  Bob Higgins


  On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 2:41 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

Bizarre that they would think to hide behind an explosion shield -- which 
is rational given prior pressure excursions -- but would not think to hook up 
the pressure sensor.

On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

  Bob Greenyer Obvious • 40 minutes ago 
  The pressure sensor was not connected. this can be seen visually. The 
core was shown in pictures earlier in the evening on Facebook.


  On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 1:58 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint  
wrote:

Do you believe the sensor, or your eyes?

-mi



From: James Bowery [mailto:jabow...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 10:42 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project



The pressure release hypothesis is inconsistent with the "PSI" read out 
in the video, which never reaches 1.0.



On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 12:39 PM, 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


-Original Message-
From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson 
[mailto:orionwo...@charter.net]
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 9:25 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

Good show,

Thanks, Craig.

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
svjart.orionworks.com
zazzle.com/orionworks

> Short segment showing the explosion.

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDfRaDY2R_A&feature=youtu.be

> Craig

Re: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

[Bob Higgins]

Well, this is only sort-of possible.  The capillary nature of the plumbing
will make it difficult to get much of a vacuum on the portion of the
reactor that has the bulk of the volume, but it could be possible to reduce
the atmosphere by an order of magnitude.

Then you have to deal with the fact that this is yet another departure from
replication.  We don't really know that the oxygen, nitrogen, and argon are
not involved in the reaction.  Removing these gasses will certainly alter
the chemistry of the reaction. Neither Parkhomov nor Rossi removed the
atmosphere.  It might turn out to be something that improves the reaction,
but it is another departure from replication.

On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Mark Jurich  wrote:

>   FYI:
>
> MFMP might also want to use this plumbing setup to pump out the headspace
> at the start of the run, pulling 30” of vacuum on it, to remove any
> nitrogen/oxygen/etc.
>
> Mark Jurich
>
>
>  *From:* Bob Higgins 
>  *Sent:* Friday, February 06, 2015 1:57 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project
>
>  I wouldn't call that bizarre, I would call that a sense of
> self-preservation kicking in.
>
> Remember that these fellows have come together for only a limited time to
> run these experiments.  It could be that the appropriate plumbing was not
> readily available to hook up the pressure sensor in a way that did not open
> up a large gas volume.  The volume inside the Parkhomov alumina tube is
> really small.  Maintaining that small volume is important to generate the
> high pressures as the LiAlH4 decomposes.  To use the long tube (so as to
> get the compression fitting away from the heat), almost all of the volume
> must be filled with alumina rod and then what is connected on the end to
> the compression fitting must also be minimum volume.  Otherwise, the
> pressure measured would not be representative of what it was inside
> Parkhomov's reactor.  I am working on plumbing to make such measurements
> using 1/16" stainless tubing having a 0.006" bore with appropriately small
> other fittings to minimize the dead gas volume in the plumbing.
>
> What I particularly don't like about just using a cap on the end is that
> the really high pressure is likely to remain even after the reactor cools
> to room temperature.  How do you bleed out the gas to open the tube safely?
>
> My objective is to measure the pressure over the course of the reaction,
> have a way to capture the product gas in a sample cylinder for analysis,
> and have a way to bleed off any remaining pressure when cool.
>
> Bob Higgins
>
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 2:41 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
>> Bizarre that they would think to hide behind an explosion shield -- which
>> is rational given prior pressure excursions -- but would not think to hook
>> up the pressure sensor.
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>>  Bob Greenyer  Obvious
>>> 
>>> • 40 minutes ago
>>> 
>>>
>>> The pressure sensor was not connected. this can be seen visually. The
>>> core was shown in pictures earlier in the evening on Facebook.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 1:58 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint 
>>> wrote:
>>>
  Do you believe the sensor, or your eyes?

 -mi



 *From:* James Bowery [mailto:jabow...@gmail.com]
 *Sent:* Friday, February 06, 2015 10:42 AM
 *To:* vortex-l
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project



 The pressure release hypothesis is inconsistent with the "PSI" read out
 in the video, which never reaches 1.0.



 On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 12:39 PM, 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


 -Original Message-
 From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:
 orionwo...@charter.net]
 Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 9:25 AM
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Subject: RE: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

 Good show,

 Thanks, Craig.

 Regards,
 Steven Vincent Johnson
 svjart.orionworks.com
 zazzle.com/orionworks

 > Short segment showing the explosion.

 > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDfRaDY2R_A&feature=youtu.be

 > Craig



>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

[Mark Jurich]

FYI:

MFMP might also want to use this plumbing setup to pump out the headspace at 
the start of the run, pulling 30” of vacuum on it, to remove any 
nitrogen/oxygen/etc.

Mark Jurich


From: Bob Higgins 
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 1:57 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

I wouldn't call that bizarre, I would call that a sense of self-preservation 
kicking in.   

Remember that these fellows have come together for only a limited time to run 
these experiments.  It could be that the appropriate plumbing was not readily 
available to hook up the pressure sensor in a way that did not open up a large 
gas volume.  The volume inside the Parkhomov alumina tube is really small.  
Maintaining that small volume is important to generate the high pressures as 
the LiAlH4 decomposes.  To use the long tube (so as to get the compression 
fitting away from the heat), almost all of the volume must be filled with 
alumina rod and then what is connected on the end to the compression fitting 
must also be minimum volume.  Otherwise, the pressure measured would not be 
representative of what it was inside Parkhomov's reactor.  I am working on 
plumbing to make such measurements using 1/16" stainless tubing having a 0.006" 
bore with appropriately small other fittings to minimize the dead gas volume in 
the plumbing.

What I particularly don't like about just using a cap on the end is that the 
really high pressure is likely to remain even after the reactor cools to room 
temperature.  How do you bleed out the gas to open the tube safely?

My objective is to measure the pressure over the course of the reaction, have a 
way to capture the product gas in a sample cylinder for analysis, and have a 
way to bleed off any remaining pressure when cool.

Bob Higgins


On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 2:41 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

  Bizarre that they would think to hide behind an explosion shield -- which is 
rational given prior pressure excursions -- but would not think to hook up the 
pressure sensor.

  On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

Bob Greenyer Obvious • 40 minutes ago 
The pressure sensor was not connected. this can be seen visually. The core 
was shown in pictures earlier in the evening on Facebook.


On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 1:58 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint  
wrote:

  Do you believe the sensor, or your eyes?

  -mi



  From: James Bowery [mailto:jabow...@gmail.com] 
  Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 10:42 AM
  To: vortex-l
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project



  The pressure release hypothesis is inconsistent with the "PSI" read out 
in the video, which never reaches 1.0.



  On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 12:39 PM, 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


  -Original Message-
  From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net]
  Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 9:25 AM
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

  Good show,

  Thanks, Craig.

  Regards,
  Steven Vincent Johnson
  svjart.orionworks.com
  zazzle.com/orionworks

  > Short segment showing the explosion.

  > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDfRaDY2R_A&feature=youtu.be

  > Craig

Re: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

[Peter Gluck]

This can be actually good, a sign of powerful energy release. Not very
probable- I understand it was a reactor with fuel (?)
If other 2 cases happen: active cells explode, dummy cells not-  we cant
start to be happy- but with doubts.

Let's see the details
 Peter

Peter

On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Mark Jurich  wrote:

> FYI:
>
> The explosion occurs at approximately the 3:00:43 mark of the 4:00:04
> video.
>
> Mark Jurich
>
> -Original Message- From: Craig Haynie
> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 10:23 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project
>
> They just ran a test with a live rossi core, and the reactor exploded
> and broke just as it entered the range where they were expecting the
> LENR effect to begin. Temp was around 1010C or thereabouts, around 3:45
> on the clock.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=channel%
> 3A54c999f4--21a4-96a5-001a1142f4ec&feature=iv&src_
> vid=bK6d3t4lSjM&v=eP9l356ymg8
>
> So, the test is over. No good result.
>
> Craig
>
>


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

[Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

[Mark Jurich]

FYI:

The explosion occurs at approximately the 3:00:43 mark of the 4:00:04 video.

Mark Jurich

-Original Message- 
From: Craig Haynie

Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 10:23 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

They just ran a test with a live rossi core, and the reactor exploded
and broke just as it entered the range where they were expecting the
LENR effect to begin. Temp was around 1010C or thereabouts, around 3:45
on the clock.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=channel%3A54c999f4--21a4-96a5-001a1142f4ec&feature=iv&src_vid=bK6d3t4lSjM&v=eP9l356ymg8

So, the test is over. No good result.

Craig