Re: [Vo]:Kitamura much improved
DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: sounds like the Les Case system I have now. Tube in a tube. I think it is just a sensor mounted on the outside of a copper tube. The oil flows through the tube. Not having a T will reduce the likelihood of a leak. McKubre and I have some concerns about mixing. Not many concerns, because the calibration looks good. The problem is if you have the delta T too high the properties of the oil (heat cap., viscosity,...) start to confuse things.- at least for me. Yes. They have thought about these issues. blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: I read 195 watts input, up to 20 watts excess. Is that correct? You may be right. I don't have access to the slides or abstract. That's a little weak and seems subject to measurement error. It sounds like a small percent of input but I do not think it is a problem because the input power is direct current resistance heating. It is only needed to bring the cell up to the working temperature. It does not contribute directly to the reaction. It does not control the reaction the way Rossi's heat does, or Defkalion's sparking does. DC power is very stable and easy to measure with high precision. If this were 195 W of electrolysis, sparking or glow discharge the input power would be irregular and somewhat difficult to measure, but 195 W of DC power has to be the easiest thing in experimental science to measure. So the background noise is low. Having said that, from Kitamura's lecture and slides it is a little unclear what the background noise level is. Unclear to me, anyway. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Kitamura much improved
Comparisons of systems are valuable in understanding what the LENR reaction is doing. As a general principle, phonon driven dipole oscillations of electrons and associated ions (Holes) are the power plant that drives the LENR process. Heat pumps energy into these dipoles so that they vibrate vigorously. There is an energy concentration mechanism that is fed by these dipoles. This concentration mechanism absorbs this dipole energy and saves it with little or no loss in power. As heat is added to the system, thermal power is transferred optically to the energy storage mechanism in the way that a battery stores current chemically or a Cyclotron stores electrons magnetically. There is a limit to this energy transfer mechanism but that limit is a timeframe not a breakout of an energy containment mechanism. The Cravens system uses low quality heat to drive the LENR process. The initiation temperature is low but the thermal power mechanism to energy accumulation is proportionally weak because the weak flow of energy to storage is cut off by the reaction timeframe limitation. In the Ni/H system, the initiation temperature is higher and the thermal power mechanism to energy accumulation is proportionally stronger because the stronger flow of energy to storage is large during the reaction timeframe. So a high initiation temperature makes for a stronger reaction with greater power production. As a example of this concept, if the Creavens system increased the Debye temperature of its material, and the bath used to supply thermal input power were hotter, more power might be produced. If a liquid metal bath could heat the pure nickel reaction powder to high temperatures were to replace the water bath, and nickel was used to replace the palladium alloy, more heat output density might result. Taking this line of thinking to its extreme, the materials with the highest Debye temperatures :( Silicon, 645K), (Beryllium, 1440 K), (Carbon, 2230 K) may provide the most output power density. PS. If NASA is using carbon nanotubes in there process, they will not reach the light off temperatures needed for a carbon based system because that extreme temperature is too high for standard engineering designs. On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: sounds like the Les Case system I have now. Tube in a tube. I think it is just a sensor mounted on the outside of a copper tube. The oil flows through the tube. Not having a T will reduce the likelihood of a leak. McKubre and I have some concerns about mixing. Not many concerns, because the calibration looks good. The problem is if you have the delta T too high the properties of the oil (heat cap., viscosity,...) start to confuse things.- at least for me. Yes. They have thought about these issues. blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: I read 195 watts input, up to 20 watts excess. Is that correct? You may be right. I don't have access to the slides or abstract. That's a little weak and seems subject to measurement error. It sounds like a small percent of input but I do not think it is a problem because the input power is direct current resistance heating. It is only needed to bring the cell up to the working temperature. It does not contribute directly to the reaction. It does not control the reaction the way Rossi's heat does, or Defkalion's sparking does. DC power is very stable and easy to measure with high precision. If this were 195 W of electrolysis, sparking or glow discharge the input power would be irregular and somewhat difficult to measure, but 195 W of DC power has to be the easiest thing in experimental science to measure. So the background noise is low. Having said that, from Kitamura's lecture and slides it is a little unclear what the background noise level is. Unclear to me, anyway. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Kitamura much improved
axil - yes. In my younger wilder days I had envisioned just that. (high temps with high temp alloys) Using such things at W in the alloying of Ni or Pd and the use of very high temps with electrically driven deuterium plasma. I even submitted a patent appl. for it (http://www.google.com/patents/WO1990014668A2?cl=en notice that was April '89) Don't laugh too much. I was excited at the time and working on a rocket program at the time. I still think that (high temp) is the way to ultimately go. However, for now I am trying for a standalone demo and that just about requires working at lower temps, if it is to be self heating. The other path would involve energy conversion and much more involved systems. I am content, for now, to just have my sample warmer than the control. Less heat to be sure, but fewer things for people to question. My next step will to get that working temp down nearer to room temp. The problem I am facing on that path is a good variable heat path to balance the rate of heat extraction and maintaining a significant sample temperature. I will not be making direct claims of power yields at NI since that would require lengthy calibration. I will just make the claim that the sample is warmer than the control and leave it at that. But, my Ni demo should be at around 1 watt out with no input (but in a 80C bath) for the 5 days of expo set up. Internal volume 450ml, sample mass of 200 g but that is mostly C with only about 2% being metal. Perhaps someone here would like to figure how long I would need to run a sealed brass sphere to rule out chemistry from 4 g of active material or even 200 grams total material. (note: I have run these for multiple months in the lab- one set has clocked 3 months) D2 Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 12:09:08 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Kitamura much improved From: janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Comparisons of systems are valuable in understanding what the LENR reaction is doing. As a general principle, phonon driven dipole oscillations of electrons and associated ions (Holes) are the power plant that drives the LENR process. Heat pumps energy into these dipoles so that they vibrate vigorously. There is an energy concentration mechanism that is fed by these dipoles. This concentration mechanism absorbs this dipole energy and saves it with little or no loss in power. As heat is added to the system, thermal power is transferred optically to the energy storage mechanism in the way that a battery stores current chemically or a Cyclotron stores electrons magnetically. There is a limit to this energy transfer mechanism but that limit is a timeframe not a breakout of an energy containment mechanism. The Cravens system uses low quality heat to drive the LENR process. The initiation temperature is low but the thermal power mechanism to energy accumulation is proportionally weak because the weak flow of energy to storage is cut off by the reaction timeframe limitation. In the Ni/H system, the initiation temperature is higher and the thermal power mechanism to energy accumulation is proportionally stronger because the stronger flow of energy to storage is large during the reaction timeframe. So a high initiation temperature makes for a stronger reaction with greater power production. As a example of this concept, if the Creavens system increased the Debye temperature of its material, and the bath used to supply thermal input power were hotter, more power might be produced. If a liquid metal bath could heat the pure nickel reaction powder to high temperatures were to replace the water bath, and nickel was used to replace the palladium alloy, more heat output density might result. Taking this line of thinking to its extreme, the materials with the highest Debye temperatures :( Silicon, 645K), (Beryllium, 1440 K), (Carbon, 2230 K) may provide the most output power density. PS. If NASA is using carbon nanotubes in there process, they will not reach the light off temperatures needed for a carbon based system because that extreme temperature is too high for standard engineering designs. On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: sounds like the Les Case system I have now. Tube in a tube. I think it is just a sensor mounted on the outside of a copper tube. The oil flows through the tube. Not having a T will reduce the likelihood of a leak. McKubre and I have some concerns about mixing. Not many concerns, because the calibration looks good. The problem is if you have the delta T too high the properties of the oil (heat cap., viscosity,...) start to confuse things.- at least for me. Yes. They have thought about these issues. blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: I read 195 watts input, up to 20 watts excess. Is that correct? You may be right
Re: [Vo]:Kitamura much improved
From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 9:38:07 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Kitamura much improved Perhaps someone here would like to figure how long I would need to run a sealed brass sphere to rule out chemistry from 4 g of active material or even 200 grams total material. (note: I have run these for multiple months in the lab- one set has clocked 3 months) My fakes calculator is set up to work with volumes. (I wrote the code with mass too, but I don't have energy density by mass set up for all candidates.) Needs power in (zero), power out, time (not really needed, but makes the report clearer) and volume.
RE: [Vo]:Kitamura much improved
Alen, where can I find your fakes calculator. What have you got as the high for chemistry for a sealed unit (i.e. no O2 access)? with Li batteries, I think you can get up to 4MJ/L (but I don't know how anyone could actually put them inside a sphere with a 1/8npt hole- or how they could survive welding hemispheres). I figure at 450ml that could be 1.8MJ possible or about 500Wh. So I guess I would need about 21 days. or better 2 months. Is that about what you get? D2 Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 11:39:59 -0700 From: a...@well.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Kitamura much improved From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 9:38:07 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Kitamura much improved Perhaps someone here would like to figure how long I would need to run a sealed brass sphere to rule out chemistry from 4 g of active material or even 200 grams total material. (note: I have run these for multiple months in the lab- one set has clocked 3 months) My fakes calculator is set up to work with volumes. (I wrote the code with mass too, but I don't have energy density by mass set up for all candidates.) Needs power in (zero), power out, time (not really needed, but makes the report clearer) and volume.
Re: [Vo]:Kitamura much improved
From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 12:10:03 PM Alen, where can I find your fakes calculator. What have you got as the high for chemistry for a sealed unit (i.e. no O2 access)? with Li batteries, I think you can get up to 4MJ/L (but I don't know how anyone could actually put them inside a sphere with a 1/8npt hole- or how they could survive welding hemispheres). I figure at 450ml that could be 1.8MJ possible or about 500Wh. So I guess I would need about 21 days. or better 2 months. Is that about what you get? My Lithium battery number is 3.6MJ/L -- so that's about right. The current version is at http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_proof_frames_v430.php Fixed Energy Fakes starts here. http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_proof_v430.php#fixedenergyfakes This was mostly designed for the Rossi experiments, so a lot of them are X+Air or X+Stored oxygen. Most of the energy density values are from wiki. Note that (despite Jed's objections) my calculation assumes that the entire volume if fakium, so any actual implementation would be way less. (Might be quicker just to do a spreadsheet than plug your values into my fakes calculator. Be a coupla/few hours to get round to it.)
RE: [Vo]:Kitamura much improved
thanks, I know I had seen something like that around here. I guess that I will not be able to convince a diehard skeptic in 5 days of running. But it should give them something to think about. I do have test points so that they can get R's from hand meters and not have to put trust in some computer display alone. Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 12:24:14 -0700 From: a...@well.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Kitamura much improved From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 12:10:03 PM Alen, where can I find your fakes calculator. What have you got as the high for chemistry for a sealed unit (i.e. no O2 access)? with Li batteries, I think you can get up to 4MJ/L (but I don't know how anyone could actually put them inside a sphere with a 1/8npt hole- or how they could survive welding hemispheres). I figure at 450ml that could be 1.8MJ possible or about 500Wh. So I guess I would need about 21 days. or better 2 months. Is that about what you get? My Lithium battery number is 3.6MJ/L -- so that's about right. The current version is at http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_proof_frames_v430.php Fixed Energy Fakes starts here. http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_proof_v430.php#fixedenergyfakes This was mostly designed for the Rossi experiments, so a lot of them are X+Air or X+Stored oxygen. Most of the energy density values are from wiki. Note that (despite Jed's objections) my calculation assumes that the entire volume if fakium, so any actual implementation would be way less. (Might be quicker just to do a spreadsheet than plug your values into my fakes calculator. Be a coupla/few hours to get round to it.)
Re: [Vo]:Kitamura much improved
DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: Perhaps someone here would like to figure how long I would need to run a *sealed *brass sphere to rule out chemistry from 4 g of active material or even 200 grams total material. Simplify! Just use the energy density of gasoline, 42 MJ/kg. No common fuel is better. Only a few exotic fuels are better. If you want to be absolutely sure, double it to 84 MJ/kg. That is very conservative because it does not include the weight of the oxygen in the burned fuel. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Kitamura much improved
From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 12:43:44 PM thanks, I know I had seen something like that around here. It's almost set up .. (if not very useful) I just need to plug in the values. Input power : 0 Output power : 1W Inner (active material volume) : 450 ml = 0.450 l Outer (brass sphere) : ??? Or give me the radius
RE: [Vo]:Kitamura much improved
That is silly. There is no way for a viewer to measure the weight of material but the volume is quickly seen. They can see the size but not know the mass of the material inside. How do you expect to burn gasoline inside a sealed brass sphere? You need oxygen for that. Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 15:23:00 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Kitamura much improved From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: Perhaps someone here would like to figure how long I would need to run a sealed brass sphere to rule out chemistry from 4 g of active material or even 200 grams total material. Simplify! Just use the energy density of gasoline, 42 MJ/kg. No common fuel is better. Only a few exotic fuels are better. If you want to be absolutely sure, double it to 84 MJ/kg. That is very conservative because it does not include the weight of the oxygen in the burned fuel. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Kitamura much improved
Thanks, but based on volume alone, it is clear that 5 days is not enough for a rock solid demo. The volume of the sample is low, but there needs to be a volume of the convection of the H/D in the system. I guess afterwards, I might could saw the device in half. That might help a bit. But it is 1/8inch thick brass. I have to think of how I might could do that on the last day on the floor of the expo. (sawing a sphere is trickier than you might think - it wants to roll away from a blade.) I do have a cut away sample but that might not be enough. I really should cut the one that was in use. D2 Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 14:34:26 -0700 From: a...@well.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Kitamura much improved From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 12:43:44 PM thanks, I know I had seen something like that around here. It's almost set up .. (if not very useful) I just need to plug in the values. Input power : 0 Output power : 1W Inner (active material volume) : 450 ml = 0.450 l Outer (brass sphere) : ??? Or give me the radius
Re: [Vo]:Kitamura much improved -- fakes
From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 2:50:09 PM Thanks, but based on volume alone, it is clear that 5 days is not enough for a rock solid demo. For what it's worth : http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_proof_v430.php#fakesbyvolume For the INNER -- the most plausible (=least implausible) fake is compressed hydrogen burning external air (don't ask how) -- which would run for 700 hours. For 1W output you could possibly use the oxygen dissolved in the bath. The combustion product is water, which just goes back into the bath. The longest-running implausible fake is Boron + External Air = 17225 Hrs Lithium Battery = 450 Hrs
RE: [Vo]:Kitamura much improved
Here is the mech specs for the spheres I will be using: http://www.shopwagnerb2c.com/UserFiles/Documents/Product/4156.pdf They are polished and lightly plated with gold. 4 inch OD D2 Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 14:34:26 -0700 From: a...@well.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Kitamura much improved From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 12:43:44 PM thanks, I know I had seen something like that around here. It's almost set up .. (if not very useful) I just need to plug in the values. Input power : 0 Output power : 1W Inner (active material volume) : 450 ml = 0.450 l Outer (brass sphere) : ??? Or give me the radius
RE: [Vo]:Kitamura much improved -- fakes
my bath is not water but Lab Armor AL beads. http://www.labarmor.com/lab-armor-beads-for-lab-water-baths/ I did not want scolding hot water at the expo. Liability issues. Also at home in the lab it lets me take things up higher than 95C (note: I am at 9000 feet elevation) I think the most direct approach for this expo is just to cut it open on the last day. D2 Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 15:24:54 -0700 From: a...@well.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Kitamura much improved -- fakes From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 2:50:09 PM Thanks, but based on volume alone, it is clear that 5 days is not enough for a rock solid demo. For what it's worth : http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_proof_v430.php#fakesbyvolume For the INNER -- the most plausible (=least implausible) fake is compressed hydrogen burning external air (don't ask how) -- which would run for 700 hours. For 1W output you could possibly use the oxygen dissolved in the bath. The combustion product is water, which just goes back into the bath. The longest-running implausible fake is Boron + External Air = 17225 Hrs Lithium Battery = 450 Hrs
RE: [Vo]:Kitamura much improved
sounds like the Les Case system I have now. Tube in a tube. It can get messy (and costly- fluid costs) if you develop leak somewhere. When I was running it, I needed to run at a bout 60ml/ min to keep the delta T DOWN. The problem is if you have the delta T too high the properties of the oil (heat cap., viscosity,...) start to confuse things.- at least for me. In the Case system, you had H (or D) flowing through the smaller sample tube at the center. But it was fairly robust and had about 200 ml of sample in the inner tube. (Note: Case reduced/produced the material in situ from an metal organic) It looks like he was running at around 200-300 C) D2 Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 21:57:16 -0500 From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Kitamura much improved Kitamura et al. have been working on gas loaded Pd and Ni for some time, originally in a replication of Arata's Zr+Pd alloy. Kitamura's experiment looks much better to me than it did last year. They finally made a precision flowmeter. It holds a much larger sample of powder. It is about time they scaled up the sample size. It can be run at high temperature with reasonable accuracy. I think they are now getting more heat from the Ni alloys than Pd. They get 20 to 30 W from Ni. It only works at high temperatures, as I recall around 300 deg C. One lesson from the last few years is that if you want to make Ni work, you need a high temperature. I have a few concerns about the calorimetry, but that is probably because I am unfamiliar with some aspects of it, to wit: They are using oil instead of water as the working fluid. It is a good choice for such high temperatures, but I have not used it myself so I can't judge. I am a little concerned about a curve they showed from the manufacturer of heat capacity and viscosity at different temperatures. It varies a great deal. You have to trust the manufacturer on this. The flow rate is only 20 ml/min. That would be too slow with water. I don't know about oil. They measure the temperature on the outside of a small copper pipe. I guess that should work but I don't see why they did not use a T. Again . . . maybe that is not a good idea with oil? I have heard the stuff leaks out of seals, pumps and Ts. On the plus side: They used several other temperature sensors on the cell wall. They were well calibrated and they all agree on the power levels. The recovery rate is 88% as I recall. That's high. The whole thing is insulated in a vacuum jacket (like a giant Dewar). The calibration seems rock steady, and the calibration curve is linear. These people have been dealing with this for a while so they have probably answered all concerns. McKubre asked Kitamura to estimate the error as a percent of input but Kitamura could not. Perhaps he misunderstood the question. McKubre said it was a good job despite this. U. Missouri intends to upload the slides from this conference, with permission from the authors. I expect Kitamura will grant permission. This is one you should look at. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Kitamura much improved
I read 195 watts input, up to 20 watts excess. Is that correct? That's a little weak and seems subject to measurement error. On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 7:57 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Kitamura et al. have been working on gas loaded Pd and Ni for some time, originally in a replication of Arata's Zr+Pd alloy. Kitamura's experiment looks much better to me than it did last year. They finally made a precision flowmeter. It holds a much larger sample of powder. It is about time they scaled up the sample size. It can be run at high temperature with reasonable accuracy. I think they are now getting more heat from the Ni alloys than Pd. They get 20 to 30 W from Ni. It only works at high temperatures, as I recall around 300 deg C. One lesson from the last few years is that if you want to make Ni work, you need a high temperature. I have a few concerns about the calorimetry, but that is probably because I am unfamiliar with some aspects of it, to wit: They are using oil instead of water as the working fluid. It is a good choice for such high temperatures, but I have not used it myself so I can't judge. I am a little concerned about a curve they showed from the manufacturer of heat capacity and viscosity at different temperatures. It varies a great deal. You have to trust the manufacturer on this. The flow rate is only 20 ml/min. That would be too slow with water. I don't know about oil. They measure the temperature on the outside of a small copper pipe. I guess that should work but I don't see why they did not use a T. Again . . . maybe that is not a good idea with oil? I have heard the stuff leaks out of seals, pumps and Ts. On the plus side: They used several other temperature sensors on the cell wall. They were well calibrated and they all agree on the power levels. The recovery rate is 88% as I recall. That's high. The whole thing is insulated in a vacuum jacket (like a giant Dewar). The calibration seems rock steady, and the calibration curve is linear. These people have been dealing with this for a while so they have probably answered all concerns. McKubre asked Kitamura to estimate the error as a percent of input but Kitamura could not. Perhaps he misunderstood the question. McKubre said it was a good job despite this. U. Missouri intends to upload the slides from this conference, with permission from the authors. I expect Kitamura will grant permission. This is one you should look at. - Jed
