FacebookTwitterDiggStumbleuponGoogle BookmarksRedditTechnoratiLinkedin

[]=Project Dog Bone=[] - Parkhomov sealing method tests

Written by Ryan Hunt on .

The document embedded here is our manifesto for a set of initial experiments to try to answer some basic questions about the paper by Levi, et al, on the 2014 study of Rossi's device (often referred to as the Lugano Report").  This report made quite a flurry of discussion happen throughout the LENR/Cold Fusion/New Energy communities.  Additionally, it has inspired a lot of work by the MFMP team - both old team members and new contributors - to analyze every detail and reverse engineer whatever we can.  The reason why is obvious.  It has been obvious since Rossi blasted onto the scene almost 4 years ago, that IF his device works, it heralds a miraculous new future for energy.  The potential is so amazing it tantalizes everyone with visions of how the world could be made better.  The result is that EVERYONE would love to see really compelling evidence that this energy source is real.   Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  Unfortunately, the Lugano study did not rise to extraordinary proof.  It left open a lot of questions.  

We feel that those questions are an opportunity for the MFMP to employ our method of crowdsourcing solutions and performing Live Open Science to explore them openly with the assistance of anyone interested.  Our intent, if we can raise the necessary funds, is to prepare the apparatus and then bring our team together in December and stream the experiments live on the web with data streaming, live blogging, google hangouts (or similar) and video clips.  

As long as it is all put together and the team is assembled, we will take questions and tweak our procedures to address concerns. The document below is our experiment plan.  We welcome suggestions and criticisms in the comments below, or on our facebook page.

 

 

We will try to get a system to embed this here, but for now, you can follow the progress at HUG here...

[]=Project Dog Bone=[] HUG Evernote

Parkhomov sealing method tests

Dr. Parkhomov, has given us permission to release these notes from Alan Goldwater's attempts to replicate his sealing method plus his comments. 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz7lTfqkED9WYUhFZDJhNjRVTm8/view?usp=sharing

Comments   

 
0 #220 forex forum 2017-05-02 10:39
Way cool! Some extremely valid points! I appreciate you writing this write-up and the rest of the site is extremely good.
Quote
 
 
0 #219 Charles Richer 2015-03-25 15:33
In continuation to thread #171 and #218

Referring to Edmund Storms model (1) in section 5.0.2, figure 85, the simple model demonstrate affects of reactor enclosure on overall performance of reactor. The line "TB small" represent an opaque enclosure. Using alumina enclosure which is translucent will push "TB small" up thereby increasing the reactor stability.
The choice of wire form factor will impact reactor stability. Furthermore the Lugano ceramic has serration on its surface. Furthermore the choice of cement to restrain the heating wire is important

(1) The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction, Edmund Stroms, ISBN 13: 978-1-892925-10 -7
Quote
 
 
0 #218 Charles Richer 2015-03-24 19:30
The choice of wire is interesting but may defeat the cooling of the active volume once the reaction starts. A heating wire as thin as possible would help the radiative process since alumina is practically translucide at these wavelenghts. 8)

Quoting Ecco:
@Robert Greenyer: if he used nichrome ribbon wire, then the glow in the photo below is coming from that, not from the alumina core:

http://i.imgur.com/FnVvDNh.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/FnVvDNh.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/I2sHt3C.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/I2sHt3C.jpg




@Robert Greenyer (#171) a lower boiling point of Lithium would also result in a lower enthalpy of vaporization. I am thinking (or better: speculating) that to maximize the heat and pressure cycling effect (and potentially the likelihood or strength of excess heat or other anomalies) I was describing one might want to bring it as close as possible to that of melting of Nickel, without damaging it (although around that temperature, if it was in the form of micro or nanoparticles it would likely become a sintered slab of metal) and/or causing it to release Hydrogen.

In practice though it would be interesting to test the Steel-alumina core DB again at a pressure where the Lithium boiling point will be at a temperature manageable by both the heating wire and the steel vessel. Hydrogen intake by the nickel powder could be maximized by keeping the reactor for a few hours at around 4-500 °C where steel permeability to the gas won't be a issue.


===

I just checked out past Powder Calorimeter data from HUGnet, and when the QSi nanopowder was first loaded, internal pressure dropped to 1.73 psi, which is about 0.12 bar. If pressure inside the Dog Bone core or Parkhomov's reactor were to drop to this level (either due to H2 leaking or full adsorption), the lithium boiling temperature would drop to about 1175°C.
Quote
 
 
+2 #217 Osmo Laaksonen 2015-03-03 18:04
Would it be the simplest way to prove heat generation by making [█]==longbone== [█] and placing to the other end of it an active reactor and to the other end of it an dummy reactor? If the active end is hotter, the reactor works!
Quote
 
 
0 #216 Amos 2015-02-25 11:45
When is the next test being done?
Quote
 
 
0 #215 Charles Richer 2015-02-24 16:04
To £192 ECCO,
Van't Hoff transfer function for Pd is quit different then nickel.
Need about 3000 atmosphere to obtain the flat responce in gas absorption profile. Adsorption carachteristics of Ni is likely the key.
Anyhow, compare to lithium vapour in the cell all other elemental components are tame.
Quote
 
 
0 #214 GlowFish 2015-02-24 13:31
If the pressure in the reactor causes it to blow, why not release that pressure via a small bleed valve (like a pinhole) as the reactor heats up. You will lose a little hydrogen but supposedly most of it would have been absorbed by the nickel at that stage?

Or is the hydrogen being at that pressure a critical element to get the reaction to work?
Quote
 
 
0 #213 Robert Greenyer 2015-02-10 21:18
@Sam,

We did a parkhomov analogue on the 5th/6th

At least two team members are considering variants.
Quote
 
 
0 #212 Sam 2015-02-09 23:58
What is the way moving forward, for Project Dog Bone?
Is Parkohomov Replications being considered?
Quote
 
 
+1 #211 Miau 2015-02-08 18:43
Quoting nickec:
An inexpensive sealant candidate: Dap High Heat Mortar..


Good Idea but not candy. 1400C was the reqs. I think you forgot to make the conversion from Fahrenheit to Celsius. This paste will take only 2000F which is only 1093.3C after conversion ;-)

http://www.evi.com/q/2000_degrees_fahrenheit_in_celsius
Quote
 
 
+2 #210 Charles Richer 2015-02-07 17:37
I understand you have XS heat. Any confirmation?
Quote
 
 
0 #209 Luciano 2015-02-02 23:31
Has the data acquisition system setup for temperature, pressure, current, and voltage been documented somewhere?
Quote
 
 
0 #208 Robert Greenyer 2015-02-02 18:10
@All

We are going to run a stream this afternoon comparing the Williamson with the Optris and thermocouples.
Quote
 
 
0 #207 Sam 2015-02-02 15:43
Is there a time and date set yet?

Please make sure this is announced in advance, as I am sure people want to see this being streamed live
Quote
 
 
0 #206 Ged 2015-02-02 02:33
Quoting Robert Greenyer:

Today we started to get to grips with some of the key tools for the imminent tests.


I am extraordinarily excited! It's all coming together to make the ultimate test of the validity of the Dog-bone. Keep us informed guys. I know the crowd quieted down after the second test; but we're all still watching close, that's for sure.
Quote
 

Add comment

Here is your generous contributions so far towards our $500,000 target, thanks everyone! : $45,020   Please Donate
See the current state of our booked costs here