FacebookTwitterDiggStumbleuponGoogle BookmarksRedditTechnoratiLinkedin

DogBone Week

Written by Ryan Hunt on .

Plan for Dogbone Week

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

How do you interact?  Live streaming links will be announced on facebook and int he comments below.  Add comments below and on the comment section of the YouTube live streaming.  It will be low bandwidth, unfortunately.  Maybe next time a lab located where high bandwidth is readily available will run some experiments.

Time Line:

Tests are defined in more detail below.

Monday, Feb 2

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


Starting at 9 am local time, or so.

Test 1:  Calibration with Thermocouples, Optris camera, and Williamson Pyrometer.

livelink: http://youtu.be/0DY4TJmCJS8

Test 2:  Fat coil dog bone with internal heat source

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


Test 4:  Powder Test in sealed Alumina tube

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

  • Iterate and try different ideas while we have the team assembled


Test X:  High Temp Inconel Heater Dogbone Calibration

Other tests as deemed worthy

Friday, Feb 6

Team Leaves, wrap up


Discuss and write up

Assess the thermal evaluation made during the Lugano tests with the optris camera - original notes here: http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/experiements/active-experiments/pdb


  • Key questions to answer:

    • How well did the emissivity curve they used match various samples of our cast and purchased alumina?

    • Can the Williamson Pyrometer add insight about the actual emissivity and surface temperature?

    • With our best guess of alumina emissivity, how well can we match what the thermocouple is reading?

    • Does the pattern seen in the IR picture in the Lugano report indicated heat coming from inside making the brighter areas the spaces between the heater coils?

    • Does the Parkhomov report mean we may be able to see excess energy in a dog bone?

Tests Planned for DogBone Week  Feb 3 - 6, 2015


Test 1:  Calibration with Thermocouples, Optris camera, and Williamson Pyrometer.



  • Collect thermal camera data in ten zones just like in the Lugano report for post processing compared to actual input power

  • measure at several temperatures to develop curves

  • Assess emissivity of our dogbone over temperatures.

  • Expose as many little details as we can about what is involved in the thermal behavior of this apparatus for people to consider


  • Optris PI-160 thermal camera calibrated up to 1500C

  • PCE 830 power analyzer

  • Williamson P90 dual wavelength point pyrometer

  • HUGnetLab for data acquisition

    • T_ext - Type K thermocouple with bare leads - on outside of shell held on by nichrome wire

    • Type B - Type B thermocouple with bare leads - on outside of shell held on by nichrome wire

    • T_int - Type B thermocouple on inside of the dogbone

    • T_ambient - Type K thermocouple

  • United Automation Limited Single Phase 12KW Power controller

  • Dogbone cast with 18g Kanthal wire heating element (same one from live December test

  • Experiment live streaming computer aggregating power data, thermocouple data, pyrometer data, and thermal data in a video stream


Set up:  see video description and still images


Test Plan:

  • Establish dot of 0.95 emissivity, Aremco 840-CM high temperature within hottest zone

  • Designate 10 thermal zones in Optris Software (PI Connect) and set emissivity to 0.95

  • Step power up in 200 watt steps to 800W, and then 100 W steps up to 100 or 1200 trying not to damage the heating coil in this dogbone.

    • take thermal image data for post analysis

    • Capture thermocouple data and pyrometer data from analog output

    • Compare to temperature reading from pyrometer.

  • Limitations:  Because this coil is unable to reach much more than 1300C and we have seen a notable difference between internal temperature and external temperature, we will be unable to actually achieve a surface temperature of 1400C, like was reported by Levi et al on Rossi’s device.  We had tried to cast 2 dogbones with silicon carbide elements in them, but 2 out of 3 coils broke and the third was reserved for achieving high temperatures in powder tests, instead.

Test 2:  Fat coil dog bone with internal heat source



  • Qualitative assessment of appearance when a dogbone made with fat coils of Kanthal is heated from both the main coil and a coil inside to add insight to the meaning of the image from the Lugano report.


  • Dogbone cast with a heater made of 4mm diameter Kanthal in a coil.

  • Fat coil power supply

    • Variac transformer 120V

    • 10:1 step down transformer

    • Voltage and current handheld meters

  • Internal heater made from 18g Kanthal wrapped on an alumina tube and a type B thermocouple in the middle.

    • United Automation Limited Single Phase 12KW Power controller

    • PCE 830 power analyzer

  • Optris Thermal Camera

  • Visible cameras


Set up:  Insert photo


Test Plan:

  • This is a relatively quick and dirty test.  It is limited by the very low resistance of the heater coil and the very high currents required.  Upper power for the fat coils will be limited, but the internal power will be able to make up the difference and add illumination from within.  We will take pictures and make observations

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



  • Use Alan’s nicely fabricated and controlled heat sources within alumina tubes to compare the function of the Optris thermal camera and the Williamson pyrometer in order to better understand the issues of measuring temperature of and through alumina


  • Optris Thermal Camera

  • Williamson P90 dual wavelength point pyrometer

  • Visible cameras


Set up:  Insert photo

  • Alan Goldwater put together a device that simultaneously maintains 4 controlled temperatures along the length of an alumina tube 0.5 inches (12.2 mm) outside diameter with a wall thickness of 1.5mm


Test Plan:

  • We will simply set the device where a dogbone would be and then inspect it with the thermal camera, the pyrometer, and other cameras.

Test 4:  Powder Test in sealed Alumina tube


  • Inspired by Rossi and then Parkhomov, we will continue our previous tests of a mix of Nickel powder and LiAlH4.  

  • By running these tests inside a calibrated dogbone, we should be able to achieve some adequate calorimetry if the effect is like Parkhomov reports.


  • Same as test 1 with addition of active fuel tube.


Set up:  essentially the same as in Test 1


Test Plan:

  • Take powder mix (already prepared from powder test in December) and insert into fuel tube, insert space filling rod, and seal with stainless Swagelok fitting and aluminum ferrules.

  • Attach pressure sensor if feasible.

  • Step up slowly watching for pressure releases and allowing time for absorption and gettering effects.

  • Bring up to 1200C or more and watch for higher than expected temperatures.

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

  • We iterate and try different ideas while we have the team assembled

Test X:  High Temp Inconel Heater Dogbone Calibration

  • Take feedback from crowd and perform a second calibration using a dogbone made with high temperature inconel heater coil and attempt to achieve a higher temperature.

  • Done in a manner similar to Test 1 with modifications suggested by the crowd

Frustrations so far:

We have already had our share of frustrations as we have prepared since Friday.  We have had to seek better and better computers to make a composite video stream with all the data streams in it.  The latest one is currently crashing occasionally.  We also have very limited bandwidth since we are in rural Minnesota and our DSLs are not performing as advertised.  We have struggled to understand why it appears that we have a very low emissivity reading from the pyrometer, and we are also struggling to understand why we are unable to log the data from the PCE830 on the computer like it is supposed to do.



0 #112 Charles Richer 2015-03-25 19:40
I put a current through the wire as I wind. A copper rod does an excellent winding core. The current is adjusted to obtain a red glow at the wire to copper rod contact thenThe wire cools down very quickly as it wraps around to rod. The coil takes on the same diameter has the rod.
quote name="Robert Greenyer"]Windup


In this short instructional UHD clip, we show how to make a heater coil suitable for a dog bone or *GlowStick*. In this case we used a helically grooved metal rod held in the spindle with a drilled end to seat the lathes centre from the tailstock spindle. The video shows winding of Kanthal A1 wire which is a little springy and needs tension applied. At the end of the video you can see the finished winding next to a "fat coil" dog bone.

For the *GlowStick* winding, a smaller end drilled rod was used with no groove. For these we used some Inconel 600/601 which is easier to wind.

For those that do not have access to a lathe, it is possible to make small windings like this:

0 #111 Charles Richer 2015-03-25 19:16
Heat detection is probably the easiest product of LENR to detect. Unfortunately calorimetry is also associated with proper thermal isolation. This requirement may produce a low bandwith device prone to cause energy flash in an active volume. The FPE is done in a large bandwith calorimeter.

Quoting Edwin Pell:
Bob, in a paper entitled "Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder." by the professors. We see in plot #3 that the temperature is jigged 25 degree C from peak to troth. They are using a bigger outside cylinder and we can not compare temperatures.
0 #110 Robert Greenyer 2015-03-04 23:43

Updated 3D scan to include links to images

0 #109 g barrett 2015-02-27 00:56
The decomposition product would be a Lithium Aluminum Oxide. There should be no free lithium at higher heats, it would react completely with the alumina.

Lithium aluminum oxide was used as a target to produce Tritium. Probably why it is so difficult to find information on the process in general.

Besides looking for cracks, it might be worthwhile to see if any helium is being generated by the dog bone reaction.
0 #108 Ecco 2015-02-26 18:11
@g barrett: I think it would be most interesting to examine the inner reactor surface with a SEM to check out for micro-cracks or other defects that might have been caused by lithum. I doubt there's enough to substantially affect the alumina tube's structural integrity, but I'm wondering if it might be able to alter the inner tube surface in "interesting" ways that might be playing a role in excess heat generation.
+1 #107 g barrett 2015-02-25 16:39
RE: the "big bang"

Has anyone looked into the corrosive reaction between the liquid metals Li/Al and the ceramic tube?

Would the chemical corrosion weaken the relatively thin walled ceramic tube sufficiently to cause it to fail under pressure? The literature that isn't paywalled indicates that alumina is incompatible with liquid Li and Al and that they cause ceramic crucible fracturing at high heat.




Perhaps a thicker walled ceramic tube would provide the necessary residual burst strength after the molten metals have reacted with the alumina?
0 #106 Ecco 2015-02-23 14:49
An idea for testing the "space-constric ted/thermal expansion" trigger hypothesis. What about using four bore alumina tubes for Parkhomov-style replications? The charge would be placed inside those smaller holes.


This way you would have four tiny rods of (sintered) nickel powder and LAH inside a single reactor tube. For added strength/safety you could add one of these inside a larger single bore alumina tube.

I remember one of these tubes was already used as a filler piece in the steel/pressure experiment. A larger diameter version might be better, though.

@Robert Greenyer: if that kiln could be used for heating small reactor tubes in a semi-controlled manner, it would make it easier to quickly build and test several units in more or less large batches as one would then only have to worry about sealing the tubes with the active (or inert/control/p assive) charge inside, disregarding heating wire placement and other issues. If the COP can be as large as 2.5x and more above 1000-1100°C, I don't think it would take expensive instruments to see when abundant excess heat is being produced.

Of course, this is assuming that providing heat alone will be enough for excess heat start showing at high temperatures.
0 #105 Robert Greenyer 2015-02-22 21:56


This instructional video shows:

- the accuracy of temperature measurement of the Williamson Pyrometer, regardless of the apparent emissivity ( or signal strength ). This can be seen by the pyrometer giving basically the same temperature measurement as the kilns K-Type thermocouple regardless of when looking through the portal or with the door open.

- coils in the kiln appearing darker when they are not actively being driven to the same or higher temperature as the alumina based insulation in the kiln. This can be seen when the kiln door is open and the power has been switch off to the heater coils.

In the test we can see what happens to the "signal strength" when the same alumina the dog bones were cast from is measured when at temperature in a kiln that is fully at the same temperature, and when it is exposed to cooler air. In both situations the Williamson performs well.

You can see some relevant screen grabs here:

0 #104 Robert Greenyer 2015-02-22 10:09

We are waiting for the re-construction and microscopic/SEM analysis, but the layer did not extend much past the filler rod.
0 #103 Ecco 2015-02-22 04:19
@Robert Greenyer: are you suggesting that something like this is happening?


Still wondering if the sintered nickel rod actually freely moves inside the tube at >1000°C or if it's actually wedged in place by the molten LiAl and thermal expansion of all materials (lithium especially), though.

More unanswered (unanswerable?) questions:

- Does LiAl4 somehow actually migrate away from the sintered nickel powder rod at temperature?

- What would happen if the Ni+LiAl volume was somehow restricted, while allowing hydrogen gas room to freely expand?

- If the LiAl is coating (and somehow embedding into) the internal AlO3 surface, could it be modifying its physical properties as well? This could be more important than it seems.

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