Mass and Heat Flow Calorimetry in Brillouin’s Reactor
Francis Tanzella · Robert Godes · Jin Liu · Robert George
Abstract and summary · read the original at the source
In one page
Francis Tanzella of the Energy Research Center, with Robert Godes, Jin Liu and Robert George of Brillouin Energy, report calorimetry on Brillouin’s hydrogen reactor. The reactive part is a ceramic tube coated with a hydrogen-absorbing metal such as nickel and with copper, sitting in hydrogen gas, and driven by pulses of a few hundred volts lasting tens of nanoseconds. Because the pulses are so fast, the current crowds onto the outer metal-ceramic interface — the skin effect — and returns through the bulk copper. The clever part is the control. Long low-voltage pulses, which are not thought to stimulate the reaction, are matched in input power against short high-voltage pulses, which are; any extra heat in the second case is not resistive heating. Measured two independent ways, by mass flow and by a heat-flow model of the calorimeter, the ratio of output to input runs from about 1.26 to above 1.5. Tanzella’s group has been checking Brillouin’s calorimetry for over eighteen months.
Why it matters hereChapter 12 argues that a metal lattice loaded with hydrogen is a place where nuclear reactions become reachable at ordinary temperatures, and this is one of the few programmes with an outside verifier, a named calorimeter design and a run count in the hundreds. Chapter 1 cares about exactly that: what makes a heat measurement believable is the null condition, and this paper’s matched-power comparison is the whole argument.
What it claims
01Mass flow calorimetry, run on two identical reactors and comparing an active catalyst against an inactive one, gives ratios of output to input power of 1.30, 1.41, 1.46, 1.26 and 1.40 at 200, 220, 260, 270 and 275 degrees Celsius, drawn from 65 separate calculations; the authors describe the comparison as falling between 1.26 and 1.41 with no obvious temperature dependence, at output powers from under 10 watts to about 30 watts.Section 3.1 and Table 1
On the bench now02A second and independent analysis, the heat-flow method — solving a system-identification model of the calorimeter for the power reaching five temperature sensors — yields a ratio of up to 1.5 at higher temperatures and power, and above 1.5 in a different reactor with a different catalyst when the pulse power was scanned from zero to 43 watts as a sine-squared ramp.Section 3.2, Figs. 10 and 11; Tables 2 and 3
On the bench now03The null condition is the core of the method: less frequent, longer, low-voltage pulses are set equal in input power to more frequent, shorter, high-voltage pulses, the low-voltage condition is not thought to stimulate the reaction while the high-voltage one is, and a separate direct-current joule-heating calibration along the outer coating gives a further reference — so heat seen only under high-voltage pulsing is attributed to the reaction rather than to resistive heating.Abstract, final four sentences; Section 2.4.1
Published and peer-reviewed04The stimulation is engineered rather than incidental: pulses of several hundred volts and tens of nanoseconds concentrate the current at the outer metal-ceramic interface by the skin effect while it returns through the bulk copper, and the pulse power is measured directly with fast oscilloscopes across the catalyst and a series shunt resistor whose resistance is characterized under both direct-current and pulse conditions, recorded every ten seconds.Abstract; Section 2.2
Published and peer-reviewed05The campaign behind these numbers is large and has been checked from outside: over 600 runs on over 100 different catalysts in four isoperibolic reactors using several calorimetric methods, with the Energy Research Center examining and verifying Brillouin’s calorimetry for over eighteen months since two calorimeters were moved from SRI International to Brillouin’s laboratory. Reproducibility is reported as considerably better than in earlier work, and catalysts have been carried between laboratories and different reactors to give similar positive results.Section 1; Section 4, second paragraph
On the bench now06The measurement the authors name next is the one that would settle the accounting: calibrations and active runs comparing all thermal output against all electrical power input have recently been performed, with results to be presented in future. The study deliberately did not set out to test Brillouin’s own Controlled Electron Capture Reaction hypothesis for why the heat appears, which stays open.Section 1, first paragraph; Section 4, final paragraph
What to watch
Read it · abstract
Abstract
Brillouin Energy (BEC) has continued performing calorimetry measurements on the metal (e.g. Ni)/ceramic/Cu coated ceramic tube (catalyst) in a H2 atmosphere with nanosecond pulses applied across the coatings. The Energy Research Center (ERC) has been examining and verifying BEC’s calorimetry for over 18 months since 2 of the calorimeters have been moved from SRI International to BEC’s laboratory. We have continued our testing of new materials, material fabrication techniques, and electrical stimulation methods to produce excess power and energy output. By applying fast pulses of several hundred volts and tens of nanoseconds long, the current follows the “skin-effect” principle and is concentrated at the outer metal–ceramic interface but returns through the bulk of the Cu. Two stimulation methods were used – steady-state and dynamic. In the steady-state method, the pulse power is measured directly using fast oscilloscopes that record the voltage across the catalyst and a shunt resistor in series with the catalyst. The resistance of the shunt resistor is measured accurately under DC and pulse conditions. The input pulse power is determined by multiplying the calculated root-mean-square voltage and current and recorded every 10 s. Using a version of the system identification (SI) heat-flow model designed specifically for the BEC calorimeter, the power reaching the five temperature sensors is determined during simultaneous continuous ramps of both heater and pulse powers. The power emanating from the catalyst is determined during sequences of less frequent, longer duration, low voltage pulses (LVP) and compared to that found using more frequent, shorter duration, high voltage pulses (HVP). The power determined during the less frequent LVP is set as the input power during that sequence. The power of the stimulation pulses during the more frequent HVP sequences is maintained equal to that during the less frequent LVP. Then the calculated power output from the tube is divided by that calculated during the reference sequences, giving a so-called coefficient of performance (COP). We have also used mass flow calorimetry to determine COP. Low voltage, long pulses are chosen to match the input power from high voltage, short pulses. The low voltage pulses are not thought to stimulate LENR, while the high voltage pulses are. This provides a method to compare matching input power under conditions that stimulate LENR with conditions that do not. Any excess heat detected from the high voltage pulse condition is considered to be generated by LENR rather than resistive heating.
The way in
https://doi.org/10.70923/001c.72547Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science 33 (2020) 33–45, carrying an ISCMNS all-rights-reserved notice and no Creative Commons statement on the article or the journal page, so this sheet carries the summary, the claims and the authors’ own abstract and sends the reader to the source. Francis Tanzella writes for the Energy Research Center LLC; Robert Godes, Jin Liu and Robert George for Brillouin Energy Corporation. The work was supported by the Anthropocene Institute.
How to cite it
Francis Tanzella, Robert Godes, Jin Liu, Robert George (2020) Mass and Heat Flow Calorimetry in Brillouin’s Reactor. doi:10.70923/001c.72547
Where it sits in the curriculum
Lattice confinement fusionThe evidence ladderEnergy from the vacuum