Axil and Bob--
You both seem to ignore the statement from the Lugano experiment that the Ni
isotopic concentrations changed during the reaction. It would be nice to get
an isotopic analysis of the MFMP and the Parkhomov experiment's Ni powder
available after the experiment to see if there are changes from normal Ni.
I am not sure either the Parkhomov nor the MFMP test have good evidence of a
"nuclear" reaction with a change in nuclear species or total mass of the the
system. Without an evident mass-to-energy conversion, what is the source of
the "explosive" energy release in the two experiments?
I do not consider either experiment has sufficient time producing XH to be
indicative of LENR. That is not to say the two experimental set-ups have no
potential for producing excess heat, if properly controlled. ( I would agree
that there seemed to be a start of an excess heat reaction prior to the bangs,
however the extent of this production of excess heat was not very long. )
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Higgins
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 9:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:diversity, one of the 6 pillars of LENR
See inline ...
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote:
A sign that the nickel power is not working is the explosions that are
occurring when the LENR reactions begin in the nano particles produced by
lithium and hydrogen plasma as it cools from the high temperatures over 1100C.
There is no hydrogen plasma or lithium vapor for that matter. Lithium at
that pressure will not boil at the temperatures being used. If you read
Langmuir's work, you will see that it takes over 2500C for any significant
hydrogen molecule dissociation, and it would be much hotter still to get a
hydrogen plasma.
Rossi says that his nickel is 5 9s pure.
5 9's pure has no bearing on whether the Ni was dissolving. The
Ni has been seen in EDX (Ed Storms' analysis of MFMP ash) the Li-Al-Ni-H
solidified metal encasing the sintered Ni web. It is now known that the Ni
dissolves in the liquid Li-Al-H.
There was a hydrogen fire that occurred after the alumina core raptured.
Much the nickel melted because of the extra heat added to the 1057C temperature
where the core failure took place. The fuel was sintered into a solid block by
high heat.
This is completely wrong. The micrographs of the Ni ash in the MFMP
experiment were the same as the Lugano Ni ash. There was no explosion in the
Lugano experiment. Also, from personal experience, when Ni is heated in H2, it
is fully oxide free by 250C and by 300C the sintering of the particles begins.
This happens long before there was ever an explosion. Not only that, but after
the explosion, the Ni core was a completely intact molded rod of sintered
material. If you look at the micrographs, it would be impossible to create the
sintered 3D web structure found by "melting" of the Ni.
If the small features of the Ni are not complicit in the LENR, then
it is not clear that size of the starting particles mean very much.
Where is reference to this?
The reference is the Lugano report and Ed Storms' micrographs of
the MFMP ash. They show the Ni sintered into a 3D web with much larger
dimensions. I have personally seen this sintering in my experiments with Ni
powder in H2 at much lower pressure. I published a paper showing this. In the
gas phase experiments, much of the fine features on the carbonyl Ni particles
are maintained, sintering at touching edges.
Thanks for this info. I have always thought that placing the fuel in a pile
was a bad idea. The DGT idea of spreading the fuel out in three dimensions in a
scaffold of nickel nanofoam would keep the nickel particles apart so that they
would not sinter together.
In my experience, once you coat your carbonyl Ni particles with a
nano-catalyst, the catalyst can prevent substantial sintering into a solid and
help leave the Ni porous. However, the carbonyl Ni particles by themselves
don't want to sinter easily into a solid block - they want to sinter into a
porous body naturally.
The Ni particles get reduced of their oxide easily by 300C and they
begin sintering into a porous web long before the reaction begins. Thus, the
starting particle size bears fairly little relation to the powder configuration
at 900C and above.
There is no oxide. Rossi says that his nickel is 5 9s pure.
Chemically that statement, is total crap. Whether Rossi started
with 5 9's Ni, it was handled in air so there was an oxide. Further, the
reactor
was sealed with ambient air in it. The fuel also included other
ingredients (Fe2O3 for example, more oxygen and iron which is a normal
contaminant of Ni. Another contaminant is carbon because it is
from a carbonyl process. The carbon may actually be a catalyst in the
end, but it is there in tiny quantities and will be burned out of
the Ni before 700C. The Ni oxide is easy to form and easy to remove in hot H2.
The 5 9's part is irrelevent in the reaction as long there were
no significant poisons present. Rossi either used it because he had it or used
it
just to be sure what he started with.
To really know how the chemistry of the fuel evolves with time and
temperature is to run a series of experiments that test the fuel at regular
temperature steps by stopping the experiment at those temperature snapshots and
do an chemical analysis of the fuel as it existed at that particular
temperature.
This chemical evolutionary process is complicated and experiment is more
determinative than analysis.
In my version of the experiment, I plan to have samples of temperature,
pressure, input current and voltage, radiation count and gamma spectrum, and
then I will collect the product gas at the end for offline analysis. Of course
the Ni ash will also be collected for examination. This, plus the existing
papers on LiAlH4 decomposition will go a long way in understanding what is
going on. I will be able to stop the experiment at any point and gather the
gas and analyze the ash.
