Maximum H/Ni atomic ratio?

Ni does not absorb hydrogen at all until 15000 bar H2 pressure, Ni surface can adsorb hydrogen, half a monolayer or so at 1 bar I would guess.

What is then absorbing Hydrogen in Ni experiments? Rydberg matter formation

Greetings

Sveinn

Heat-pressure behaviour in NiH system could be explained by Rydberg matter formation instead of H absorption/desorption in Ni?

Many NiH papers I read describes pressure behavior with absorption/desorption, for example:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSlargeexces.pdf
"observed in hydrogen-loaded nickel rods"

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CammarotaGaflowcalor.pdf
"hydrogen absorption occurred"

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/l…overviewOfH-NiSystems.pdf
"The hydrogen absorption is..."

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CampariEGsurfaceana.pdf
"nickel alloy rods loaded with hydrogen"

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CerronZebainvestigat.pdf
"absorption of hydrogen by nickel"

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Sankaranarevidencefo.pdf
"HYDROGEN ABSORPTION / DESORPTION CYCLES"

Of course they could all be victim of the same wrong assumption, I am open for that.

I spent a lot of time looking at MFMP/me356 Padua GS2 5 day run plotly heat-pressure behaviour and above papers are the base for this understanding:
a) Heat stable and Pressure down = loading = absorption (or ADsorption but as you say the amount of H would be too small to explain the Pressure changes?)
b) Heat down and Pressure up = desorption
c) Heat up and Pressure up = added heat from external or internal source is the cause for incresed Pressure (Input power ON or OFF will tell the place of heat source, internal or external)
d) Heat down and Pressure down = expected behaviour when no desorption occurs
e) Heat up and Pressure down = loading = absorption, this is the goal in the long run
Max loading of H into Ni is reached when Pressure can not go lower at high temp (after many cycles in many hours according to above papers)

Behaviour in timing is also of interest: Pressure leading Temperature or vice versa? Increased Pressure because of increased heat is expected, how to explain pressure raise before heat raise? Or events where power is off, temp dropping but suddenly a bump of +4 degree C or more above signal-to-noice ratio occurs?

I would be happy to learn more how above heat-pressure behaviour can be explained with Rydberg matter formation.

Quote from Mats002

Heat-pressure behaviour in NiH system could be explained by Rydberg matter formation instead of H absorption/desorption in Ni? <img src="http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/wcf/images/smilies/confused.png" alt="?(" />

Many NiH papers I read describes pressure behavior with absorption/desorption, for example:
<a href="http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSlargeexces.pdf" class="externalURL" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"></a>…

With H ions traversing conduction electron & H ions electrons at metal surface & B field stimulating local alternation fluctuations in electron clouds thermal neutrons could be induced with H ions / electron collisions providing observed Ni isotopes etc.

Jim, I know you understand a lot of this subject, please describe for a dummy

Rydberg matter is H atoms with excited electron making it 'larger' making more pressure - yes/no?
But the NiH logic is that pressure DEcrease with 'loading', so do we have any reference to knowledge that pressure decrease with increasing amount of Rydberg matter? And can it be formed at atmospheric-ish pressure at 20 - 800 degree C?

EM radiation (could be in the form of heat which is IR EM radiation) is needed to form Rydberg matter, but in experiments the normal way of creating Rydberg matter is laser - yes/no?

This link show how to optimize Rydberg matter: http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4/045031/fulltext/
yes/no?

/Mats

Quote from Mats002

Jim, I know you understand a lot of this subject, please describe for a dummy

Rydberg matter is H atoms with excited electron making it 'larger' making more pressure - yes/no?
But the NiH logic is that pressure DEcrease with 'loading', so do we have any reference to knowledge that pressure decrease with increasing amount of Rydberg matter? And can it be formed at atmospheric-ish pressure at 20 - 800 degree C?

EM radiation (could be in the form of heat which is IR EM radiation) is needed to form Rydberg matter, but in experiments the normal way of creating Rydberg matter is laser - yes/no?

This link show how to optimize Rydberg matter: http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4/045031/fulltext/

yes/no?

/Mats

Display More

[SO] Please note, Rydberg atom is optimised not Rydberg matter that is quit different subject

Sveinn

Agree that paper Sankaranarevidencefo.pdf is of great interest to map to the me356/MFMP experiment, we would need:

volume of the cell
calculate dead volume (volume of the cell - volume of fuel)
H2 pressure vs volume vs temperature graph or table - how to?
Alan said that the pressure meter was not calibrated properly and fault marginal was somehing like 2% on 1600 psi (the total range)
but I could not find that statement, he might said it in the youtube stream chat. This must be settled first I guess.

I found this http://chemistry.stackexchange…-terms-of-required-energy

Note that at the end of discussion says: "Hence, pressure change is more sensitive to volume change and is larger in magnitude."

Parkhomov told MFMP that the reason they did not see as good result as him in the Padua GS2, might be because of "not enough dead volume"

Hope for clarification from professionals , and note that Sankaranarevidencefo.pdf experiments also had a geiger counter with background of 25 CPM (250 counts in 10 minutes) and observed increased CPM well over 10% which is well above error margins where as me356/MFMP observed almost 50 CPM at end of test :lenr:

MFMP GS4 is running in Alans garage as this is written. We have seen above 70 C differences in the Active vs Null side temps, looks like 25% OU, COP 1.25 for hours - and the run hopefully have much more to show before ending (all this assuming no equipment malfunctions, still to be verified).

Pressure going down steady from about 90 psi to 40 psi in the past 12 hours, still going at that trend ( see HugNet http://data.hugnetlab.com/ ) and if assuming it is not ABsorbing H into Ni, nor ADsorbing and instead due to Rydberg Matter formation then it should be possible to calculate the pace of Rydberg Atoms created, and by that the totals, by combining mmol of H in fule (according to Ecco above), the definition of a Rydberg atom and map that to the pressure decrease we see.

@Ecco, Svein or other: Is this information enough for the task, can you calculate it?

It look like the difference is there from the beginning of the current run. Curves are parallel, just multiplied by some factor, thus I guess there is no excess heat.
From my point of view I prefer rather just single side heater as double sided can lead to a big mistakes in the interpretation.
Comparing dummy run and then fueled run is more precise as in the calibration tests the heater shouldn't be damaged at all.
With high power coil can be damaged which will lead to a local changes, but will surely affect both active and null sides as both are consisted from one resistor wire. Also consumption is two times higher to do very same thing.

Quote from me356

It look like the difference is there from the beginning of the current run. Curves are parallel, just multiplied by some factor, thus I guess there is no excess heat.

The Active and Null side are part of the same device, heat communicating, the answer is in 'Power in' (Voltage) compared between calibration run made the day(s) Before.

I agree, but as you can see, previous calibration is not usefull too much now as there is clear evidence of mechanical changes. One of the side has short between wraps or similar issue thus there can be more heat with less power while rest is colder.

While doing such experiments we have to be extremely carefull, because local overheating has very similar characteristics to excess heat.
If there are any visible changes to the heater, then calibration can't match anymore.

We have to get excess heat, while heater is in perfect condition else we can't be sure (without fuel analysis).

I am a Little confused. Are we talking about the same experiment? I refer to this one going on now: http://www.e-catworld.com/2015…nt-page-3/#comment-232822

I am not aware of any known errors of mechanical changes or shorted wraps, but of course I can have missed that

Quote from Ecco

@Mats002: hopefully my calculations aren't completely wrong. We could more easily put it this way: by the time the LiAlH4 completely decomposed, in the cell there were 10.53 mmol of Hydrogen and 15.52 mmol or Nickel (actually less because it wasn't pure). Assuming that even "just" 25% of the hydrogen got absorbed by the Nickel powder, that would be an H/Ni ratio of ((10.52/4) / 15.52) = 0.169 which is still far larger than it's supposed to be. But this might be only apparently happening.

According to Leif Holmlid, Rydberg Matter hydrogen has a density of 0.5−0.7 kg dm3, so pressure should decrease if forms:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef050172n
As far as I understand (still not enough), it's formed by the condensation of clusters of excited Rydberg hydrogen atoms. How does that happen exactly? I'm not sure.

I provided a extensive explanation of how nano particles form including Rydberg matter on the MFMP site in the catalyst thread and also on this site and on EGO OUT.

Quote from Mats002

I am a Little confused. Are we talking about the same experiment? I refer to this one going on now: http://www.e-catworld.com/2015…nt-page-3/#comment-232822

I am not aware of any known errors of mechanical changes or shorted wraps, but of course I can have missed that

Maybe I am wrong, but if you will check start of the current run. Then there is previous one where null side was hotter than active. When GS4 was shutted down then active side was more active from the beginning.

Yes there is some confusion. We did two separate runs. The second one (GS4.2) used a new heater coil and mullite reactor cell, and was carefully calibrated before the second run. The analyses done by GED and ECCO used the correct calibration data and found no excess heat, with a data resolution of about 1% of T (±10°C).

Your point is a good one though, in that the construction of the Glowstick design leads to some variation in the balancing of the active and null thermocouples. This must be accounted for by calibrating the two thermocouples against steady-state input power before the fuel is added. There is experimental evidence that the difference in TC readings is due to the conduction of the longer alumina filler rod in the null side of the cell.