Some ideas for an improved Parkhomov replication (not a replication thread)

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/42/17640.abstract
A little bit of lithium does a lot for hydrogen

Quote

Abstract From detailed assessments of electronic structure, we find that a combination of significantly quantal elements, six of seven atoms being hydrogen, becomes a stable metal at a pressure approximately 1/4 of that required to metalize pure hydrogen itself. The system, LiH6 (and other LiHn), may well have extensions beyond the constituent lithium. These hypothetical materials demonstrate that nontraditional stoichiometries can considerably expand the view of chemical combination under moderate pressure.

Full paper

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2764941/

also see

http://phys.org/news/2009-10-f…bit-lithium-hydrogen.html

For Future Superconductors, a Little Bit of Lithium May Do Hydrogen a Lot of Good

--------------------

Quote

The pressures involved with metallising pure hydrogen are impractically high, current methods of creating high pressure environments are confined to the realm of research. For more practical methods of creating metallic hydrogen, research is being undertaken to find ways lowering the pressures required for metallisation. One method is to dope the hydrogen with an electropositive element, such as lithium.

LiHn materials are predicted to become stable and metallic at approximately one quarter of the pressure required for pure hydrogen, with the most stable of these, LiH6, being predicted to be super conducting [see above]. Another avenue of doping being explored is using silane, SiH4, in conjunction with molecular hydrogen to also lower the pressures required to form metallic hydrogen by forming a lattice in sheets, similar to graphite [1]. In addition to doping, there is promising research that shows that application of an electric field to aid nucleation could also reduce the pressures required [2]. This research also suggests that this method may create metastable metallic
hydrogen once removed from the external field and the high pressure environment. These methods show promise of being viable methods of economically creating metallic hydrogen. However, this research is very topical and currently none of these have been tested experimentally.

1) - Yao, Y. and D.D. Klug, Silane plus molecular hydrogen as a possible pathway to metallic hydrogen. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., Early Ed., 2010(Copyright (C) 2012 American Chemical Society (ACS). All Rights Reserved.): p. 1-6, 6 pp.

2) - Nardone, M. and V.G. Karpov, Electric field induced nucleation: an alternative pathway to metallic hydrogen. arXiv.org, e-Print Arch., Condens. Matter, 2011(Copyright (C) 2012 American Chemical Society (ACS). All Rights Reserved.): p. 1-4, arXiv:1103.0288v1 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci].

Quote

Electric field induced nucleation is introduced as a possible mechanism to realize a metallic phase of hydrogen. Analytical expressions are derived for the nucleation probabilities of both thermal and quantum nucleation in terms of material parameters, temperature, and the applied field. Our results show that the insulator-metal transition can be driven by an electric field within a reasonable temperature range and at much lower pressures than the current paradigm of P >∼ 400 GPa. Both static and oscillating fields are considered and practical implementations are discussed.

------------------------------------

Possibility of obtaining atomic metallic hydrogen by electrochemical method

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1312/1312.6851.pdf

This reference explains how metalized hydrogen can be produced through the high gas pressures produced by the capillary action of hydrogen into the fractured lattice structure of nickel and palladium.

Quote from David Fojt

@ Ecco,
I followed your exchanges with Bob Higgins.
I can understand the philosophical aspect of the quest for a theory which filled all conditions to be nice/comfortable as Rydberg Matter.
However, we must be careful and be wary of this way of thinking.
we must remain malleable and open to all concepts.
Yes we must use his own models to confront its replications.
Unfortunately you said you could not do experiments.
Bob Higgins will try to study the impact of low pressure on the success of replication although I think that pressure becomes lower if Ni was well loaded/coated. Just a question of heating protocol, in fact.

Display More

Dear Dave,

If you take a look at the latest data from the Pluto flyby, you can see another cosmological mystery rear its head that can be well explained by metalized hydrogen as a LENR heat source.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/07/

pluto-alive-where-heat-coming Pluto is alive—but where is the heat coming from?

http://www.space.com/29968-plu…os-active-icy-worlds.html New

Photos of Pluto and Moon Surprise, Puzzle Scientists

There is a tremendous amount of heat coming from the interior of Pluto and its small satellite; so much so, that the surface of Pluto is resurfaced by the eruption of ice from the interior of Pluto. Also there is a constant replenishment of the nitrogen atmosphere of Pluto from the interior.The standard causes given for planetary heat production does not apply, that being heat from the sun, radioactive decay, and friction caused by tidal stretching.

Furthermore, there is evidence that other smaller free standing bodies in the Kuiper belt sometimes called the Edgeworth–Kuiper belt, are at the far edge of the solar system are producing their own internal heat.Although to date most KBOs still appear spectrally featureless due to their faintness, there have been a number of successes in determining their composition. In 1996, Robert H. Brown et al. obtained spectroscopic data on the KBO 1993 SC, revealing its surface composition to be markedly similar to that of Pluto, as well as Neptune's moon Triton, possessing large amounts of methane ice.Water ice has been detected in several the Kuiper belt objects (KBO)s, including 1996 TO66, 38628 Huya and 20000 Varuna. In 2004, Mike Brown et al. determined the existence of crystalline water ice and ammonia hydrateon one of the largest known KBOs, 50000 Quaoar. Both of these substances would have been destroyed over the age of the Solar System, suggesting that Quaoar had been recently resurfaced, either by unexplained internal tectonic activity or by meteorite impacts.

In my opinion, LENR based on metalized hydrogen is a possible answer to these strange cosmological conundrums.

Quote from BobHiggins

I am sure that statistically the answer has to be that the atom appears neutral.

I wonder about this, myself. Here are some diagrams that come to mind:

Here we have two hydrogen atoms, one with a normal s-wave electron and one with an s-wave electron excited to a higher principal quantum number. (The protons that form the nuclei are not drawn to scale.) Two things suggest themselves -- (1) because only a small solid angle is subtended from far away, you're not going to get anywhere near a full neutralization of the nucleus's charge from a given direction; and (2) as the orbitals grow larger, a smaller angle is subtended and hence a smaller amount of electron density lies between the observer and the positively charged nucleus.

I don't know if this analysis is correct, but if it is, it implies that any screening is going to be only partial, and that Rydberg states will not necessarily be of much help here. (Another variable is how deformed the orbit is and its orientation in relation to the observer atom.)

Eric and Echo,
I think the answer to the periodic uncovering of the proton by the neutralizing electron is that a standing wave is created by the electron's motion. That which is radiated by the electron on one side of the proton is cancelled by what is created on the other side of the proton. If this doesn't happen then the electron radiates and looses energy, causing it to rapidly transition to the next lowest energy level.

Regarding Echo's question, he was wondering if it was possible that the Rydberg hydrogen could appear as an ANION, I.E. an H- ion that comes from the H atom taking a second electron. I don't see how.

In fact, I don't see how, in Piantelli's theory, the normal H- anion is absorbed into a Ni atom and decends to closer to the nucleus than an inner electron orbital. The hydrogen anion is BIG. As it would enter a Ni atom, the proton's positive charge would quickly become exposed. I asked if he believed that H- anion became compacted like a DDL. Piantelli's answer was not clear, but he appeared to say that he had no data how the hydrogen anion actually was able to approach the Ni nucleus without the proton's charge being exposed. I asked Jerry Vavra whether he thought it was possible for the hydrogen anion to enter a DDL state. He did not think so because he considered the hydrogen anion to be "fragile". Though, he knew of no one who had gone through the math.

Valeriy Tarasov

Quote from Valeriy Tarasov

Can we say undoubtly that nickel is melted in functioning E-cat, or it is only an idea? As I remember Rossi was saying that melting of E-cat fuel will stop the reaction. Did I miss something ?

The carbonyl Ni used in these hotCat-like experiments is a micron sized particle when you look at the size of a hole that would allow it to pass. However, the particle has a flower-petal like shape having nano-thin petals with sharp edges. If one applies the thinking that nano-scale particles melt at about half of the temperature of the bulk element, then here is what I would expect to happen in the Parkhomov reactor. At relatively low temperature (200C) a lot of hydrogen is evolved from the LiAlH4. At 250C this hydrogen strips the oxide from the Ni surface. At 300C, the clean Ni particles begin to sinter where they are touching, forming a connected, but highly porous body still having nano-scale features. At 700C, the aluminum and LiH melt. The LiH preferentially wets to the oxide-free Ni surface area, and at the same time the finest nano-scale features of the Ni are beginning to melt. Some of this Ni goes into solution in the LiH, but most simply curls back to become a thicker, shorter petal on the Ni particle. As the temperature increases, the petals on the Ni particle become shorter and thicker. If you look at the SEM in the Lugano report and the SEM from the MFMP bang experiment (made by Ed Storms), you can see that this is what appears to happen (it was the essentially the same morphology in both). What is seen is a Li coated sponge Ni with the nano-scale features rounded out and not as long as the original carbonyl Ni particle petals. The bulk of the Ni particle will not melt until about 1455C, though long before this temperature the particle will have become more and more spherical as any protuberances melt first.

It is because of this, I find it hard to believes that cracks comprise the NAE for the Ni [Storms]. The bulk of the carbonyl Ni particle surface area is comprised of these nano-thin petals. Cracks in these would quickly be melted closed - "healed". I think that Piantelli's implication of the hydrogen anion applied to the surface of the Ni is more appropriate because the molten LiH had the hydrogen inside as hydrogen anions. But, the problem with this is that Piantelli believes that properly sized Ni metal crystal grains are required to act each as a condensate on a hydrogen anion to bring it into the grain and subsequently modify it in some way so as to allow it to penetrate deeply into a Ni atom. I find it hard to believe that in a petal of the carbonyl Ni particle at 1100C that the grains will remain small - the grains will grow larger and larger. Perhaps a large grain is required for the hotCat modality of LENR?

The five factors that might contribute to the formation of hydrogen Rydberg matter (HRM) are as follows:

Electropositive catalytic activity (i.e. lithium, potassium, calcium oxide, rare earth oxides), The low work function of this material seems to be important in HRM catalytic activity. This includes graphite (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.05056v1.pdf)

In the Lugano report, there was a coating of rare earths on the nickel fuel particles. This might be related to reducing the work functions of the nickel particles as a result of rare earth oxides in the fuel.

High pressure produced by flaws in the crystal structure of metal (i.e. nickel)

Electrostatic field amplification produced by elongated and sharp nanostructures.

Hexagonal crystal structure that provides a quantum mechanical template for HRM formation.

A long timeframe – this speaks to the fact that HRM is driven by probability causation similar to radioactive decay.

Once HRM is formed, it remains active for a long time if it is kept inside the reactor core using containment produced by a magnetic material.

Ecco
Piantelli is very specific about the H- anions. He was specifically looking for means to catalytically split H2 into H- and H+ rather than into two neutral monatomic hydrogen atoms. It is possible that Piantelli is mistaken about the role of the H- anion because that is just his theory. However, he derived his theory from 2 decades of observations of his own working experiments.

At Piantelli's temperatures, it is not out of the question that the hydrogen Rydberg matter could exist, though unlikely at that temperature. The hydrogen Rydberg matter clusters are only loosely bound into this form and at high enough temperatures, collisions between particles will cause the Rydberg cluster to dissolve. I suspect that above 1000C, the hydrogen Rydberg matter clusters probably cannot survive.

My own supplement to Piantelli's theory has to do with his 2 observations: 1) that certain grain size is required for the needed hypothetical condensate action on the H- anion, and 2) that a shock is required to start the process. Most argue that BEC-like condensates cannot occur at room temperature and above. I like to think of this proposition as: stable, long lived condensates cannot survive at room temperature. I propose that in bounded groups of atoms, condensates form and evaporate statistically at any given instant, provided suitable boundary conditions are present. These condensates (call them Higgins Transient Condensates or HTCs for fun) may have a lifetime of only a nanosecond, but that is a long time compared to nuclear event time scales. Piantelli's shock may stimulate an HTC to a state in which it can absorb, in a distributed way, a great deal of energy (say 510 keV) from an H- anion on the surface of the Ni. This causes the H- anion to shrink to a DDL size where it appears as a heavy muon-like negatively charged massive particle, and substitutes for an electron in one of the Ni atoms. The DDL H- anion descends the Ni orbitals quickly due to its large mass and immediately finds itself in a 1-2 femtometer orbital around the Ni nucleus. At this point, there are a couple of branches to the reaction with the Ni nucleus, one of which is ejection of a high energy proton which Piantelli observes. Another branch results in Ni transmutation.

It is fun to speculate. I wish I had the mathematical skills to evaluate the vision.

@'Ecco
These references discuss the formation of Cs RM on hot surfaces. Do any discuss the lifetime of the RM in high temperature dusty plasma or high temperature neutral dusty gas? It seems more likely that RM could be stabilized on a surface, but not as a dusty cloud of RM at high temperature.

Why is it you believe that hydrogen RM is implicated in LENR? From what I have heard, only the un-replicated, poorly substantiated UDD form of hydrogen RM has suggested involvement in LENR. Even this would only seem to implicate HH, HD, or DD reactions and cannot explain a lot of LENR phenomena such as transmutations. It does not appear from UDD descriptions that the compacted atoms can exist as individuals or doublets to interact with Ni. Personally, at best I can only see hydrogen RM as a possible means to stably support hydrogen adsorption on a Ni surface to make it available for LENR.

I'm quite unimpressed with the Rydberg matter literature I've taken a look at. The main proponent mixes together theory and experimental observation to such an extent that it's difficult to untangle the observations he's reporting on from the conclusions that he wants to get to.

@BobHiggins and ECCO

Quote

The hydrogen Rydberg matter clusters are only loosely bound into this form and at high enough temperatures, collisions between particles will cause the Rydberg cluster to dissolve. I suspect that above 1000C, the hydrogen Rydberg matter clusters probably cannot survive.

The distinction between the mild LENR reaction and the more powerful LENR+ reaction could well be centered on the production of metalized hydrogen as an amplification mechanism of EMF to concentrate and focus LENR activity in the LENR+ mode.

This may have something to do with the repeated linear strings of graphite like planes that form the backbone of this crystal structure.

The production of metalized hydrogen requires great pressure but there are ways to reduce that pressure requirement using micro particle lattice based and quantum mechanical amplification methods to where Hydrogen Rydberg matter (HRM) can occur in the lab or inside a LENR reactor.

This handful of methods each increases the probability of HRM production. One or two of these methods working alone might not be enough to produce the level of LENR activity that makes the onset of LENR+ activity plainly apparent. But as the entire collection of methods cooperates to increase the pressure of HRM formation, HRM formation is almost a certainty.

There is a goodly number of prominent cold fusion folks including L. Holmlid, M. LeClair, and Ken Shoulders who understand hydrogen Rydberg matter (HRM) in detail that believe the HRM has cosmological significance. That cosmological impact involves HRM as dark matter and producing dark energy. HRM is virtually indestructible once HRM is formed.

I first became aware of the great strength and durability of this HRM crystal structure when LeClair explained how the water Crystal could erode the strongest of substances. The pressure in the thin zone of erosion contact between the water crystal and the material exists in the range of a few hundred up to just over a thousand gigapascals depending on the strength of the material. The absolute limit of the pressure achievable at this collision interface has not yet been determined. There is no material that is impervious to erosion from cavitation not even diamond.

In one of LeClair’s experiments, a water crystal ate through 2 meters of copper. The water crystal and HRM have the same hexagonal linear string alignment of graphite like plains. There are many other as of yet undiscovered hexagonal crystal formations that have exhibited the same amazing properties as HRM since many fluids produce cavitation erosion at even greater intensity as water, mercury for example and liquid molten salts.

Cold fusion is just the tip of the HRM iceberg. This material could be producing the nuclear energy that powers the sun. The cold fusion theorist should gain insight into the nature of HRM from its cosmological behavior.

To understand the true cosmological nature, significance, and structure of HRM, See

This article provides valuable insight as to how HRM works:

Liquid Metallic Hydrogen: A Building Block for the Liquid Sun

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2011/PP-26-07.PDF

Finally, M. LeClair shows that transuranic element transmutation can be produced by this graphite like hydrogen crystal structure. The key to this strength is the maintenance of a monopole field that covers the HRM which is superconductive at any temperature into the millions of degrees.

@Bob,

Quote from BobHiggins

I think the answer to the periodic uncovering of the proton by the neutralizing electron is that a standing wave is created by the electron's motion. That which is radiated by the electron on one side of the proton is cancelled by what is created on the other side of the proton. If this doesn't happen then the electron radiates and looses energy, causing it to rapidly transition to the next lowest energy level.

This explains why no radiation escapes. It makes sense that from very far away, the electron and proton will have a net neutral charge, canceling one another out. But at closer range, I suspect charged observer particles will feel a net positive charge, as the electron is only partially screening the proton from any given direction. Your comment seems to deal with the emission of radiation while mine (above) concerns the net electrostatic charge that is felt. Do you agree?

Eric,
I spent years with electromagnetic theory as part of my job, but what happens inside an atom still baffles me. From a macro perspective, or a Bohr perspective, it is not possible for a static positive charge (proton) to be completely shielded/neutralized by a moving negative charge (electron). Sure, the proton is not truly static in the Bohr model - the proton would have to move a tiny bit to maintain the center of mass. However, the proton motion is small enough to consider it stationary. Therefore, the proton has a static electric field. So, how can you balance the proton's static field with a field in motion from the electron so as to have it appear neutral from all perspectives outside the electron's orbital?

From a QM standpoint, the argument would be made that the electron would have to be considered to be everywhere on its shell at once. If that were the case, it would be a static shell of negative charge density to cancel the static field of the proton. This doesn't sit well with me, but Feynman would probably tell me that I have it correct if it is unsettling.

Likewise, I don't understand in Mills' shells of current density how the electron would be able to neutralize the static field of the proton.

You are probably right to consider that that question is not properly answered.

bob - re experiments that work you might want to note that the Lugano Al2O3 surface temperature was undoubtedly max 780C not 1130C as you have estimated.

[Technical Thread] Brightness of the reactor glow in the Lugano pictures and reactor temperature

The calculations are there. Basically, you implicitly scale the Optris measurements according to T^4 to obtain the real temp from the measured temp and ratio of band (effective) emissivity to report used emissivity, whereas the correct scaling factor is around T^1.9 for the (weighted) bolometer pass band. Note that the temperature-dependence of the band emissivity is only a tiny correction on this (which I agree with and also implement in my numeric integration) since it stays at around 0.9 whatever.

Oystla on the above thread asked me to challenge you. In fact we did correspond about 12 months ago, and I thought then the matter done. however, if you believe I am wrong it would be easy to compare my calculations with yours. The fact that radiance scales as approx T^1.9 at 7-13u for 780C -> 1410C (actually the scaling varies with the temperature) is easy to validate with a web planck function calculator.

I'd like to resolve this, since there is a lot of misinformation still propagated. Whille I can give the math till I'm blue in my face, and will do so if needed, you are currently the one (implicitly) claiming that band not total radiance in this case varies at T^4 - so you would be best to check and correct this.