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

1st Official Post

    Lately I've been studying a bit more in depth theories and experiments by Holmlid et al. and with what I think I learned so far I condensed in a short "paper" (I don't really think it qualifies as such) my ideas on how a Parkhomov replication by others could be improved, or in other words, how it could be brought closer to how his experiments were actually made.


    Of course, your mileage may vary and I realize not everybody might agree with the background theory.
    Also, keep in mind that although the document is more or less finished, it's still in a relatively rough form.


    This is the link to the Google document:


    A protocol for an improved Parkhomov replication


    [Retracted for the time being - not deleted - due to a few wrong assumptions I probably made and current lack of mental energies on my part to address them. Sorry]

    @David Fojt: it's plausible this could happen too, although in experiments by Homlid et al. (performed in much cleaner, low pressure environments) it's suggested that its main function is as a catalyst for [hydrogenation] reactions and for decreasing the surface work function, which is what I assumed would be primarily useful for in these experiments, provided that nanostructured (porous / catalytic) nickel powder was already present.

    • Official Post

    I think we have to depart from the aim of replicating parkhomov. Just look at how he manipulated his data.


    Instead, we need more small scale experiments from a larger number of different people.


    Of course it would be nice if much more people on the world would try to test Brillouin-like setups, but this is
    unrealistic because of the required resources and time you would have to invest.


    Instead, why not start with an Ta ampule and test all sorts of fuel compositions?
    Heat them up and apply different field configurations.

    @Majorana: with small modifications a typical Parkhomov experiment can easily become a Holmlid experiment, if you've read the theoretical background I proposed in my document. My aim was for the most part showing that the way Parkhomov actually (as he did not verbally disclose everything) performed his experiments was closer to Holmlid's rather than what Rossi is describing especially in his "Fluid Heater" patent.

    @David Fojt: what I'm proposing is:


    - Heat in advance Al2O3 in a small crucible with Li, Li2O or Li2CO3 at ~500°C in order to obtain Lithium Aluminate (LiAlO2) powder, or alternatively purchase it as a ready-made reagent so you won't have to deal with this step.


    - Prepare or purchase porous (skeletal, catalytic) nickel micropowder (for example: Urushibara Nickel, or Raney Nickel, although the latter is pyrophoric and therefore more difficult to handle).


    - Carefully apply a thin layer of water-based colloidal graphite on both the previously prepared LiAlO2 and catalytic Ni powder and let it dry. Don't overdo it with the coating especially on the porous Ni powder.


    - Mix homogeneously the graphite-coated LiAlO2 and catalytic Ni in roughly equal parts, then place the result a heat-resistant container/tube. Apply vacuum cycles to degas the reactor (step not performed by Parkhomov), then load with externally supplied hydrogen (no LiAlH4).


    - Here's an important step. According to Leif Holmlid, alkali metals are easily emitted in an excited state from non-metallic surfaces at high temperatures, which would be the LiAlO2 in this case. This strongly depends on the vapor pressure of the alkali element used. Although Lithium (and its oxides) has a high vapor pressure compared to other elements, it's still lower than that of other alkali metals (like for example Potassium). This means that you will have to preferably use a rather low H2 pressure (<0.2 bar), a high temperature (>>1000°C internal), or a combination of both in order to observe the effect.


    - Again, according to Holmlid's observations, in a complex sequence, the excited states of alkali metals emitted by the alkali/metal-oxide compound can transfer their excitation energy to hydrogen atoms dissociated at the surface of the Ni catalyst. If this happens before hydrogen atoms manage to recombine to H2, they can themselves become excited and eventually transition to a more reactive form which is suspected to have produced anomalous reactions in many LENR experiments. This can eventually spontaneously happen, or it can also happen in a shorter period of time if a strong enough stimulus is provided. An intermediate step to this can cause what many people in the LENR field have interpreted as a large "loading" effect.


    The reaction should be easier to observe with less electronegative alkali metals than Lithium, e.g. Na, K, Rb, Cs in increasing order of suitability (EDIT: corrected).


    Holmlid uses industrial potassium-iron oxide catalysts for styrene production, which can be made to work up to 750°C before sintering destroys their catalytic properties. These provide in a single package both a hydrogen dissociation catalyst and an alkali oxide promoter for the reaction.



    Quote

    By another hand O and Al found inside AP fuel powder could be simply anti sintering as made by K.P. Budko and A.I. Korshunov replications


    True, it should have that function too. However it's in my opinion also needed to observe the reaction as Holmlid is describing.


    EDIT

    Quote

    you should share with Me356 who already made a really good job.


    To make it clearer, I do not have a working reactor myself, nor I'm currently working on one (although I've thought about it more than twice). The thread is called "not a replication thread".

    Quote from Majorana

    I think we have to depart from the aim of replicating parkhomov. Just look at how he manipulated his data.


    AFAIK he filled some recording gaps in a temperature curve using "artistic interpolation". He did that by copying and pasting from other segments of the curve, so that the curve appeared gapless. He does say that the average value in these regions matched his manual records. He may have been ashamed about his equipment, or maybe he wanted to avoid unnecessary questions.


    It's unprofessionnal, because the normal behaviour would have been to fill the curve with, say, straight lines and make it clear that there were gaps in the recording but that the values are known from another source. No one would have blamed him. He cut a corner and lost.


    Is there something else I'm not aware of? Because it doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

    I recommend to start with the basic things.
    Nickel and Hydrogen. Nothing more. If one can master this, then it can be improved gradually.
    If you want to mix everything and everything is unknown, it can totally mess the process.


    It was confirmed many times, that pure Ni-H can generate excess heat. Why we are not thinking about this?
    For example we even don't know if used Nickel is good or not. If atmosphere inside the reactor is clear enough.


    So with such replications we are trying to skip something fundamental. It is similar to writing a letter without knowing how to hold a pencil.

    I would like to comment about about adding carbon. When carbon is added to the ordinary Parkhomov fuel, there is a very real danger for the creation of nickel tetracarbonyl inside the reactor. When the reactor is heated with the internal oxides (for example NiO), CO can form and the combination of CO and Ni can form nickel tetracarbonyl, a low vapor pressure liquid (most frequently be encountered a vapor). Nickel tetracarbonyl is known in the industry as "liquid death", because inhalation of even a small amount can be terminal. So, if adding carbon, you have to be really careful about where the gas goes that comes out the reactor from venting, leaking, or vacuum exhaust.


    There is much talk about incidental carbon in the fuel. Keep in mind that EDS and SIMS typically measure the powder adhered to aluminum Ted Pella pedestals using a carbon-filled conductive tape. Carbon from this tape unavoidably ends up in the analysis of the powder, so you cannot be sure from these types of measurement that there is any carbon in the Ni at all. There is likely to be a tiny amount of carbon in the Ni from the imperfect reduction of the Ni powder from its nickel tetracarbonyl precursor; however, this will be less than 1%.


    Personally, I don't believe there is any benefit for carbon or iron in the Parkhomov/hotCat reactions. The lower temperature Rossi eCat may make good use of the catalysts like Shell 105 at temperatures up to 500-600C. However, the modality appears to be completely different for the Parkhomov/hotCat reaction where the LiH completely envelops the Ni surface area. For the hydrogen to reach the Ni, it must go through the molten, hydrogen starved LiH; and the catalyst created RH clusters would not go through as a cluster. Further, I don't believe the delicate RH clusters would survive the high temperatures of the reaction. I don't believe the UD form exists from the data I have seen.


    I am not sure how the presence of alumina (Al2O3) in the Parkhomov fuel has been ascertained. Keep in mind that the LiAlH4 will react with water in the air to form a hydroxide on its surface. It could be that the surface measurements of LiAlH4 (EDS, SIMS) would show a lot of oxygen, but that would not be representative of the powder's volumetric ratio of aluminum to oxygen. I don't believe this can be taken as evidence of added alumina powder by itself. What is the evidence?


    Note also that Al2O3 will form at high temperature inside the reactor, to likely great benefit to the system. The molten aluminum from the decomposition of LiAlH4 will getter out the oxygen from the system and will form Al2O3. Al2O3 is a super-stable oxide and once formed, the oxygen will not later be released. So, one would expect to find Al2O3 in the ash of the Parkhomov reaction.

    @me356
    Starting with just Ni and H is going to be a frustrating path to LENR success. There are VERY FEW reports of excess heat from only Ni and H. Two that I am familiar with are Piantelli and Mizuno. Piantelli uses carefully prepared Ni rods (he says to produce the correct surface grain size) and has a very specific protocol. To my knowledge, no one has replicated his work (though Piantelli has replicated it convincingly many times). Mizuno uses Ni wire and a low pressure hydrogen plasma. This is promising, but the system required for replication is complex and not many experimenters have tried. I don't know of anyone who has been successful in getting a positive LENR experiment using just pure Ni powder (of any type) and hydrogen. Rossi claims the use of a catalyst for the eCat, and I believe it is necessary for success in eCat-like experiments.


    I highly encourage direct replication. Gold miners have a saying, "to find gold, you look where gold has been found before." In this case, LENR gold is most likely to be found in direct and complete replication of experiments that have shown success. In general, this doesn't mean you will be successful for having a "better" replication. In the beginning we won't know what is important and what is not, though we always seem to know a way to do it better. But, the "better" replications commonly don't work. Such has been true for the "better than Parkhomov" replications that we have seen - something important is being missed. Better to try to do the experiment exactly as Parkhomov has done, with the same apparatus. Then we only have to figure out what was happening that Parkhomov might not have reported because it was a factor he was unaware of. I believe the hydrogen pressure profile that resulted primarily from uncharacterized leaks in his devices are a missing key parameter in reproducing his success.

    What about Songsheng experiment with wire? There was clear excess heat without any specific pretreatment.
    Actually I know more successfull experiments with Pure Ni-H or Pd-D than successfull replications of Parkhomov.
    I believe that chance for success is very same for both and Lithium is just essential for boosting the excess heat.
    I also believe that adding catalysts is not necessary, but of course can help.

    @me356
    You are correct - Songsheng Jiang's experiment with nickel wire + H is another good example of an Ni-H only experiment; but it stopped producing XH after 80 minutes and the high XH did not repeat. Songsheng went on to do a Ni + LiAlH4 experiment. Why didn't he stick with the Ni wire + H? What motivated Songsheng to change direction [it would be worth asking him that]? Piantelli has had pure Ni rod + H operating for years continuously, but the COP is low (though he has seen meltdown events).


    If one is inclined to do a pure Ni-H experiment, then consider exactly replicating another Ni-H experiment that was credibly reported to work. I think Songsheng Jiang is quite credible.

    But also Brullioun is using pure Ni/H system?


    I wrote the following in another thread, which may be a point....or not ;) :


    "
    There is a common feature of both Brullouin, Piantelli and Rossi. They all use Nickel/hydrogen system and a stimulus system.


    So either they all got it or none of them has it.


    Triggering and stimulus is a vital ingredient. I think there's the failure of many or all replication attempts.


    To sum up what I've stated earlier on triggering;


    1. Brilliouin is using electrical stimulation on their reactor.


    Ref. Mckubre stated on Brillouin: "The fact that the Q pulse input is capable of triggering the excess power on and off is also highly significant.”


    2. Swartz have discovered something interesting:
    "Astonishingly, it has now been discovered that high intensity, dynamic, repeatedly fraction- ated, magnetic fields have an incremental major, significant and unique, complex, metachronous amplification effect on the preloaded NANOR⃝R -type LANR device"


    "H-field pulse sequence was delivered (dH/dt ∼1.5 T with 0.1 ms rise time × 1000–5000 pulse"


    Ref.


    iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol15.pdf#page=73


    3. Rossi is using some kind of electromagnetic stimulation....


    I have tried to Ask him several times on stinulation, but he allways says "no comment" or "confidential"


    A reason why Rossi will not comment on stimulation of the core may be because Piantelli allready have patented such mechanisms, as I referred to Below.


    So Rossi is using stimulation, but don't want to talk about it, since he may "get Piantelli on his back"?


    The only thing I find in the Rossi patent claims are "reinvigorating" reaction by "varying" a voltage source.


    Which could mean varying AC voltage with some high frequency (at what Herz?), and thereby creating some extra stimulating magnetic fields....for "reinvigorating" the core.....


    But he can not state it in his patent, since it is allready protected by Piantelli.


    4. More on stimulation, this time from Piantelli patents:


    "........impulsive trigger action consists of supplying an energy pulse"


    ".....trigger means (61 ,62,67) for creating an impulsive action (140) on said active core (18), said impulsively action (140) suitable for causing......"


    worldwide.espacenet.com/public…05&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP


    ".........an impulsive application of a package of electromagnetic fields, in particular said fields selected from the group comprised of: a radiofrequency pulse whose frequency is larger than 1 kHz; X rays; v rays; an electrostriction impulse that is generated by an impulsive electric current that flows through an electrostrictive portion of said active core...."


    "- an electric voltage impulse that is applied between two points of a piezoelectric portion of said active core; an impulsive magnetostriction that is generated by a magnetic field pulse along said active core which has a magnetostrictive portion."


    "Such impulsive triggering action generates lattice vibrations, i.e. phonons..."


    worldwide.espacenet.com/public…spacenet.com&locale=en_EP


    5. Bockris: "It is interesting that the excess heat, caused by RF stimulation, reaches a maximum value and, after a certain time, falls to zero. A possible explanation is that the RF stimulates only the deuterium nucleus at the near surface of Pd. It is well known that, due to the 'skin effect,' high frequency alternating currents are felt only up to a certain depth (called 'skin depth') "


    Ref. Bockris et.al:


    lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BockrisJtriggering.pdf


    6. Mckubre et. al paper:


    lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHtheneedfor.pdf
    "

    Quote from BobHiggins

    @me356
    You are correct - Songsheng Jiang's experiment with nickel wire + H is another good example of an Ni-H only experiment; but it stopped producing XH after 80 minutes and the high XH did not repeat. Songsheng went on to do a Ni + LiAlH4 experiment. Why didn't he stick with the Ni wire + H? What motivated Songsheng to change direction [it would be worth asking him that]? Piantelli has had pure Ni rod + H operating for years continuously, but the COP is low (though he has seen meltdown events).


    If one is inclined to do a pure Ni-H experiment, then consider exactly replicating another Ni-H experiment that was credibly reported to work. I think Songsheng Jiang is quite credible.


    The rsonon why the LENR reaction can stop after a variable timeframe is due to the escape of the Hydrogen Rydberg Matter (HRM) produced by the cracks in the metal lattice.


    Like ball lightning, HRM can pass through certain types of material like glass and aluminum but is stopped by magnetic metals like iron and steel. This mobility of the LENR reaction has been seen in the CR-39 experiments performed by J. C. Fisher.


    EMF stimulation is not needed in a microparticle based system because the particles produce their own dipole vibration through the reception of infrared photons as happens in a radio antenna. But a solid metal requires dipole stimulation so that a exciton can be generated. The exciton and photon produce polaritons through the entanglement of electrons and photons. In the Rossi wafer where the nickel is melted, the heater layer now is producing the EMF stimulation along with infrared photons.


    The end goal of LENR engineering is to produce hydrogen Rydberg matter that is excited with surface plasmon polaritons on its surface. On a solid nickel surface, the polaritons localize around surface topological discontinuities (bumps and cracks).

    • Official Post

    The testers in the report have said there was just sintering of the powder, not melting.


    Some inferred from claimed 1400C temperature outside that nickel was molten inside (melting point at 1450C 1atm), but there is good reason to doubt on that claim. One is emissivity probable mistake, and other is that Rossi himself about that version of e-cat says it is working up to 1100C.

    Quote

    I would like to comment about about adding carbon. When carbon is added to the ordinary Parkhomov fuel, there is a very real danger for the creation of nickel tetracarbonyl inside the reactor. When the reactor is heated with the internal oxides (for example NiO), CO can form and the combination of CO and Ni can form nickel tetracarbonyl, a low vapor pressure liquid (most frequently be encountered a vapor). Nickel tetracarbonyl is known in the industry as "liquid death", because inhalation of even a small amount can be terminal. So, if adding carbon, you have to be really careful about where the gas goes that comes out the reactor from venting, leaking, or vacuum exhaust.


    There is much talk about incidental carbon in the fuel. Keep in mind that EDS and SIMS typically measure the powder adhered to aluminum Ted Pella pedestals using a carbon-filled conductive tape. Carbon from this tape unavoidably ends up in the analysis of the powder, so you cannot be sure from these types of measurement that there is any carbon in the Ni at all. There is likely to be a tiny amount of carbon in the Ni from the imperfect reduction of the Ni powder from its nickel tetracarbonyl precursor; however, this will be less than 1%.


    Good points, both are a possibility - although it's small amounts of added graphite on the surface I'm referring about. The carbon tape admittedly is likely to have had an effect on the analysis, which I didn't consider. However, one cannot dismiss reports of carbon potentially being useful in LENR experiments (and apparently, in Parkhomov replications) and the beneficial effect in general in catalysis in hydrogenation reactions.


    Quote

    Personally, I don't believe there is any benefit for carbon or iron in the Parkhomov/hotCat reactions. The lower temperature Rossi eCat may make good use of the catalysts like Shell 105 at temperatures up to 500-600C. However, the modality appears to be completely different for the Parkhomov/hotCat reaction where the LiH completely envelops the Ni surface area. For the hydrogen to reach the Ni, it must go through the molten, hydrogen starved LiH; and the catalyst created RH clusters would not go through as a cluster.


    I did suggest that carbon could be added here, but I haven't mentioned iron in this context.


    Given the very high possibility that LiAlH4 in Parkhomov experiments reacted with oxides or the ceramic tube (or alumina powder), I don't think that there is LiH acting as suggested in working experiments. Furthermore, even if the LiH survived, it would completely decompose above 1000°C.


    I would also like to note that according to Piantelli's EP2754156A2 patent the mere presence of a solid substrate (likely oxidic) comprising alkali metals in the proximity of the one including transition metal nanostructures (i.e. nickel) is able to substantially promote the formation of what he calls H- ions. The mode of operation of this is quite similar to how Holmlid proposes Rydberg states of hydrogen are generated (emission of excited states of alkali metals from hot non-metallic surfaces -> excitation energy transfer to hydrogen atoms), and like what I'm suggesting in the "paper" I've written and in this thread. I've made a composite image with a diagram and relevant excerpts of that embodiment from the patent:



    Quote

    Further, I don't believe the delicate RH clusters would survive the high temperatures of the reaction. I don't believe the UD form exists from the data I have seen.


    Rydberg states of Hydrogen are indeed easily disrupted, but circular Rydberg states (the ones which give rise to RM) are a bit less delicate; Rydberg Matter is reportedly significantly more long-lived. Similar experiments were performed in the past by Holmlid et al. on graphite emitters up to 1800K.


    http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jp9823796


    As for the ultra-dense form you could be right that Holmlid's interpretation of what it is might not be entirely correct.


    Quote

    I am not sure how the presence of alumina (Al2O3) in the Parkhomov fuel has been ascertained. Keep in mind that the LiAlH4 will react with water in the air to form a hydroxide on its surface. It could be that the surface measurements of LiAlH4 (EDS, SIMS) would show a lot of oxygen, but that would not be representative of the powder's volumetric ratio of aluminum to oxygen. I don't believe this can be taken as evidence of added alumina powder by itself. What is the evidence?


    It's true that the evidence for Al2O3 in the powder is mostly circumstantial and about consistency with the background theory proposed. I tried to fill the gaps, since not everything was disclosed by Parkhomov and others:


    1) Early experiments were done with the powder lying on bare mullite tubes, and it's quite likely that Li compounds formed reacted with the tube, as other experimenters witnessed often catastrophically. It's possible that Parkhomov might have wanted to more closely replicate the same experimental conditions for replications using a fuel capsule.


    2) From the chemical analysis of the fuel for Parkhomov's analysis shown at ICCF19, 31.5% by mass was composed of Al+O, while 60.7% was Ni. Even if the O was mostly oxidation or moisture, the Al couldn't have come from LiAlH4 alone, as the fuel proportion were reportedly 640 mg Ni, 60 mg LiAlH4. The 'ash' too appeared to have large amounts of Al+O relatively to the Ni. See here a corrected screenshot from the video.


    3) From a presentation shown before ICCF19 we can see photos of the 'ash'. The powder had a light gray color and crumbly appearance as if a different compound was also used as a filler. It didn't look like that from other experiments by different persons who used only Ni and LiAlH4:



    4) One could argue that the fuel amount was roughly 1 gram as in previous experiments, and that the claimed 640+40 mg of Ni+LiAlH4 didn't include the remainder of the powder.


    Quote

    Note also that Al2O3 will form at high temperature inside the reactor, to likely great benefit to the system. The molten aluminum from the decomposition of LiAlH4 will getter out the oxygen from the system and will form Al2O3. Al2O3 is a super-stable oxide and once formed, the oxygen will not later be released. So, one would expect to find Al2O3 in the ash of the Parkhomov reaction.


    If Al2O3 is able to form (which was likely the case in Parkhomov's set up) this implies that Li compounds inside the cell could also react with it, and that they probably already previously reacted with oxygen as well.


    Since a vacuum pump would be pretty much required in an experiment where hydrogen is externally supplied as suggested at a lower, more controlled H2 pressure, the one-time gettering effect of LiAlH4 would not be required.



    *** I was a bit in a hurry when I posted this reply, hopefully there won't be to many unchecked errors or typos.

    @echo
    From a chemical standpoint, Al2O3 is extremely energetically favored. Once formed, Al2O3 will be chemically inert in this system. It is extremely unlikely to react with Li as pure Al2O3. Where Li attacks the "alumina" tubes is in the silicates that act as a binding and sintering agent in the formation of the alumina ceramics. It is likely that alumina powders added to the fuel would be pure alumina and thus chemically inert.


    There is an easy way to find out if alumina powder has been added - ask Parkhomov. Bob Greenyer knows how to contact him, and he can just ask Parkhomov - and he could follow-up with asking what purity of alumina powder was added. Parkhomov is not Rossi, and if asked, he will probably answer without parable.


    Piantelli can consider the possibility of nano-metric features in his system because of his relatively low temperatures. Nanopowder and nano-features on a macro body will melt at about half the temperature of the elemental condensed matter material. In the case of Ni, the melting point for nano-features is on the order of 730C. So, for the active Parkhomov reaction, at it LENR temperature of >1000C, it is unlikely that nano-metric features of the carbonyl powder exist anymore underneath the coating of LiH.


    Going back to the danger of using carbon with Ni, producing deadly nickel tetracarbonyl ... note that Piantelli likely tried carbon and he is now dying from pulmonary failure. Dennis also worked with Ni and carbon and has had severe respiratory illness and will no longer work with Ni. PROTECT YOURSELF!


    Note the SIMS analysis in the Lugano report and the discussion of the carbon initially measured on the sample and its origin in the sticky tape.


    LiH is a reversible hydride. What would decomposition of LiH comprise? It would be release of the hydrogen. However, given LiH's nature as a reversible hydride, there will always be a small amount of H in the LiH(1-x) and the hydrogen will freely come and go through the Li coating in an equilibrium for a given temperature. I have no doubt at all that there is hydrogen in the Li at the operating temperature and that it is free to come and go throughout the lithium film. The amount of H in the Li above 1000C will depend on the hydrogen pressure. Considering that the Li film itself may be a relatively quiet liquid film, the hydrogen within the Li may appear as a hydrogen plasma inside the Li - with the H ions and anions bouncing around similar to the way they would in a vacuum plasma.

    Quote from Bob Higgins

    From a chemical standpoint, Al2O3 is extremely energetically favored. Once formed, Al2O3 will be chemically inert in this system. It is extremely unlikely to react with Li as pure Al2O3. Where Li attacks the "alumina" tubes is in the silicates that act as a binding and sintering agent in the formation of the alumina ceramics. It is likely that alumina powders added to the fuel would be pure alumina and thus chemically inert.


    As far as I can tell after some reading, pure Al2O3 is often directly used for the synthesis of lithium aluminate. Here are a few sources:


    http://link.springer.com/artic…AJMSL.0000005411.77240.9b (second paragraph in the first page with "look inside")
    https://www.researchgate.net/p…tion_of_Lithium_Aluminate
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17371012
    http://www.scientific.net/AMR.669.115


    Also see: The product of the reaction of alumina with lithium metal
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/s…icle/pii/0022311585904544


    We also have Jeff Morriss here who experienced this with alumina tubes:
    jeff: E-Cat Replication Attempt


    Quote

    There is an easy way to find out if alumina powder has been added - ask Parkhomov. Bob Greenyer knows how to contact him, and he can just ask Parkhomov - and he could follow-up with asking what purity of alumina powder was added. Parkhomov is not Rossi, and if asked, he will probably answer without parable.


    Not even in his latest paper published today in the Journal of Unconventional Science it's addressed why exactly there's a large amount of impurities and extra elements (notably, a relatively large amount of carbon was also mentioned) in the fuel beyond Ni and LiAlH4. So, I would expect that any question in that sense would be negatively answered. I think I remember reading, perhaps from Bob Greenyer, that the Ni+LiAlH4 might have been mixed in the same pot used for mixing alumina cement. Therefore it's also plausible that these "impurities" might have been inadvertently included, but there's no way to know for sure since the exact steps for a succesful replication (i.e. COP > 2) have never been disclosed in great detail.


    http://www.unconv-science.org/pdf/10/alabin-ru.pdf


    As a reminder, only he and very few others managed to obtain abundant excess heat from these experiments. Some of the steps they might be taking for granted or seeing as irrelevant might actually be critical.


    Quote

    Piantelli can consider the possibility of nano-metric features in his system because of his relatively low temperatures. Nanopowder and nano-features on a macro body will melt at about half the temperature of the elemental condensed matter material. In the case of Ni, the melting point for nano-features is on the order of 730C. So, for the active Parkhomov reaction, at it LENR temperature of >1000C, it is unlikely that nano-metric features of the carbonyl powder exist anymore underneath the coating of LiH.


    In the excerpt from one of Piantelli's patents I posted above I was referring in particular to how the substrate containing an alkali metal ("electron donor") is capable of forming "H-" in addition to that formed at the surface of the nanostructured transition metal and without having to wet it, which seems quite significant information to me!


    Quote

    Going back to the danger of using carbon with Ni, producing deadly nickel tetracarbonyl ... note that Piantelli likely tried carbon and he is now dying from pulmonary failure. Dennis also worked with Ni and carbon and has had severe respiratory illness and will no longer work with Ni. PROTECT YOURSELF!


    Yes! Good advice, not disputing this at all.


    Quote

    LiH is a reversible hydride. What would decomposition of LiH comprise? It would be release of the hydrogen. However, given LiH's nature as a reversible hydride, there will always be a small amount of H in the LiH(1-x) and the hydrogen will freely come and go through the Li coating in an equilibrium for a given temperature. I have no doubt at all that there is hydrogen in the Li at the operating temperature and that it is free to come and go throughout the lithium film. The amount of H in the Li above 1000C will depend on the hydrogen pressure.


    On the other hand here I was disputing that above that temperature it would be "LiH". Now I understand what you meant.


    Quote

    Considering that the Li film itself may be a relatively quiet liquid film, the hydrogen within the Li may appear as a hydrogen plasma inside the Li - with the H ions and anions bouncing around similar to the way they would in a vacuum plasma.


    Can hydrogen atoms actually diffuse in the bulk of metals as negative ions?


    As a side question: don't you think that hydrogen atoms excited in their Rydberg state (i.e. with their electron occupying an orbital higher than ground state) might "appear" as negatively ionized?

    @echo

    Quote from Ecco

    As far as I can tell after some reading, pure Al2O3 is often directly used for the synthesis of lithium aluminate. Here are a few sources:


    I stand corrected regarding the chemical erosion of even pure alumina. I read a Hanford paper


    http://www.iaea.org/inis/colle…Public/09/410/9410560.pdf

    about Li properties and materials compatible with molten Li in reactors. Even 100% pure alumina was rated as "bad". Chemically, Li is slightly more active than Al and at the high temperatures being used in Parkhomov reactions, it will react. [Interestingly, pure Fe is rated as good at high temperatures, while stainless is rated as short term only above 800C.] However, we cannot conclude from experiments with "alumina" ceramics that the damage seen to an "alumina" body was caused by direct reaction of Li with Al2O3, because the alumina ceramics are variably filled with silicates as binders and sintering enhancers. These binders will, in general erode more easily than the Al2O3 crystallites.


    The Piantelli patent excerpt is interesting, and seems a little relevant. In the Parkhomov case, there is no gap. The Li is wetted to the Ni surface, and is entirely capable of delivering H- ions because that is the ion species that exists inside the Li hydride (partial or full). Above 1000C, one might even consider the LiH(1-x) film on the surface of the Ni to be a H- filter. As the Li breathes the hydrogen from the surrounding atmosphere, it likely splits H2 into H+ which remains outside the Li and H- which is absorbed into the LiH(1-x). At that high temperature, the H- anions are probably active (high mobility) inside the molten Li. These H- anions will certainly be presented to the Ni and if the Ni does take them into the grain as Piantelli suggests, the wetted LiH(1-x) would seem to be a great way to supply the anions. I can't imagine in this scenario how Al2O3 would be of value.


    Quote from Ecco

    As a side question: don't you think that hydrogen atoms excited in their Rydberg state (i.e. with their electron occupying an orbital higher than ground state) might "appear" as negatively ionized?


    I am sure that statistically the answer has to be that the atom appears neutral. The Rydberg orbitals are large flattened saucers that completely enclose the nucleus. Rydberg hydrogen atoms will appear electrically neutral, but because the outer radius of the electron orbital is so large, the Rydberg state atoms have a huge magnetic moment. Can you explain your thinking as to how such atoms would appear as though they had a second electron?

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.