Avoiding LiAlH4?
Does any one have an opinion regarding replacing LiAlH4 with passivated Li powder, Al powder, and supplying the H2 from an external source? This is really a question as to whether LiAlH4 produces morphological changes to or with the Ni powder that would not be obtained by using elemental species.
The obvious reason for considering this approach is the hazardous nature of LiAlH4.
Does any one have an opinion regarding replacing LiAlH4 with passivated Li powder, Al powder, and supplying the H2 from an external source? This is really a question as to whether LiAlH4 produces morphological changes to or with the Ni powder that would not be obtained by using elemental species.
Read the first article of the Proceedings of JCF14 written by Kitamura. Adding H2 greatly reduces the risk of runaways, because you can "exactly" determine the critical mass. You don't even need Li. Li also has drawbacks because in one reaction line, it consumes more energy than you may win with Ni+ H process.
But all this is not to be used in home made reactors!
I am running my reactors with Ni + H2, no powders needed.
Avoiding LiAlH4?
Does any one have an opinion regarding replacing LiAlH4 with passivated Li powder, Al powder, and supplying the H2 from an external source? This is really a question as to whether LiAlH4 produces morphological changes to or with the Ni powder that would not be obtained by using elemental species.
The obvious reason for considering this approach is the hazardous nature of LiAlH4.
IMHO, Rossi partitions his reaction into two major steps, fuel preparation and on-line operation to avoid the burst radiation problem that MFMP has seen in their experiment.
The analysis of the Lugano fuel sample presented in the Lugano report shows that Rossi uses an electrode make of tungsten doped with rare earth elements. This electrode could be a welding rod doped with rare earths to increase rod conductivity.
Lanthanated tungsten electrodes (AWS classification EWLa-1.5) contain a minimum of 97.80 percent tungsten and 1.30 percent to 1.70 percent lanthanum, or lanthana, and are known as 1.5 percent lanthanated.
The DC arc from the welding rods is used to sinter the 5 micron particles into a particle size profile as defined in Rossi’s patent: 1 to 100 microns with increased porosity of the resultant particles.
In addition, the goal of the fuel preparation process is to produce metalize hydrogen which requires a very high nominal pressure of formation of 250,000 atmospheres.
The pulsed high amperage DC arc produces a pressure based shock wave that in turn produces the high pressures required to generate the metalized hydrogen.
The fuel pre-prep mix must also include lithium in pure form to reduce the pressure required to produce metalized hydrogen by up to 8 fold.
Therefore, the lithium present in the fuel mix cuts the pressure to form metalize hydrogen to about 31,250 atmospheres. The shock wave from the DC arc and the molecular bonds that hold the hydrogen inside the Nano cracks of the porous nickel are sufficient to compress the hydrogen under high pressure to compression levels in which the metalized hydrogen hexagonal lattice will form.
The online process where heat is applied to the metalized hydrogen activates the hydrogen nanoparticles into the LENR active state.
As per Holmlid and supported by high levels of carbon in the Lagano fuel mix, Potassium doped graphite might also be present as a metalized hydrogen catalyst in the pre fuel mix.
Because of the DC arc, the fuel prep process produces radiation in preference to heat, but an amount of metalized hydrogen nanoparticles is seeded into the porous nickel fuel particles. When the online process is activated by the application of high heat, EMF forms on the surface of the metalized hydrogen which makes this special type of hydrogen LENR active,
Axil, do you believe practically everything that people tell you?
With me it is pretty much the opposite.
For instance, I believe less than 2% of your writings. <img src="https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/wcf/images/smilies/smile.png" alt=":)" />
@ mods: can we remove all the posts that stemmed from this one? It's annoying to see this interesting thread being derailed.
I have had my say on this. It felt good, thank you.
Please proceed in peace with your 18 LENR steps.
-1 or no - I'd like moderators to apply the site policy to Axil. A warning would be appropriate. Calling people like me and H-G perverted personalities is insulting in a specifically inflammatory way. Disliking posts from skeptics is similarly problematic for this site, because it discourages the very few people here who provide some reasonable critique of the majority position. While personally I'm not a great "like" seeker, I'm also not as Axil claims a perverted personality and if it is the settled view of people here that fact-free personal insults directed at skeptics are what this site should do, when MY's reasoned and factual, if abrasive, posts get her banned, then I'll not post here.
That is setting the bar pretty high 
Off the real topic, but about debunking..
Something weird going on at ECN.
Brian A joining forces with Krivit, and Brian J joining up with Brian A. One or both may be a hoax.
Perhaps a renewed verbal/written assault on Rossi is coming up.
@Paradigmnoia: Brian Ahern already clearly stated his opinion about Rossi and Lugano here and here in the forum.
Short: He's sure it was completely faked and waste of time to try to replicate this reactor.
The dislikes are extremely distracting
Speaking of distractions, unprofessional behavior has derailed an entire page of this thread. And not for the first time I'll wager. With such important efforts being derailed by lack of professionalism, the only rational conclusion is to focus on increasing productivity.
Ilia, which profession are you referring to, might one ask.
@barty
The Brian A comment does not surprise me much.
edit: I see that many off topic etc comments have been cleaned up, so feel free to delete this and my prior two (inclusive of my raising bar comment, which was in regards to part of what started the derailing).
edit2: It seems the real ( at least the one we associate with that name) Brian J has called out the one in the post.
The name if this thread is: MFMP: 18 steps to LENR excess heat (BasE-Cat recipe) - But it is heavily contaminated with irrelevant posts. To get it back on track I copy a current summary from Bob Greenyer from a DISCUS post a way down at this link:
http://www.e-catworld.com/2016…on-part-1-new-mfmp-video/
"Our GS experiment have shown evidence of COP consistently above 1 - we are very cautious in our reporting - note we have only ever got really excited when seeing emissions - not COP. We would get excited similarly if we saw statistically significant isotopic shifts.
What is interesting, our Celani cells never reached the promise of Celani's own NI-Week / ICCF-17 data - it took two years, but we found out why, and the adjustment was to Celani's data to come in line with ours. Ours was a replication of the actual results he had achieved before then and during those events when adjusting for control system errors.
It is interesting that Parkhomov's most recently reported data with mass flow calorimetry is in line with our consistently above COP 1 but not earth shattering 1.1 - 1.2 results. His previous data was far more exciting, but with the more accurate method used, his data matches our calibrated active and control / Optris PI160 data. Again we find that bold claims by a third party iterate to our findings.
Moreover, the levels of excess are similar between Celani wire and our "Rossi formulae" experiments. Have we been consistently lucky? have other researchers been consistently unlucky.
It is simply not accurate to suggest that our findings have not been replicated - the most striking example was in late 2013, when we had repeatedly self-replicated the detection of gamma from our leaking Celani wire cells when re-charging with fresh H2 - Jean-Paul Biberian replicated the observation in his own lab, following the same temperatures and profiles / procedure within 24 hours.
We replicated our GS5.2 experiment as best we could and there was one inconclusive burst - however, for the first time in GS 5.3 we had neutron bubble detectors and we observed thermal neutron production within a low temperature range. This means two out of two experiments following a published protocol produced evidence of nuclear reactions. Brian Albiston following the same protocol saw increases in gamma counts also. me356 reported (without sharing data) that he two had observed Neutrons from his bubble detectors from Rossi fuel reactions (amongst others), and he had no lead in play (by that I mean no lead brick cave surrounding a NaI scintillator.
No one has seen me356s recent data, but his claims came after an examination of the Canon patent that I alerted him to on Nov. 11th 2015.
...
We would all love the solution, handed to us on a plate - in an easily digestible form that we can learn with trivial effort. I believe that with such a complex thing as the New Fire, a stepwise progression of learning and application of the scientific method is all we can do when there isn't someone offering us the future simply because we demand it."
With thanks to Bob and MFMP.
Hmm, okay, if Bob Greenyer is sure that me356 made his big step forward after studying the "canon patent", maybe we should have a look into it?
Any stimulation data there?
Here it is: https://data.epo.org/publicati…P0568118NWA2/document.pdf
I would say yes.
To me it looks like the NAE is a discharge and that is consistent with Mills also...
