Hi David.
I'm not sure I follow your fuel-mix calculation. As you say, 'disturbing'. There is another element to be included which is nowhere (AFAIK) in the literature, which is Carbon -as particles. It has definitely been seen in the ash. My theory is that this acts as an anti-caking agent to prevent/reduce sintering of the powder at the high temperatures inside the reactor.
ETA- this would/could form highly reactive Lithium Carbide in the reactor. But it will also reduce Lithium Carbonate as is found on the surface of CO2-passivated nano-Li.
Do you have any thoughts about the presence of Cu? I know it was present in some early analyses, and was described as a transmutation product. But this was knocked down since the isotope ratio was too close to the natural one.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10…83a033?journalCode=jpchax
BTW, I like the Neutron capture idea very much.
About calculation I requested Dr Jean Luc Paillet to do that, here everybody loves all doctors...smile
Hello David: Do You plan to gain energy by X+4 transmutations or by the formation of He? (C) These two processes work quite differently!
For internal transmutations X+(n x 4) the Mizuno group added Cu as a kind of catalysator and Ca to provide the startig potential (200eV).
If we can believe the Lugano ash measurements, Li7 reacts endotherm as it was reduced to Li6! So it's basically a donnator!
Also, I don't think that powder loaded personnaly by Rossi inside Ecat ( during tests) doesn't represent the reality.
I certainly don't think the ash he produced for analysis after a run does.
I think low neutron is the secret also adding Carbon to lowered speed of some of thems, because you don't meet low of fast neutrons between thems it exists a large range of speed.
David, I am trying to follow this interesting discussion. Can you kindly clarify or restate the above sentence. Thanks!
By adding few carbon ( moderator)you could regulate speed of all of them to do a average.
You should have more probability for more neutrons capture then increase COP of course.
This is the Widom-Larson assumption, which might be correct for the basic ignition of LENR, but never can be true as a main driver for high power LENR. If You followed other threads, then you see that many think any source of neutron would work for basic ignition (which leads to a COP 1.2 in NiAlH).
Of course moderation can always help a lot and if You get more than 1.2, we all will give You the well deserved applause!
There is a strong danger from adding carbon to the mix. If oxygen becomes present in the system (and it begins with oxygen present) then CO will form and then Ni(CO)4 will form at high temperatures. Ni(CO)4 is a highly volatile liquid which vaporizes at low temperature. It is HIGHLY TOXIC and is known in the industry as "liquid death". You must be ultra-sure to control where the exhausted vapors will go when you take gasses from the reactor or open it if carbon has been added.
Hi Bob.
While I agree with you about the dangers of Nickel Carbonyl, it's relatively low dissociation temperature and the presence of highly reductive Lithium means we are unlikely to see any escape from the reactor- even if it survives the temperatures involved. Prior and repeated flushing with Hydrogen also makes this an unlikely (if significant) hazard which while folly to overlook is an unlikely guest at the wedding.
BTW, I like the Neutron capture idea very much.
There are not neutron reactions in LENR, that concept is a destructive fantasy.
Prior and repeated flushing with Hydrogen also makes this an unlikely (if significant) hazard which while folly to overlook is an unlikely guest at the wedding.
I hope this is the case, Alan. However, one must not discount the situation that about 50% of these reactors fail catastrophically, spilling their guts to atmosphere. A prime time to fail is at about 200C where a lot of H2 is released and the pressure becomes really high. When it breaches, the hydrogen will exit quickly and O2 will pour in, while it is still pretty hot.
I hate to say it but a number of Ni-H researchers have suffered from sever (life threatening) respiratory disfunction.
I hate to say it but a number of Ni-H researchers have suffered from sever (life threatening) respiratory disfunction.
So they have - but in most cases this has been put down to the allergenic properties of Nickel itself. BTW, in over 50 experiments I have only ever had one reactor breach. I must be doing something wrong. 
So they have - but in most cases this has been put down to the allergenic properties of Nickel itself. BTW, in over 50 experiments I have only ever had one reactor breach. I must be doing something wrong.
John Fisher's CR39 experiments have shown that the nuclear active sites (NAS) are mobile and can float in the air like dust. Those NAS produce far more alpha particles than does radon. The LENR experiment must be airtight for safety sake.
About Carbon my understanding is: it's used to slow some too speed neutron ( moderator) to increase capture ratio by Ni therefore it must be intimately mixed with Li and Ni.
Could ultrasonic waves not promote this intimate mixing ?
Ultrasonic waves have need observed as triggering LENR in PdD among many other stimulations.
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEwhatcondit.pdf
With Rossi's barnum we should be careful when interpreting the Lugano recipes, but from Piantelli to Songsheng, there is interesting possibilities to confirm.
Moreover with Patrick Gras and similar "accidents" there s great hope of a good protocol to be developed. as you and Alan do, differently, a test bench have to be done.
However the key problem is finding a theory (Ed Storms is clearly saying no experiment can be done without a form of theory), confirming it, pulling consequences, and finally engineering as JF Geneste said in Milan.
When you make a working recipe, the work will start for PhD to exploit the test bench designed by engineers... until the theory can be exploited by engineers... that is the cycle of life.
Collaboration is required, but probably only with those who colaborate...
when LENR will be fashion, decision makers will look not a those with best results, but with best methods, and biggest network.
I've been meeting with quite a few Academic physicists lately, Alain, and they say-' I wish we had more engineers to work with!' Funny old world.
Ultrasonic waves have need observed as triggering LENR in PdD among many other stimulations.
That is cavitation when water is present. It does not apply in the gas phase.
Ultrasonic waves have need observed as triggering LENR in PdD among many other stimulations.
In fact Alain: There is a separate LENR branch called sono-fusion. The COP of their reactors recently has gone up close to 4.
May be You should start a seprate thread for this!
In fact Alain: There is a separate LENR branch called sono-fusion. The COP of their reactors recently has gone up close to 4.
May be You should start a seprate thread for this!
In that thread. I will show how polaritons form in the collapsing cavitation bubble.
