I've read the papers. They performed vacuum annealing (without hydrogen) and then performed subsequent heatings cycles with hydrogen and then finally additional hydrogenation soaks.
I think the primary and most important action they took is the vacuuming of the nickel under heat. But it is only part of a whole series of procedures that are all important.
One of the core questions to be answered (my opinion) is whether this vacuum de-gassing and de-oxidation can be done in-situ or if it needs to be part of a separate pre-processing. Once you have plumbing connected to your reactor (as MFMP does), the fuel mixture can be heated and vacuumed as desired - but only as a mix. Nickel forms a weakly attached oxide that is relatively easily removed under hydrogen at somewhat elevated temperatures. If you do de-oxidizing as a pre-processing step, it will be difficult to keep it from re-oxidizing when it is removed from the pre-processing vessel (the oxide layer readily forms in air).
There are some arguments that say an oxidizing step is needed followed by a reduction - perhaps in cycles. This is a common means to increase the nanoscale features of the powder. The oxide causes the features to grow in size and reduction then leaves these features like a fine skeleton of the oxidized body. It is not clear if this is needed because at the high temperatures of the reaction, these nanoscale features will dissolve into the molten Li-Al-H alloy.
Also, the pre-processing outside the reactor must not include de-oxidation AND temperatures over 300C for any length of time or the flowery Ni powder will sinter into a cruicble shaped, hard (but porous) lump.
What about the LAH - will that be pre-processed outside the reactor too? Air and water vapor will cause the LAH to form a gray hydroxide, and this is another oxygen that must be removed from the fuel.
My thoughts are to go through heating and vacuum cycles in-situ (mixed with the fuel in the reactor tube). If the fuel mix is heated in gradually advancing steps from 120C to 300C and allowed to soak in the released H2 (forming H2O), and then vacuumed after each stage, the Ni and the LAH can be de-oxidized in place. Then, after appropriate cycles of heating and vacuum at low temperatures, heat to 400-500C and allow the system to soak in 5 bar of H2 for hours before heating to higher temperatures.
The LAH releases LOTS of H2, and in the end you only need 0.5 bar at operating temperature (you will need to vacuum it out to get to this low pressure). You can afford to use (lose) most of the released H2 in cycling early in the in-situ preparation.
Also, note that once the system is heated and the H2O vapor is formed, ultra-high vacuum is not needed. In fact, untra-high vacuum is not achievable inside the reactor. You could have a perfect vacuum at the pump, but you will still have probably 100+ microns in the small reactor vessel because it simply takes so long for gas in the reactor to diffuse out. That's OK, particularly because of the elevated temperature and the use of multiple cycles of evacuation and reduction.
The advice to use some filter wadding of alumina wool is important. The lightweight powder from the reactor (particularly the LAH) can easily be sucked out in the initial whoosh of vacuum into your valves, plumbing, and pump.
Hello Bob,
Thank you very much for your thoughts.
Can you tell me the maximum temperature that you think very clean nickel almost totally free of oxides can be heated without sintering beginning?
Can you tell me the maximum temperature that you think very clean nickel almost totally free of oxides can be heated without sintering beginning?
It is a rate/time issue. Sintering of oxide-free Ni will begin where the edges touch at 250C and the rate of sintering will increase with temperature. At 300C, light agglomeration will occur after about 30 minutes. The same may take 3 hours at 250C. At 400C, it may take only a few minutes for the same effect. Oxide free at these temperatures, the Ni powder will continue to sinter into a harder more consolidated mass with time.
Bob,
Would constant agitation reduce sintering? I'm imagining a voice coil or piezo actuator constantly agitating the powder during reduction.
Would constant agitation reduce sintering? I'm imagining a voice coil or piezo actuator constantly agitating the powder during reduction.
It is pretty hard to say whether vibration would help or hurt. If I had to guess, I think it would promote sintering. One thing that might help is mixing with an inert powder, like alumina powder. This could help keep the grains apart while heating and de-oxidizing. Then the powders could be magnetically separated after processing. The alumina powder would also be inert as a contaminant in the fuel afterwards.
wishfulThinking wrote:
It is pretty hard to say whether vibration would help or hurt. If I had to guess, I think it would promote sintering. One thing that might help is mixing with an inert powder, like alumina powder. This could help keep the grains apart while heating and de-oxidizing. Then the powders could be magnetically separated after processing. The alumina powder would also be inert as a contaminant in the fuel afterwards.
The Defkalion approach was interesting: zap the material with spark plasma. Ultrasound could be very interesting.
I suggest that the first goal is to find any statistically reproducible anomalous heat effect. It does not need to be reliable, as such, as long as a reasonable percentage of trials shows it. Such an effect should then be subject to a rigorous search for systematic artifacts. If that fails to find artifact, i.e., the heat is, by a preponderance of the evidence, real, then one would begin "exploration of the parameter space." That work can and should be systemic, and as fully documented as possible. SRI actually did a lot of this in the early 1990s with PdD, with certain variables. The exploration may reveal what Swartz calls "OOPs," optimal operating parameters, I think. This is basic engineering with an effect with unknown mechanism. (When the mechanism is known, then targeted design is possible, but ... even with a known and explained effect, predictions must be tested experimentally, and controlled variation is still in order.)
This takes very substantial and often very boring work. My goal with MFMP and the like would be to motivate them to do that work, because it can lead to major breakthroughs. Basic science, patient, methodical, and generating knowledge. The tendency to consider the work "good" if some desired result is obtained must be resisted. Science involves trust in reality, avoiding classification of results into good and bad. From this point of view, all experimental results can be called "good," if carefully recorded and reported.
When we allow ourselves to make that good/bad judgment, we create interpretive pressure that can cause major errors. We may get excited about the "significance" of our work, that then allows us to either not notice or pass over possible errors and artifacts, which would be "downers." Lugano. Duh! (And then ego-involvement leads the researchers to stonewall critique, instead of welcoming it and engaging with it. That engagement does not require participation in internet mishegas, which most scientists will avoid.)
If anyone is interested, I will describe the Infusion Institute plan. (This has been described privately on the CMNS list.) We need a few good people to take on leadership. Is anyone interested? We will be working with Cold Fusion Now, and LENRIA, and others. We have good connections with Industrial Heat, though I have not tested them (and I have received no funding from IH, yet, nor have I asked for it). We will be working with all the known LENR-supporting organizations. Let me say this about this work: it's fun.
Genuine skeptics, or those who aspire to it, are welcome. This is not about "belief." This is about taking a stand for the future of humanity, for real science, rooted in a trust in reality, not some "personal reality," i.e., our ideas and thoughts and beliefs, but reality in itself.
The Defkalion approach was interesting: zap the material with spark plasma. Ultrasound could be very interesting.
In my recollection, the DGT use of spark was not for pre-processing of the fuel outside of the reactor. The issue I was discussing was related to Ni pre-processing.
There are many possibilities for stimulus of an active reactor.
Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
In my recollection, the DGT use of spark was not for pre-processing of the fuel outside of the reactor. The issue I was discussing was related to Ni pre-processing.
There are many possibilities for stimulus of an active reactor.
Yes. It is still interesting and could be a tecbnique in fuel processing. It was interesting because, if it worked, it could have worked by cleaning the nickel, rejuvenating it in situ. Hydrogen plasma would be strongly reducing.
Yes. It is still interesting and could be a tecbnique in fuel processing.
Normally pre-processing involves a somewhat larger volume of gas space than you would have in the reactor itself. There is also oxygen present you are trying to remove. Hydrogen will explode with a pretty wide range of H2/O2 mixtures. I would not suggest use of a spark plug unless you have already removed all of the oxygen that can be released as gas - otherwise you created a pipe bomb. Please don't do this.
The DGT spark plug source was not proven to produce a reactor with excess heat. The spark plug in the reaction chamber did 2 things - it created acoustic shock waves, and it created a point source of UV. It is unlikely that it established any kind of plasma, because at those pressures, the spark plug would simply have had the local discharge. The mean free path of an ionic or monatomic H at those pressures would have been microns, so the stimulation by direct plasma could not have amounted to supplying H+ or monatomic H to the surrounding Ni. Controlled, distributed plasma in a volume at those pressures requires a lot of design and care to establish and maintain - a spark plug won't do it.
Normally pre-processing involves a somewhat larger volume of gas space than you would have in the reactor itself. There is also oxygen present you are trying to remove. Hydrogen will explode with a pretty wide range of H2/O2 mixtures. I would not suggest use of a spark plug unless you have already removed all of the oxygen that can be released as gas - otherwise you created a pipe bomb. Please don't do this.
Most NiH experiments I've seen are dangerous. Yes, you would want the nickel to be clean and probably in a vacuum for a time before adding hydrogen. The reaction with nickel oxide would not be explosive, and this could be at controlled rate anyway, controlling the rate of hydrogen inflow.
QuoteThe DGT spark plug source was not proven to produce a reactor with excess heat. The spark plug in the reaction chamber did 2 things - it created acoustic shock waves, and it created a point source of UV. It is unlikely that it established any kind of plasma, because at those pressures, the spark plug would simply have had the local discharge. The mean free path of an ionic or monatomic H at those pressures would have been microns, so the stimulation by direct plasma could not have amounted to supplying H+ or monatomic H to the surrounding Ni. Controlled, distributed plasma in a volume at those pressures requires a lot of design and care to establish and maintain - a spark plug won't do it.
I think I misrepresented what DGT allegedly did. They used spark plugs as convenient and sealable conductive pass-throughs. I think they created a discharge through the interior of the reactor, it was not just a "spark plug" which would only create a plasma between its own two electrodes. Rather it was between the insulated spark plug electrode on one side and that on the other. Depending on how the fuel was arranged internally, this might act strongly on the fuel.
Your statements above make your purpose and motivation for participation on this forum clear: you are convinced beyond any doubt that the "Rossi Effect" has always been a total hoax and you are determined to advance that view point via any means at your disposal.
Incorrect. I have often said there is evidence of excess heat in some of the earlier experiments.
The statement, "I couldn't care less about that" proves you have no basic courtesy for other users on this forum who have a different mindset.
You have no courtesy for me! Your statement above (and much else you have said) is a distortion of what I repeated many times.
Jed,
If I have distorted your view point, I'll apologize. However, many of your *recent* statements on this forum do not indicate that you think some of Rossi's earliest experiments may have produced excess heat. They are not nuanced at all. Instead, they attack Rossi's effect without differentiating your opinion between his early work at the one year test.
However, many of your *recent* statements on this forum do not indicate that you think some of Rossi's earliest experiments may have produced excess heat. They are not nuanced at all.
That is incorrect. I have repeated many times that I do not know about earlier experiments, and that the first Levi test looked pretty good. That is nuanced, albeit noncommittal. As I said, I do not have enough information about the earlier tests to judge.
Instead, they attack Rossi's effect without differentiating your opinion between his early work at the one year test.
That's wrong, as I said. You made that up, evidently without reading my messages. It does matter, but I am not inclined to be nice to people who say such things about me.
I have routinely seen miracles.
We would often rather die than become something else
I've been able to accomplish miracles
I face death, literally, and laugh.
If anyone is interested, I will describe the Infusion Institute plan.
One imagines it might involve a 'conference' in Guyana, and some Kool-aid? 
What's the deal with Abdel Ramen? he's a cult recruiter, plus a crypto-w.....ist, he basically drowns all discussions in FUD and drivel, and yet we can't say the truth about him?
edit: replaced "bad stuff" with "the truth" and "manure" with "drivel", because manure is actually a fertilizer and serves a helpful purpose
This plus the censorship of Rothwell's and Mary Yugo's harmless psychological analysis, I'm starting to wonder whether this forum is really interested in LENR, or keeping it under wraps?
Don't give me arguments about how you should respect your fellow poster: those people are vitriolic FUD machines and will go any length (within the law) to assassinate characters and smear people's reputations.
Why should they deserve any respect, or fair play? they're enemies of science and mankind, and don't play by your rules. Why should you follow them, when asserting their participation?
Green Ink Time. Alan.
Jed,
If I have distorted your view point, I'll apologize. However, many of your *recent* statements on this forum do not indicate that you think some of Rossi's earliest experiments may have produced excess heat. They are not nuanced at all. Instead, they attack Rossi's effect without differentiating your opinion between his early work at the one year test.
This is a conditional apology and is not an apology at all. What it does is to, without evidence, claim the reasonableness of his distortion of Jed's views. This leads to no confidence that he will not repeat the behavior. The distortion of views is a characteristic of trolls. Instead of exploring the matter, say by looking for evidence that Jed had made some statements that could be misinterpreted, he justifies himself. Classic. I have been considering blocking MrSelfSustain, because of the density of posts that can be considered trolling. Because he has also raised what I consider legitimate questions, not wrapped up with the "FUD polemic" and other nonsense, I have not done this so far.
If there are "many statements," how about quoting one, at least? "Many" would be better. Then this could go two ways. The process would reveal that MrSelfSustain's conclusion was unwarranted, or it would reveal that some of Jed's posts were ambiguous. I knew that the representation about Jed's opinion was incorrect, because Jed has stated the contrary many times. If MrSelfSustain does not know that, it would be likely that there is selective memory and reading involved, which is common when one has strong opinions. Like an opinion that all this is unjustified "attack" on Rossi.
I suggest you guys drop this bickering, all of you, or I will resort to invisible ink instead of green. Also we are running out of quote marks. Serious warning
Allan Smith commented while greening the post:" I suggest you guys drop this bickering, all of you, or I will resort to invisible ink instead of green. Also we are running out of quote marks. Serious warning"
What you greened, Alan, was pointing out an ineffective way of handling conflict, and a suggestion for an effective way that might generate consensus or not, but which would at least clarify the issues.
Off-topic posting is a major problem and could be addressed, but it would take work, and we don't have moderators or administrators willing to do the work. Instead, we get some deletions of truly offensive posts, and most mindrot is ignored, and then Alan drops green ink here and there.
"Serious warning"? what was a serious offense meriting that? There are other posts recent and standing with grossly offensive personal attacks. Ignored, apparently, though maybe this is just being slow. There is even a highly offensive post by a moderator, claiming that an administrator here was paid to "change sides." Alan's response was to make a joke.
I greened your post as a general indication that you guys should stop bickering.It happened to be your post merely because it was one silly post too many, not because you were the worst offender. And also because Jed is big enough to fight his own corner. If you don't like being greened, don't bicker. As for your 'effective' way, like your post criticising my action in greening you it is just another way of carrying on a silly argument and thus not effective at all, except as a way of keeping a dispute going. I note your comment about the recent postings of another moderator, I have some sympathy, but it is for the Admins to sort out as they think fit, not my battle for in this instance I am not my brother's kipper.
As for making jokes, why on earth not? In that particular instance I made a joke to show how silly I thought the accusation was. In this job you either laugh or cry, and personally I would sooner laugh.
Hello Abd,
First, I remember Jed making comments saying that some of Rossi's very early testing may have produced excess heat; however, many of his recent comments are ambiguous and could make a reasonable person think otherwise or end up very confused. Last night I thought long and hard about performing a search for Jed's comments. I decided against doing so, because I didn't want to escalate this issue. But if you want examples, I'll give them.
Rossi vs IH: (Update: Sep. 9 20– James A. Bass now a Third Party in IH’s Counter Complaint)
"Let me be more precise: Rossi never achieved any nuclear process in this experiment with this equipment. This equipment is a 20 kW electric heater and it has never produced more than 20 kW. This equipment is a blatant, in-your-face fraud. Rossi did not even try to make it look realistic. Anyone with an ounce of common sense who looks at the equipment or the photos of the warehouse will see that it is fake."
If after years of performing hundreds of tests on LENR reactors, it would only be logical to assume that the reactors used in the year long test produced *some* level of excess heat from nuclear processes -- even in the worst case situation of a grossly exaggerated COP determination. The idea that Rossi would spend many hours a day in the plant for a year knowing zero excess heat was being produced is ridiculous. As you have stated, Rossi is obsessed with his technology. Regardless if he is totally honest in his interaction with other people, totally crooked, or somewhere in between, his primary drive is to commercialize the technology he believes in wholeheartedly. Spending a year focusing primarily on the operation of plant that wasn't producing any excess heat whatsoever would have driven him totally nuts. Regardless of any of his other traits, Rossi is a work-a-holic that doesn't like wasting time or simply spinning his wheels. The test was a legitimate effort on his part -- regardless of the results or their accuracy (or lack thereof).
Now, with that being said, if no nuclear process took place in the plant, then logic dictates that most probably NONE of his previous systems produced nuclear processes -- except for the off chance of a stray fluke. At odds with this, is the fact that Rossi repeatedly showed off his early reactors producing excess heat (before he went public) and then continued to do so afterwards (even if some people think those tests were not as well done). So if he knew how to make excess heat then -- at least fairly consistently -- he would have applied the same know how to the one megawatt plant. So we have someone with the know how to produce nuclear processes, an obsession to commercialize his technology, and a work ethic that prevents him from standing still. If nuclear processes didn't happen in the plant, they likely never happened at all in the past.
Rossi vs IH: (Update: Sep. 9 20– James A. Bass now a Third Party in IH’s Counter Complaint)
"The part about "nothing close to 750kW - 1,000MW of heat" is wrong. There is no heat at all. So there is no IP. There would be nothing to "dump" except perhaps some lies from Rossi. What would be the point of publishing that? There is enough nonsense in the cold fusion literature already; we don't need more. Anyway, it is still possible Rossi has something which he is hiding. I.H. will have the rights to it if he ever reveals it. I see no point to jeopardizing that right that by doing something they agreed not to do."
In the first part of the above statement, Jed makes it clear that Rossi has no IP. The only way he could have no IP is if none of his know how can produce nuclear processes. This sure makes it sound like he is indicating Rossi couldn't make any excess heat in the one megawatt plant, IH was never given any IP that could produce excess heat, and Rossi himself doesn't have any IP himself of value. He doesn't mitigate these initial comments by saying something like, "It is likely there wasn't any significant excess heat anywhere near what was claimed and hence the utility of his IP may be over-valued by many." Instead, he makes specific, clear statements.
Then at the very end of such bold and direct statements, he claims, "Anyway, it is still possible has something which he is hiding."
Nope. That concluding statement is totally incompatible with the first statements. There is no way for them to be reconciled with each other. The last part was added in as a small hedge after he BLASTED Rossi in the first part of the statement with flat out declarations of fact.
In my opinion, the above quote was the definition of ambiguous.
Jed is a darn good writer. I think the *vast* majority of the time he is extremely smart and sharp as a tack. He could have written a far less ambiguous paragraph if he had so desired. But he had no ambition to do so. He's very angry with Rossi (to some extent I think we all are to one degree or another) and that frustration comes through loudly in his postings.
One thing I try to do in my life is be "fair" to people. I probably fail often at this, but I like to think I try. Despite the fact I lean towards the one megawatt plant producing excess heat, I try to remain open to opposing ideas and attempt to nuance my words. I'm not a part of the, "we must defend Rossi from Industrial Heat's hit squad at all costs using vicious insults because that company's part of a grand conspiracy with propaganda company x, y, z." crowd. Until all the evidence is on the table, I'm not *completely* ruling out that the accusations of I.H. (or at least the very large majority of them) could be true. To do so would be silly when we so much evidence is still hidden from us. So you don't find me blasting I.H. on here and making the kind of accusation some other individuals do.
Jed thinks without any doubt that the test of the one megawatt plant was a total hoax and scam. This conclusion and his strong feelings rules out any desire for fairness or politeness: his personal judgement on this issue has already been made and concluded without doubt. Now he is trying to push his conclusion on this forum with posts that like the above and others that I could dig up and cite. I don't have a problem with him sharing his opinions, but I'd suggest he: #1 Write a bit more carefully. #2 Nuance his primary statements instead of adding hedges later. #3 Try not to participate in the derailment of threads like this one.
Anyway, this is my last post on this topic. Feel free to comment if you want, or not. Block me if you want, or not. I've tried to do as you requested. If it is not good enough, I'm satisfied with my effort, and I'm not going to disobey the moderator any longer.
If you do block me, Abd, thanks again for your extensive work in trying to make sense of the legal documents. That has been a MAJOR contribution to this form.
