Sulfur is well know to prevent H2 recombination...
Therefore it seems bad for catalyst , what is true about its LENR impact ?
My recent post to gameover was about the proper use of systematic terms in technical discussion only, and not about any applications in LENR technology.
Interesting papers turned up by Hank Mills on the benificial effects of ultrasound on metal catalysts.
http://sci-hub.ac/10.1007/s11663-014-0266-x
And:-
http://www.scs.illinois.edu/suslick/documents/mrsbul9529.pdf
Basically it seems that Ultrasound treatment may give an apparently smoother surface to metal particles, it actually introduces favourable changes to both the surface and the deep structure of the metal.
That is a possibility for sure. Iron Oxide (Jewellers Rouge), Zirconium, -there are other possibilities too. But I think it better to start with something simple and make it more complex if required rather than go the other way.
Basically it seems that Ultrasound treatment may give an apparently smoother surface to metal particles, it actually introduces favourable changes to both the surface and the deep structure of the metal.
From the Stringham experiments we know, that the exploding bubbles plane out the holes left over by the micro-explosion of He4. The higher the ultra sound frequency (smaller bubbles) the finer the surface will look afterwards. But that's for one foil in liquid D2O!
If nanopowder is grinding nanopowder I would no guarantee for a consistent result. I guess each powder will behave different, depending on the original starting condition.
By the way: Did nobody so far try to produce himself really smooth surface powder by galvanic deposition of e.g. about 100 atom layers on a non adhesive plane surface and afterwards braking the foil? Cavities can be added afterwards by oxidation reduction cycles.
If nanopowder is grinding nanopowder I would no guarantee for a consistent result. I guess each powder will behave different, depending on the original starting condition.
Absolutely correct I am sure. There is (once again) a huge experimental space to explore. Let's hope there is somethig worthwhile to be found there. As for consistent results, I expect that these would as always require careful replication of previous procedures.
Your comments on plating metals are appreciated. One of LFH's close supporters has been working in this area with Ni plating - but onto a steel or titanium substrate. By careful control of the plating electrolyte and current it is possible to create many different surface morphologies, which in turn are giving him some encouraging results.
Every variable that is added means exponentially more testing that would need to be performed. The simplest variation to test is sonicated nickel in hexane for different durations of irradiation.
Here are a couple of shots of the Ultrasonic nickel cleaning rig prior to some testing. The pictures show the cooling medium reservoir and the 12V peristaltic pump circuit. The cooling medium will probably be water-ice/salt based but could (if required) be switched to dry ice/methanol. The pump and tubing chosen can certainly handle that. The fan shown is to provide some additional cooling for the pump motor and also the lower part of the transducer horn. The oven-glass vacuum flask sits directly on top of the transducer (about which more later) and is fed hexane -if additional hexane is required from the burette mounted on top. Because of the release of hexane (which has a high enough vapour pressure to be problematic) fumes into the vacuum assembly where it may contaminate the oil and cause problems it is not my plan to run the new pump continuously but just maintain sufficient vacuum over a period of some hours to remove unwanted oxygen. I have an auto-switch that can give me variable (and settable) on-off cycles to look after this aspect of the operation. The detachable collar and the 2 springs visible on the vacuum flask are to ensure good contact with the transducer horn. The top surface of the horn has been modified with a 'poured-in-situ' solid epoxy casting which fits exactly to the base of the vacuum flask, which suitably protected with a smear of vaseline was used to form the top surface of the poured epoxy. So, removable but a perfect fit requiring only the addition of a little more vaseline to improve energy-transmission even more.
A friend working in the semi-conductor business gave me a good tip to reduce vacuum-oil contamination btw. Put a small tube into the oil reservoir of the vacuum pump, as far below the surface as you safely can and bubble air through it while the pump is running -or even when it is 'offline'. They do this in his plant to reduce solvent contamination - the bubbles carry away volatiles - and also the air carries away a surprising amount of heat and helps to keep the oil cool. In the plant they drill into the oil reservoir and make this air-bleed a permanent fixture, but I am reluctant to do that - preferring the dip-tube method - since I don't want to risk putting metal fragments from the drilling operation into the system. The pump will get an oil-change later, since I have no wish to bugger any seals. Even rubber ones.
Researchers in this field have tended to use another alkane-group medium to create a metal-powder slurry for ultrasound treatment - decane rather than hexane - which is both more viscous and less volatile, but I have settled on hexane for practical and economic reasons. Decane is around 10X the price of reagent-grade hexane is the economic reason for choosing it, but the other factor is that hexane's lower viscosity will compensate for the fact that I am using a loose-coupled 100W system rather than a 1 or 2 kW direct immersion probe that better-funded labs have used. Being more mobile, a hexane slurry should give me more agitation and more cavitation than something more syrupy. Alkanes are used btw, since they contain no bound oxygen, being 'pure' hydrocarbons. And the lower power is hopefully made less of a factor in that I have no limit on how long I can run the system for other than an occasional need for sleep.
Testing the ultrasound system has thrown up something interesting. A broad-band transducer (20-200kHz) seems to give me much better cavitation/agitation in neat hexane than a 'tuned' 28kHz horn of the same power -even though the driver circuit itself is 28kHz. Since the two transducers are of differing diameters with the broadband one being exactly the same size as the flask, rather than larger as the tuned horn is, I can only assume that this is because of better acoustic coupling. This is rather like matching antennas to transmitters in the radio game!
Finally an overall view of around half of LFH's laboratory space, which is being constantly upgraded (as I find time and money to do it!). Testing of this system is continuing, and the first live run during this week.
Alan Smith,
Do you have the capability of monitoring the temperature of the hexane slurry or of the cooling medium while the transducer is active?
This will probably turn out to be a null experiment but I am wondering if there is any difference if instead of ordinary nickel powder hydrated hydrogenated nickel powder is used in the same process.
The hydrated hydrogenated powder may be powder that was previously treated with ultrasounds in hexane in the same setup.
This test should not require complicating things up as MrSelfSustain complained previously.
Hi There!
Yes, I have ways could monitor temperatures practically anywhere in the system. Monitoring temperature in the Hexane slurry itself is definitely on my list. But I am a little unclear as to the nature of your speculations? When you say 'hydrated, do you mean 'hydrogenated', or 'hydrated' as in wet? (The opposite of 'dehydrated' - English is a bitch sometimes! 
) And in either case, what are you speculating I might see?
That was a mistake on my part .... I meant hydrogenated.
The aim is observing if the pressure waves and the cavitation alone induced by the ultrasonic transducer in the n-hexane may be able to induce some effects (translating in practice in excess heat and perhaps other anomalies) in the lattice of the previously treated and hydrogen-loaded nickel particles.
Ideally there would be a suspension of nickel nanoparticles, the dielectric medium would be water and there would be electrodes inducing electric discharges into said medium... but this would require complicating things up. The basis for this is this patent, which as far as I know is the only one Rossi ever recommended on the JONP: http://www.google.com/patents/US20110233061
But there also are reports of nuclear emissions (neutrons) from cavitation of metal salt solutions in water, like for example: http://link.springer.com/chapt…07%2F978-3-319-21611-9_22
I suspect that in addition to nanoparticles the surface highly porous, hydrogen-loaded metal microparticles may also be a suitable environment for this type of experiment.
A broad-band transducer (20-200kHz) seems to give me much better cavitation/agitation in neat hexane than a 'tuned' 28kHz horn of the same power -even though the driver circuit itself is 28kHz.
The soundspeed in hexan is about 1200m/s. Thus depending on the size of your bath not many wave cyles will be done inside the bath. Futrther on with a single frequency you must be lucky to hit a higher harmonic of a micro particle!
Agreed. This is a case of 'suck it and see'. (Nil by mouth).
Again on these experiments by Alan Smith: if hexane is being decomposed as a result the ultrasonic treatment (as shown by the deposition of small amounts of carbon on the surface of the Ni particles in that other study) and if the particles have catalytic properties, could not further catalytic decomposition of the compounds formed also include hydrogen? Then the treated particles may also get hydrogen-loaded over time to some extent.
Yes- quite correct. Carbon/graphene fragments may be deposited on the Ni, and Hydrogen liberated to be ab/adsorbed by the Ni.
Therefore, given the very dynamic and locally extreme conditions achieved during the sonication process I think that potentially there is not much preventing excess heat from slowly emerging over time during prolonged treating of these Ni particles in hexane. A further reason to closely monitor the temperature (and flowrate) of the coolant, and to start thinking of a suitable inert load.
Quite possibly you are right. It is certainly something to watch out for.
Alan Smith,
I forgot that while a low carbon coverage may be beneficial for catalytic activity, after long term exposure the carbon deposits formed during sonication in hexane may start becoming excessive and clog the surface of the particles preventing hydrogen adsorption or in other words deactivating them. This phenomenon is also known as coking in the petrochemical industry. So it is not clear if this would be a good way for potentially observing excess heat as I have previously written.
It may turn out to be necessary to use other liquids (e.g. water) after an initial treatment, as suggested in the Ahern patent application that I linked in another post, which would "complicate things up" in the sense that it would add other unwanted variables which are not within the scope of the experiments you planned.
Anyway, it seems that the morphological changes caused by ultrasonic treatment of Ni-based catalysts may also increase their coking resistance.
https://books.google.com/books?id=GiNnbZGaEe8C&pg=PA580#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_3d210d5f010007h4.html
Yes- We are aware that over-long sonication is problematic, in that H ad/absorption levels slow down. However, the term 'coking' is a new one for me. I think that since the US system we have is relatively low-power we have a fairly generous time-window before that becomes a problem -even assuming the system is sufficiently energetic to break down Hexane.
From the .cn link in my previous post:
QuoteThe implosive collapse of the bubble generates local hot spots due to the adiabatic compression or shock wave in the gas phase of the collapsing bubble. These hot spots have a transient temperature of above 5000 K, pressure of above 1800 atm, and cooling rates in excess of 10^8 K/s.
If cavitation bubbles occur and if these bubbles implode, the conditions achieved could be sufficient to break down hexane, small amounts at least.
