Practical Mechanisms For The Induction of Cold Fusion in Metal Hydrides
A very well written (as always) paper by Hank Mills on the Rossi Effect
Rossi's Knot Untangled
-
With respect to removing Nickel oxide layer, I would also like to refer to a patent application of Francesco Celani (US2012134915), which cites a Dutch patent application NL1001123C2. This patent application discusses various methods of reducing NiO, including the use of Hexaan. But more relevant, it also suggests that if NiO and CuO are both present while reducing oxides using Hydrogen at a few hundred degrees C, in essence the oxide of the more nobel metal (NiO) gets reduced first, suggesting that CuO acts a a kind of catalyst to remove NiO.
Link to the Dutch Patent application
The inventor is presently employed by Shell -
Hi Rob. I am familiar with the patent- but many others may not be. I have always wondered if the reported presence of Cu in some early Rossi ash analyses (with a natural isotopic distribution) was because of it's use as a co-catalyst. Rossi rather foolishly claimed it was a transmutation product in a typically misguided attempt to protect his IP, but he has always had a tendency to 'shoot from the hip' over things like this.
-
Another observation from the article written by Hank Mills:
He mentions Unified Gravity Corporation using Lithium being bombarded by protons using High voltage electrodes in (semi) vacuum, see their patent application.
But maybe Lipinski (Unified Gravity Corporation) wasn't aware that this principle was already published by The Cavendish Laboratory (university of Cambridge) in 1932-1933, work performed by Cockroft and Walton.
See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Oliphant -
Rossi rather foolishly claimed it was a transmutation product in a typically misguided attempt to protect his IP, but he has always had a tendency to 'shoot from the hip' over things like this
I am not sure Rossi was naive or schrude on this.
The copper discussion originates from his first generation E-cat models where temperatures were in the order of 400 - 500 degrees C.
It may well be that both were valid: CuO to reduce NiO, but also transmutations into some Cu isotopes. Who knows... -
Another observation from the article written by Hank Mills:
He mentions Unified Gravity Corporation using Lithium being bombarded by protons using High voltage electrodes in (semi) vacuum, see their <a href="https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=WO&NR=2010008625A2&KC=A2&FT=D" class="externalURL" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">patent application</a>.
But maybe Lipinski (Unified Gravity…The difference is that Unified Gravity Corporation found a sweet spot around 200eV. Lower or higher than that the rate of nuclear reactions decline. This is far different than the minimum 300,000eV to millions of eV mainstream scientists claim are required.
-
The difference is that Unified Gravity Corporation found a sweet spot around 200eV. Lower or higher than that the rate of nuclear reactions decline. This is far different than the minimum 300,000eV to millions of eV mainstream scientists claim are required.
I refered to the principle and its prior art.
Although such optimimum may be a smart finding, nothing of that has been translated into claims -
If Lipinksi found a large cross section for the p+7Li → 2 4He + 17 MeV reaction at ~ 200 eV, this would definitely be an anomaly. I wonder whether the source of the alphas is a different one. It would be pretty cool if there was a resonance hiding there in plain sight that scientists never checked for because the energy is so low. Not having looked at the patent recently, I wonder whether there are any strong contraindications that this reaction is this one.
At 200 eV, I doubt the proton gets within fm of the 7Li nucleus, which means the resonance would involve tunneling. (I'm too lazy to calculate the distance of approach at this time in the morning.)
-
/* If Lipinksi found a large cross section for the p+7Li → 2 4He + 17 MeV reaction at ~ 200 eV, this would definitely be an anomaly. I wonder whether the source of the alphas is a different one. */
On this anomaly I based my cold fusion theory
-
This paper provides data showing that the addition of a very small percentage of palladium powder or copper powder will dramatically increase the rate of hydrogen absorption by nickel powder.
http://documentslide.com/docum…ded-palladium-copper.html
Rossi's earliest reactors probably used additional copper and/or palladium. By the time he opened the JONP, I think he was no longer using palladium, but only copper and lithium (lithium being a very electropositive hydrogenation promotor and a source of additional energy).
Due to the great results by Songsheng and others, we know that copper and palladium are NOT required to get massive excess heat. However, in the Quark, I think it is possible he may be adding titanium to the fuel charge.
-
Due to the great results by Songsheng and others,
These results have not yet been replicated. The methods are crude. There are some significant doubts about the results. So I think you are off-base calling them "great results." I would say "promising results." Or "intriguing" or "possibly positive results." The people at U. Missouri showed that Parkhamov is probably wrong. You should be careful not to go overboard or draw conclusions from preliminary results that have not been replicated. -
First of all, I wouldn't call Songsheng's setup crude. He used multiple thermocouples, logged his data electronically, was able to add hydrogen, apply vacuum, etc.
However, Having a crude setup is not as big of an issue if you are achieving self sustain. On multiple occasions, in addition to excess heat, he achieved self sustained operation sometimes for several minutes, hours, or on one occasion perhaps nearly a day. Now, I totally agree that it would be fantastic if he would duplicate these tests and perform them repeatedly. He should run them ten times. But I think the multiple periods of self sustain are very convincing that he produced massive excess heat.
When it comes to Parkhomov, I think his first tests were very convincing. He ran many active tests and many controls. The active tests produced excess heat far beyond the margin of error. His follow up tests produced less excess heat. I have a couple ideas for why this happened. First, I think his nickel and LiAlH4 became heavily oxidized after multiple usages. From what I understand, he didn't open the canisters in a hydrogen or argon glove box. Instead, he allowed atmosphere to enter. Songsheng had the same problem. In one of his tests, he used nickel and LiAlH4 that had previously been exposed to atmosphere many months previously. He achieved no excess heat until he applied supplemental hydrogen from a canister for an extended period of time. Then he started achieving high levels of excess heat and self sustain. Additionally, I have heard that when Parkhomov started running out of his original nickel (he sent off quantities of it to many different researchers) he started using a different brand for some of his tests. I think this created another huge variable. What I think Parkhomov should do is purify his LiAlH4 chemically, pre-treat his nickel to remove oxides and contaminants, and load his reactor in a glove box to prevent contamination with atmosphere. Then he should perform his original tests again with a few improvements.
The tests by a couple other Russian teams (Stepanov's team and another) seem to show very good results.
Of course I will totally admit that for every positive test there are probably fifty failures.
-
In the Lugano demo, the Lithium 7 was enriched to 94%. This was not an accident. The Rossi fuel creation process does not modify the fuel's isotopic composition. Transmutation does not happen during fuel preparation. All the active fuel elements are comprised of metalized lithium hydride crystals containing only lithium 7. When the fuel is loaded into the reactor, transmutation proceeds but not in the metalized lithium hydride fuel. That metalized crystal is protected from transmutation. After the metalized lithium is prepared, other raw lithium is loaded via lithium aluminum hydride which contains a normal spread of isotope proportions of Li6 and Li7. This raw lithium is used as fuel for transmutation. The fuel prep stage uses pure Li7 so when the new batch of raw lithium is added, the Li6/Li7 ratio changes but does not match the expected raw lithium ratio due to the pure Li7 used in the fuel prep stage.
-
All of the Jiang experiments had thermocouple over heat/melting problems, and are therefore cannot be considered to be reliable data.
Jiang's student-assistant did a perfect null experiment, although it gas been called otherwise by many. -
The fuel prep stage uses pure Li7
Or it could be something stranger:
"The Lambda baryon has also been observed in atomic nuclei called hypernuclei.
These nuclei contain the same number of protons and neutrons as a known
nucleus, but also contains one or in rare cases two Lambda particles.[7]
In such a scenario, the Lambda slides into the center of the nucleus
(it is not a proton or a neutron, and thus is not affected by the Pauli exclusion principle),
and it binds the nucleus more tightly together due to its interaction via the strong force.
In a lithium isotope (Λ7Li), it made the nucleus 19% smaller.[8]" -
All of the Jiang experiments had thermocouple over heat/melting problems, and are therefore cannot be considered to be reliable data.
Jiang's student-assistant did a perfect null experiment, although it gas been called otherwise by many.I agree. This appears to be a matter of getting up to speed on how to conduct these experiments. It is not easy to do correctly. There was no calibration until the student-assistant experiment.
If the methods and instruments improve, and the excess heat goes down or disappears as this happens, what is the most likely explanation?
This is the pattern of Jiang and Parkhomov. Stepanov et. al. never reported a calibration either. The fact that there have been many attempts to replicate Parkhomov, even using his same materials, is further evidence that his earlier experiments were in error. I wish it was not so.
-
The Lambda baryon has also been observed in atomic nuclei called hypernuclei.
These nuclei contain the same number of protons and neutrons as a known
nucleus, but also contains one or in rare cases two Lambda particles.The effect of a bound "strange neutral" baryon would be a slight enhancement of the Yukawa potential. The Erzion model with an additional down quark is more promizing, but also still very exotic, because quarks are not assumed to move freely between the nuclei.
But, who knows what "they" will know in twenty years... -
I spent hours last night reviewing Songsheng's data. Although he did not perform a calibration or use a "control" I still think the results are stunning.
The fascinating aspect of his system is that he has multiple layers of thermocouples. Between the thermocouple(s) inside the stainless steel reactor and the thermocouple near the resistors, there is a significant thermal barrier. Then between those and the outer wall of the whole device there is another significant barrier. You can see on many occasions the innermost thermocouple suddenly shoot up in temperature beyond that of the one near the resistor. Often the temperature inside maintains at a higher temperature -- showing that an exothermic reaction is taking place. Even more interesting, the inner reactor heats up at a rate faster than the resistors on many occasions. This indicates that the reaction was stimulated by electormagnetism because the thermal energy had not had time to fully migrate from the resistors to the innermost reactor.
On a number of occasions during different tests he witnessed self sustain. I do not buy the argument that the thermocouple was giving a false elevated reading. Looking at the dips and a temporary drop out of data, I would say it is most likely reading low. But even if you do not want to count the the entire periods of self sustain, there are time periods in which the temperature is climbing with the power off before a temperature destructive of the thermocouple is reached. So these periods of virtually 100% likelihood excess heat are shorter than those in which there is a small chance of an elevated reading.
Songsheng's tests are the best tests yet that confirm massive excess heat. Parkhomov's first tests were also very good -- except that he only witnessed one shorter period of self sustain.
More testing will be taking place in the future that will confirm their results.
The Rossi Effect is absolutely real and works. If you think otherwise, that is your opinion. Mine is different.
-
You can see on many occasions the innermost thermocouple suddenly shoot up in temperature beyond that of the one near the resistor.
Indeed, it shoots up too fast, and the others never catch up or even reflect the same heat pulse later. It is clearly an instrument artifact.On a number of occasions during different tests he witnessed self sustain.
I think the TC is damaged and it is producing a spurious signal.The Rossi Effect is absolutely real and works.
Rossi himself cannot produce the effect. Ni-H cold fusion might be real, but Rossi's version is either fake or he has forgotten how to produce it. His 1-year test was completely fake and produced no heat at all, as you see in Exhibit 5. -
Quote
However, Having a crude setup is not as big of an issue if you are achieving self sustain. On multiple occasions, in addition to excess heat, he achieved self sustained operation sometimes for several minutes, hours, or on one occasion perhaps nearly a day.
There is no magic bullet here. You need to look at each occasion and see what could cause the results. It is easy to look at one aspect of the data and be convinced, but there are probable causes (as far as I know) for all the apparent positives:
The "long self-sustain" as Jed points out it looks very like a damaged thermocouple, and there is no checking after the experiment to determine whether it was this.
Short "self-sustain" is a contradiction in terms. And, again, the quality of his calibration and control and analysis leaves an enormous amount to be desired making false positives more likely than in setups with more rigorous methodology. For example, in his first claimed positive he argued that a damaged thermocouple was impossible from experimental evidence that made this look probable...
THH
