The Rossi Effect: How much hydrogen is enough?

  • Hello Everyone,


    To begin, this thread isn't to debate the existence of the Rossi Effect or high powered nickel-hydrogen "cold fusion" or LENR. If you want to insert the same naysaying, overly skeptical remarks that you post repeatedly on other threads, please stay away from this thread. If you post on this thread please realize everything here is based on the assertion that the Rossi Effect is real and works. Debate on that issue is-not-allowed.


    I'll start with a few fundamental "first principles" about Ni-H fusion or the "Rossi Effect" that I hope most of us can agree are probably accurate.


    1) For the process to begin, hydrogen must be adsorbed to the surface of clean, oxide free nickel.


    2) In areas where there is a greater quantity of adsorbed hydrogen, such as in grain fractures, cracks, pores, and cavities, there can be a greater quantity of absorbed hydrogen.


    3) A greater quantity of absorbed hydrogen that has made it into the lattice (or defects/cavities inside the lattice) makes it more likely for reactions to occur than if a lower level is absorbed.


    Now, it is not easy for the average replicator -- or even an advanced replicator without a sophisticated lab -- to measure the content of hydrogen actually absorbed into nickel. However, like someone has said before, nickel usually absorbs a relatively low quantity compared to other metals such as palladium or titanium.


    We know that the successful replicators, such as Parkhomov, Songsheng, Stepanov, Me356, and others, have been able to induce high powered Ni-H (usually plus lithium) fusion without super exotic methods to enhance hydrogen absorption. Some groups of used nickel with a high surface area to increase hydrogen absorption and others have used a combination of LiAlH4 AND hydrogen from an external source. But ordinary nickel wire or non-mond process nickel seems to work too. A massive surface area doesn't seem to be required.


    This makes me think that a huge level of hydrogen absorption is not required. This could mean...


    1) The whole nickel particle or wire doesn't have to absorb so much hydrogen the entire sample of nickel is converted to nickel hydride.


    2) Probably a high-ish level of hydrogen only exists near the surface of the wire/powder.


    3) The high failure rate of NiH experiments probably means that achieving enough hydrogen absorption is difficult regardless if you use bulk nickel or powder.


    Now, if we want to maximize absorption of hydrogen by nickel, the most common sense methods have already been discussed: cleaning the nickel of oxides (with acid, ultrasound, hydrogen reduction) and vacuuming the nickel to remove oxygen and other gases trapped inside. Once this is performed, the actual hydrogenation can potentially be enhanced by another of methods. For example, the use of reverse spillover catalysts (copper and palladium), electropositive hydrogenation supporters (lithium, potassium), the application of voltage to the fuel (somehow this can enhance absorption in different ways depending on which polarity is applied to the nickel), the insertion of atomic hydrogen in the vicinity of the nickel (hot tungsten filament/tube, glow discharge, etc).


    I don't have proof, but I seriously think that the number one reason why replications fail is a lack of hydrogen absorption. This issue could be more complex than we realize. For example, we may (or may not) need layers of nickel that have been loaded up to the beta-phase rather than the alpha-phase. We might not need the whole nickel powder particle or wire to be loaded to this level, but we may need above a certain critical amount at least in certain spots.


    To figure out to what degree hydrogen needs to be loaded, there will need to be exhaustive testing. This level of testing may or may not ever be performed by an "open" replicator. In the mean time, when less exhaustive replication attempts are made, I suggest that every effort is made to maximize hydrogen loading to a reasonable extent. In Songsheng's tests, a maximum of 5-6 bars of hydrogen pressure was achieved if I'm reading his charts correctly. Interestingly, after adsorption or absorption occurred, he added more hydrogen. My thinking is that a pressure of beyond ten bar may not be required if proper cleaning and vacuuming is performed. Focardi produced excess heat on a number of occasions utilizing one bar or less.


    If we can achieve an adequate level of hydrogenation, my guess is that stimulation -- at least in theory -- will be simple. Of course systems will need to be robust enough so that components and resistors don't fail from VERY RAPID heating surges to thermal shock the nickel.


    The level of understanding of what's probably involved with the Rossi Effect is greater than ever. Now we just have to put it to use!


    (Any practical guidelines or suggestions from Me356 would be appreciated!)

  • See


    The unrecognized laws of LENR


    The preparation of LENR fuel is a two step process where the first step produces the metalized hydride made possible by following the guidelines of BEC production listed above. In this fuel preparation stage only BEC enabling fuel components are used. This is pure lithium 7. Clean nickel that is highly porous is required to produce the metalized hydrides.


    The second step of fuel usage is to provide lithium as fuel to the LENR process so that NO additional metabolized lithium hydrides is produced to avoid reactor meltdown. In this stage, lithium aluminum hydride is used because lithium 6 is BEC poison which dampens the LENR reaction. This dampening removes the danger of reactor meltdown. Aluminum(13 + 27 is even) is not a LENR poison.


    Note that Fluorine is a BEC friendly element. Fluorine 19 has 9 protons and 10 neutron and 9 electrons: a BEC count of 28 which is even and therefore BEC capable. This means that lithium 7 fluoride is acceptable to use in step one of the fuel preparation process.


    Nitrogen 14 is a LENR poison. Can you workout why? hint: 14 + 7 is odd.

  • Recognize that Rossi's early eCats were started with the introduction of 5-10 bar of H2 in gas phase before heating. The startups he demonstrated did not included steps of vacuum and re-application of H2, but presumably his fuel preparation had already been completed. The only thing we can observe from this is that at least during the re-start, he applied 5-10 bar of H2 while cold and then subsequently heated - so the pressure rose to a value probably as much as twice this at operating temperature (presuming no leak which would have been dangerous). Also note that in the early eCats, Rossi used a far larger fuel charge - believed to be on the order of 50g. To my knowledge, this low temperature (300-500C), high output Ni-H reaction has not been successfully/indisputably replicated by an outside party.


    In the hotCat Lugano reactor, subsequent Parkhomov replications, Piantelli's Ni-H work, and others that have successfully reported excess heat, the operating H2 pressure is much lower - less than 1 bar absolute. In the case of the Parkhomov-like fuel, believed to be the same for Lugano, the 0.1g of LAH could deliver a calculated H2 pressure in the small reaction tube of 100's of bar. MFMP originally began with the presumption that the reaction vessel must be capable of sustaining this very high pressure - the Bang! experiment resulted. What was found out from Parkhomov's sealed tube experiments was that the ones that sealed well ruptured and the ones that leaked worked. It was found that Parkhomov's pressure peaked at about 5 bar in the slow heating cycle and then began to leak at higher temperature to about 1 bar. Subsequent absorption (in something) at higher temperature resulted in an operating pressure of about 0.5 bar absolute of H2 pressure when XH was present. Careful reading of the Lugano report suggests that Rossi's sealing method for the Lugano fuel tube would not have been something that could sustain 100's of bar of pressure. Later his patents suggested the technology worked from low pressure to high pressure. Perhaps more important in such reactor vessels with an uncontrolled leak is insuring that O2 doesn't leak into the reactor during the reaction. This could provide an exothermic chemical reaction with the clean metals and the H2 that could appear as short term excess heat.


    Reports of Jiang's reactor and Hang Zhang's reactors indicate they would have been well enough sealed that there were no significant leaks - no means for O2 to enter their system. Parkhomov has run experiments long enough that the XH explanation, as coming from H2/metal oxide oxidation, is invalidated by the magnitude of the total cumulative excess energy measured. Beware - because of the possibility of such oxidation reactions, short experiments may not be able to credibly claim excess heat that is not chemical.


    There is still plenty to explore in the Ni-H parameter space. It is ripe for more experiments and quality reporting.

  • Hello Bob,


    Interestingly, Songsheng's maximum pressure was around five to six bar. In at least a couple of his experiments that produced excess heat, he added additional hydrogen pressure multiple times. This is especially true for the run using nickel and LiAlH4 that didn't seem to work at first -- which he presumed was due to oxidation. After adding supplemental hydrogen and allowing for a twenty four hour soak, he was capable of producing excess heat.


    Specifically, I'd like to address a couple of your points.


    -- I'm pretty confident that some of the hydrogen is being absorbed by the nickel. Some hydrogen may be lost by other means. If elemental lithium is used in addition to the LiAlH4, then it will compete with nickel for the hydrogen and will produce LiH, at an accelerating rate as the temperature of the reactor rises towards 680C (the temperature at which LiH production seems to halt according to the papers I've read). My thinking is that adding supplemental LiH instead of elemental L (or nanoshell passivated lithium) would be more helpful because it wouldn't reduce pressures at lower temperatures and would provide a supplemental BOOST of hydrogen at 700C that could allow for further absorption into the nickel. When the temperature is brought down in preparation for triggering, the hydrogen that is not absorbed by the nickel or lost by other means will bond with the Li and start forming LiH. This will reduce the pressure inside of the reactor so when triggering takes place (a sudden rise of temperature that induces hydrogen desorption at a rate faster than is mechanically possible) there is more "suction" trying to pull the hydrogen out of the nickel.


    -- You are correct about Rossi's original reactors. I've read quotes on the amount of fuel from 14 grams to around 40-50 grams. Of course, in his earliest "publicly revealed" systems there was some quantity of copper mixed in with the nickel. In his even earlier systems, there was likely a combination of copper powder and palladium powder -- both to serve as reverse spill over catalysts. My understanding is that with these early systems Rossi did indeed perform vacuuming before the reactor was started -- witnesses attest to this. I think that it is extremely helpful to vacuum the nickel in addition to cleaning off surface oxides. I consider it like having a clogged drain in your sink. You don't want to just clear out the debris on the surface, but you want to remove the trapped debris deep in the pipework. In the nickel, the trapped gases occupy space. If it's not removed, the hydrogen literally won't have anywhere to go beyond the surface.


    -- Small bumps of excess heat shouldn't be taken seriously. What we need to look for are long periods of self sustained operation. From Rossi's earliest Italian patent applications to his later patent applications and his own statements (in addition to Dr. Levi who witnessed a device self sustain for around 18 hours), once you trigger the reaction an E-Cat should be capable of operating without input for at least a matter of hours before needing to be, "reinvigorated." I would propose that with one gram of fuel total even a half hour of self sustained operation with ZERO input at a reasonably high temperature completely rules out any chemical reaction by an order of magnitude.


    I think Ni-H is the most potent and viable version of LENR around. We just need to do our own testing and research in an open manner and not wait on for profit companies (Leonardo Corp) or somewhat secretive (although he really disclosed a lot of info) individuals like Me356.

  • Piantelli lists most of the solid elements in the periodic table as capable of supporting the LENR reaction. This is caused but the way the element is processed and not because of the inherent properties of the material. The element must be made porous so that the hydrogen can enter into those pores and cavities and be contained by them. This is called topological causation. Piantelli processes the surface of the material that he uses to produce a surface that is LENR active.

  • Hydrogen moving through the nickel lattice will cause deformations and the production of cracks. I don't think an initial highly porous nickel powder or other element is required, although it could be helpful. My guess is that letting the nickel breath (uptaking and then exhaling hydrogen) a sufficient number of cavities will form.


    I say this because my understanding is that Rossi's first nickel in his earliest systems was very, very crude. I'm talking before he ever went public. Of course it was mixed with reverse spillover catalysts that enhanced the hydrogen absorption process.

  • MrSelfSustain said that Rossi started out with 100 grams of nickel particles. How did Rossi get that amount down to 1 gram? The answer is that Rossi increased the porosity of the nickel particles that he uses by 100 times. Rossi now produces highly porous nickel particles. The number of cavities will determine how much LENR activity is produced by the fuel load.


  • Axil, you are presenting this as a known fact, when in fact, it is total crap. It has nothing at all to do with Piantelli's theory.


    The Piantelli LENR method and the Rossi LENR method are different.


    I explained the Piantelli LENR mechanism in terms of nanoplasmonics in this post


    Piantelli theory - avoiding absorption


    The Piantelli method is a less vigorous method than the cavity based method that Rossi uses.


    The metalized hydrate mechanism, the cavity method, is the more powerful LENR mechanism called by some as LENR+