Piantelli theory - avoiding absorption

1st Official Post

    Not everybody may be aware of this, but according to Piantelli et al. chemisorption (absorption) is a deleterious effect for the LENR effect and must be avoided. The LENR effect for all intents and purposes occurs on the surface of the metal, where atoms are adsorbed. This is the exact opposite of what other proponents - Rossi in particular - have suggested so far.


    A detailed explanation of the Piantelli theory was provided on a patent opposition appeal for the European patent application EP09806118 on 2016-03-14 ("Statement of grounds of appeal") here: https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP09806118&lng=en&tab=doclist


    Here is a gallery of screenshots from the document: http://imgur.com/a/D6ivn (24 pages)


    Some selected excerpts below. I would suggest to read the entire document.







    • Official Post

    It is my opinion that Piantelli is both wrong and right ad the same time. Chemically bound hydrogen 'deep in the lattice' is possibly not what causes LENR type reactions. However, the dissociation of this bound hydrogen from the metal hydride at elevated temperatures frees it so that it can join 'the party upstairs' as 'free' H- ions.

    I think what Piantelli is saying here is that absorption is a competing process for the reaction and should be avoided whenever possible. As far as I know the transition metal clusters he uses are currently in the form of thin films, so there is not much potential for absorption there in the first place. To prevent chemisorption and favor adsorption he also provides hydrogen by external means at a low speed and low incident angle relative to the clusters (which is again the complete opposite of what Rossi has suggested in the past, as far as I remember). This is also mentioned in the previously indicated document.


    I do not think that the H- ion formation theory may necessarily be correct, but I do think that many people have misunderstood what Piantelli actually does. With this document his theory of operation should be clearer.

    What Piantelli is describing to me seems more something akin to an effect initiated by electric field emission from the isolated (small) transition metal nanoclusters. In other words it may have more to do with plasma physics than condensed matter physics. Small particles or nanoclusters in particular in the form of sharp elements can act as local electric field concentrators. The following paper may be quite relevant.



    "Controlled growth of nickel nanocrystal arrays and their field electron emission performance enhancement via removing adsorbed gas molecules"
    http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content…e/c2ce26456k#!divAbstract



    In practice these small antennas given a suitable input would excite and ionize the hydrogen atoms adsorbed on the surface and located just above the surface.


    Besides, in a different patent from Piantelli it is also suggested that for producing a larger amount of H- ions in addition to those created at the surface of the transition metal clusters it is advantageous to use various methods of ionization (see the abstract here: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2013008219A2 ). I think would be a quicker and easier way to obtain the same effect than relying on precisely crafted delicate nanostructures.

    Quote from David Fojt

    Ed Storms's reading from last JCMNS report.


    Initially, the LENR reaction was thought to take place anywhere in the PdD structure. Later studies reveal both helium [29,30] and tritium [31] form only very near the surface and not within the bulk material or on the surface where nanoparticles might be present. Transmutation products are also detected mainly in the surface region. Based on the known behavior of helium in PdH [32,33], the nuclear reactions apparently take place within a region perhaps no more than 10 micrometer wide, extending from the surface into the bulk.


    I will back up what I write here with sources, on request. The context of Storms' remarks is relevant. He operates under a number of assumptions. One of them is that all the reported LENR effects have a single "explanation." This then leads him to interpret evidence in a certain way, so to distinguish what we actually know from what is then interpreted through assumptions, we need to look at the actual evidence.


    His comment about tritium is unsupported, as far as I can see, by the paper he cites (his own 1991 paper). http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEtheeffecto.pdf


    What he writes about "very near the surface" refers to where helium is found. Helium has restricted mobility in palladium, something often misunderstood (Krivit took a complete nosedive on this). Helium can move through pure palladium crystal, albeit with much less mobility than hydrogen isotopes. (Tritium, like hydrogen and deuterium, can move freely). So if helium is formed or comes to rest inside a palladium grain (single crystal), it can move, but when it reaches a grain boundary, it becomes trapped there and it would take very high pressure to move it back. Helium formed in palladium, as with palladium loaded with tritium, which beta-decays to 3He, mostly stays put, unless it reaches a surface or a pocket that communicates to the surface.


    It appears that helium is effectively trapped if formed as little as a micron from the surface; that is known from the behavior of ion-implanted helium with a normal penetration depth of about a micron "10 micrometers" is then a very. very conservative figure. Ed's "explanation" proposes nanocracks as the Nuclear Active Environment. These are surface cracks, but will have some depth. So maybe they extend as much as 10 micrometers, but ... there is no evidence that I have seen for any significant generate at a depth like that.


    Ed is not proposing that the entire "10 micrometer" surface layer is active, far from it. Nor does the evidence apply to NiH, reactions, where we do not know the ash. It is only through the "conservation of miracles" assumption of Ed that we might think so.


    (The reality could be very difficult to determine. If the NiH reaction produces deuterium, as Ed suggests, this is not only present already, but is mobile in palladium -- and to a lesser degree in nickel.)


    Quote from Alan Smith

    Good point David. So if reactions take place no more than 10uM beneath the surface, and we have a particle of (say) nickel no more than 20 uM in size, a reaction may take place anywhere within it.


    "No more than" is not a limit in the other direction. Ed's theory, which he is explaining, has the reactions take place in cracks, as surface phenomena. The evidence is that the PdD reaction does not take place in voids, because the helium would be trapped internally. Removing a micron of palladium appears to release all the helium. We do not yet have more precise evidence.


    However, the Storms "crack theory" is the part of his explanation that is the most solidly based, the most likely to be accurate. How does this apply to nanoparticles and especially to NiH? That is unclear. It is either a different mechanism, or NAE might form on the surface of those particles or in cracks in them. Postulating "anywhere" within 10 microns is to take what Ed wrote out of context.


    I am not familiar in detail with Piantelli's work. The general situation with NiH, however, is that there is little known that has been clearly confirmed. It is obvious from many reports that NiH is worth investigating, but this work must be considered highly speculative at this point, and with many investigating and the plethora of possible artifacts, the file drawer effect is an ever-present hazard. In time, this will settle out, as research quality increases.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_localization


    Quote

    In condensed matter physics, Anderson localization, also known as strong localization, is the absence of diffusion of waves in a disordered medium. This phenomenon is named after the American physicist P. W. Anderson, who was the first one to suggest the possibility of electron localization inside a semiconductor, provided that the degree of randomness of the impurities or defects is sufficiently large.


    Anderson localization is a general wave phenomenon that applies to the transport of electromagnetic waves, acoustic waves, quantum waves, spin waves, etc. This phenomenon is to be distinguished from weak localization, which is the precursor effect of Anderson localization (see below), and from Mott localization, named after Sir Nevill Mott, where the transition from metallic to insulating behaviour is not due to disorder, but to a strong mutual Coulomb repulsion of electrons.


    Researchers have found that surface plasmon polaritons (SPP) and magnons localize around surface defects(sharp points, ridges, cracks). It is the EMF amplification of the polariton vortex soliton that produces the LENR capable magnetic flux lines that generate the LENR reaction.


    SPPs are a less powerful LENR mechanism than metalized hydrides because the metalized hydride produces a BEC of N numbers of SPPs on their surface where superradiance comes into effect.


    Absorption into cavities only comes into play when the production of metalized hydrides is the goal. The nanocavities cool and compress the hydride until the hydride becomes superconducting.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    axil: You missed an important part of LENR discussion: Cavities are the only place where 4D cluster-fusion events may happen. The surface fields (SPP) can act as a trigger.


    In the QuarkX, the nickel particles that hold the metalized lithium hydride melts and the cavities disappear. Fusion does not happen inside cavities. The fusion is produced by muons in muon atoms. Fission also happens based on muon fissions. Metalized hydrides becomes so imperious to extreme heat that they may be active on the surface of the Sun.


    I understand how hard it is but accepting this concept of stand alone metalize hydride concept works is important to understand how the Rossi reaction works.

    Quote from David Fojt

    Thank you Axil, really interesting therefore I don't understand or I have forgotten something because your model of super atom by condensate going against your common explanation with holmith onto surface ?


    DF


    There is evidence that these superatoms can leave the cavities that produced them but there is also evidence that they stay inside the lattice and can be contained and transported in this way. As to what can cause the superatoms to float freely in the air and/or lay like dust on surfaces is not yet understood.

    Quote from axil

    There is evidence that these superatoms can leave the cavities that produced them but there is also evidence that they stay inside the lattice and can be contained and transported in this way.


    axil: Then this makes the explanation: 5 sigma (for staying inside) + 5 sigma (for leaving) = 10 sigma! Or did I miss something ??

    In Piantelli's theory, as I understand it, he believes the surface is ordinary nickel metal crystalline grains (not nano clusters). In fact, in his lab, he has an SEM and a very expensive Bruker scanning XRD instrument for looking at his grains, which he says must be "right sized". Under the right conditions, Piantelli describes that these grains act as a BEC. This BEC acts on surface adsorbed H2 (which adsorb as H+/H- pairs) so as to cause the H- to be drawn into the grain. Upon being drawn in, Piantelli describes that the H- is acted upon to become a composite negative fermion and behaves like a muon. The H- subsequently enters into a Ni nucleus and cascades down to the lowest electronic shell, orbiting extremely close to the Ni nucleus releasing soft x-ray in the process of descending. The unusual valence state of the Ni is partly responsible for the ready insertion of the H- negative fermion into the Ni electronic structure. The low orbital state of the H- around the Ni nucleus is metastable. At some point something happens and a 6 MeV proton is ejected as at least one branch of the resulting reaction. The 6 MeV would require mass conversion, but it is not exactly clear what nuclear reaction results in the 6 MeV ejected proton branch.


    Piantelli describes that this happens based on his observations, but doesn't say how a physically large H- anion can appear as a negative fermion at such small scales as to enter the inner shells of the Ni. I asked him if he believed that the H- became shrunken in a DDL-like manner by the BEC-like action of the grain of metal atoms on the H- as it entered the grain. I asked him if he saw ~510 keV emissions that could be associated with such a deep shrinkage. He said he doesn't know if the H- becomes shrunken in a DDL-like manner, but he said he did detect some emissions in the range of 500 keV.


    Regarding the BEC-like action of the right-sized metal grain upon the surface adsorbed H+/H- pairs, Piantelli believes a propagating shock must occur on his rod, presumably to stimulate the BEC-like action on the H- anion. I have a description of how this could happen based upon my deduction of a transient room-temperature condensate effect. Perhaps I should release this written description - but it is not written yet as a paper.

    Quote from gameover

    Bob Higgins, in the Piantelli theory document that Engineer48 previously uploaded on LENR-Forum as a zipped pdf file the 511 keV signal is mentioned. Haven't you read the document yet? How does the explanation there compare to what you previously understood?


    That document to which you refer is an appeal to the patent commission regarding Piantelli's issued patent. It is written by people other than Piantelli. The Piantelli patent itself was written by someone other than Piantelli - a patent attorney. I have been through this process many times. The patent attorney tries to extract the fundamentals of the idea and cast it into a defensible patent, but something is always lost in translation. While I have not studied the appeals document (only quickly read it), it does not fairly represent Piantelli's theory. Many of the critical elements of the theory, and issues with the theory are missing from written representations. Some of the key elements of the theory have required separate investigation (based on clues from Piantelli), and I subsequently filled in the blanks myself.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.