Palladium cold fusion as an energy source


  • That is certainly a method that should be tested. It might be better to exclude it all together and use an atomically roughened surface that has never been exposed to atmosphere. But if the absorption of oxygen into the lattice can create uniquely sized cavities (all of this would have to be tested) then such a system may not be capable of producing the same with only hydrogen. Oxygen may stress the lattice in ways that hydrogen will not. Or, possibly, hydrogen could create the same cavities. Miley's patent portfolio (that now belongs to IH) is also interesting because he proposes more precisely creating the exact cavity sizes and structures that allow for an exotic hydrogen species he calls "hydrogen clusters" to form. If we eventually discover the exact geometry we need to produce the NAE, it will be interesting to find out the optimum method of producing them.

  • The Rossi technology uses lithium as the reactive element. Lithium reacts with nickel far more vigorously than hydrogen does. This argument is way off the mark. please consider lithium as the active LENR element in the Rossi approach.

  • The Rossi technology uses lithium as the reactive element. Lithium reacts with nickel far more vigorously than hydrogen does. This argument is way off the mark. please consider lithium as the active LENR element in the Rossi approach.


    If we believe Me356 is telling the truth and Focardi/Piantelli's results were accurate, then pure nickel and hydrogen systems can produce copious excess heat. Lithium may serve multiple functions to enhance the effect (producing atomic hydrogen through LiH production and decomposition and interacting with emission products from the base reaction) but plain nickel and hydrogen is enough. If Focardi and Piantelli had simply switched to powder (allowing more than .1% of their total fuel to be hydrogenated) then they would have been capable of building a practical LENR technology many years ago.

  • That is certainly a method that should be tested. It might be better to exclude it all together and use an atomically roughened surface that has never been exposed to atmosphere. But if the absorption of oxygen into the lattice can create uniquely sized cavities (all of this would have to be tested) then such a system may not be capable of producing the same with only hydrogen. Oxygen may stress the lattice in ways that hydrogen will not. Or, possibly, hydrogen could create the same cavities. Miley's patent portfolio (that now belongs to IH) is also interesting because he proposes more precisely creating the exact cavity sizes and structures that allow for an exotic hydrogen species he calls "hydrogen clusters" to form. If we eventually discover the exact geometry we need to produce the NAE, it will be interesting to find out the optimum method of producing them.

    Lithium can produce the same type of clustering as hydrogen can but at a pressure only 1/4 as great. Think lithium, hot hydrogen.

  • If we believe Me356 is telling the truth and Focardi/Piantelli's results were accurate, then pure nickel and hydrogen systems can produce copious excess heat. Lithium may serve multiple functions to enhance the effect (producing atomic hydrogen through LiH production and decomposition and interacting with emission products from the base reaction) but plain nickel and hydrogen is enough. If Focardi and Piantelli had simply switched to powder (allowing more than .1% of their total fuel to be hydrogenated) then they would have been capable of building a practical LENR technology many years ago.

    It is true that thermocore produced a meltdown condition with just hydrogen and nickel, but there is controllability to consider. Can the hydrogen/nickel reaction be controlled?

  • To reach power density of 200 W/g, I am assuming the Pd would be in nanoparticles scattered over some sort of substrate material with high thermal conductivity. Years ago I met a fellow who was trying to put Pd particles on thin-film synthetic diamond. He said the diamond has the best thermal conductivity of any material.


    I do not think bulk metal Pd could survive 200 W/g.

  • There is a factor you may not be considering.


    What if not all of the heat is produced in the nickel particle (lets say a few nano-meters below the surface) itself, but emission products that may travel some distance (microns, millimeters, or perhaps all the way to the reactor wall) be inducing heating either via triggering an additional nuclear effect or thermalizing somehow. I'm not saying I understand exactly how this would work. However, for example, Me356 claims that his active nickel seems to emit particles that can travel for some distance in an unobstructed path to a piece of lithium. The lithium then glows brightly.

  • It is true that thermocore produced a meltdown condition with just hydrogen and nickel, but there is controllability to consider. Can the hydrogen/nickel reaction be controlled?


    I think so. I heard that during the 18 hour test Dr. Levi witnessed that when the power output shot up to 130kW he called Andrea Rossi and was told to vent some hydrogen to lower the pressure. When he did this the power output dropped. Also, if you are using RFG's like Rossi did in the first one megawatt plant, I suspect you can control the output simply by modulating the power to the RFGs. This will change the quantity of atomic hydrogen in the reactor and the kinetic energy of the hydrogen and hydrogen ions. Different E-Cat systems probably have slightly different control systems, but I'm convinced the reaction can be controlled. However, no system is perfect and we are in the early phases of understanding these systems.

  • Jed,


    re what Fleischmann has told you re PdD for production of electricity:

    the yearly world wide production of electricity is around 22,500 TWhours- power 2.56 TW electric needing some 7.7 TW thermal.

    Compare this please with what I have calculate and then with what you have calcu-inflated.

    Immunity to realism is not a blessing

    peter


    peter

  • Jed,



    you made me check-mate with this answer.


    It is clear that PdD can give some 0.005 TW energy

    per year you come with a CF-phile world in whch Pd is accumulated for 20 years Just for Cold fusion. And a Pd asteroid coming ready for spatial miners.

    Then you make appeal to authority Fleischmann has told only to you that PdD will give a good part of the world's electricity.

    Now I am in a dilemma- if I don't believe you than I am accusing you of not telling the truth.

    if I do not believe what Martin said I am vilifying cold fusion heroes. (I am in a trap)

    However data is data, what is , is what isn't isn't

    The same as with the pipes in the Doral plant.

    With the quadrupling flowmeter.


    I wrote about dominant people based on my recent experience and their first two traits are authority and infallibility.

    Detract but do not retract.


    (I will take this temporary to RvD thread too.)

  • the yearly world wide production of electricity is around 22,500 TWhours- power 2.56 TW electric needing some 7.7 TW thermal.

    Compare this please with what I have calculate and then with what you have calcu-inflated.

    Yes, that is what I said in the first message. Did you read it? I used a lower estimate of the thermal energy but it is close:


    "With 3.8 billion g, that comes to 0.456 TW thermal output. Electricity requires 5 TW thermal to produce 2.3 TW electricity. Assume thermal conversion efficiency does not improve. In this case, 0.456 TW would produce 9% of electricity."

    Then you make appeal to authority Fleischmann has told only to you that PdD will give a good part of the world's electricity.

    This is not an appeal to authority, because Fleischmann really was an authority on palladium. It would only be an appeal to authority if he was not. See: Fallacious Appeal to Authority, Misuse of Authority, Irrelevant Authority.


    http://www.nizkor.org/features…/appeal-to-authority.html


    Also, it clear that he was right. Your estimate is wrong. You forgot that palladium lasts for more than a year.

    Now I am in a dilemma- if I don't believe you than I am accusing you of not telling the truth.

    I do not give a damn whether you believe me or not. If you don't believe me, I suggest you ignore my messages.

  • Fleischmann thought that high power density is possible because one of his cathodes melted.


    The upper limit to temperature depends on the melting point of the cathode metal, or perhaps the melting point of some other component. With a fission reactor, the upper limit is set by the melting point of the zirconium cladding, not the uranium-oxide fuel pellet.


    You cannot actually reach the melting point. Metal weakens and changes in various ways before it melts.

  • Jed, what data suport that PD lasts for more than a year? Working continuously?

    There are many competing uses also very necessary.

    At the highest energy generation density possible?


    And will it work in electrolytic cells or gas phase reactors as at Les Case?

  • Jed, what data suport that PD lasts for more than a year? Working continuously?

    After a cold fusion experiment of any duration, the palladium is still all there. It is a catalyst. It is not consumed. Some of the deuterium transmutes into helium, but none of the palladium is consumed, so it would last for thousands of years. It resembles the lead in lead-acid batteries. Some of the lead in your car battery was used in the 19th century and recycled again and again. Some of it might be ancient.


    HOWEVER, there is some evidence that the palladium might be transmuted. As I said in the first message in this discussion, I assume that will not happen. Or that it can be prevented. If the palladium transmutes, then my estimate will be wrong.

    There are many competing uses also very necessary.

    As I said in the first message, the main competing use is in automobile catalytic converters. These will not be needed if cold fusion is commercialized.


    I do not think you read the first message.

    At the highest energy generation density possible?

    Energy density is a function of the deuterium, not the palladium. Do you mean power density? Why would you not use the highest power density? Why make equipment larger or bulkier than it needs to be, with low power density?


    (I suppose for some specialized applications such as pacemaker batteries low power density might be desirable.)

    And will it work in electrolytic cells or gas phase reactors as at Les Case?

    Both. I do not know whether both will be needed, but the power density per unit of palladium is the same for both. Pressurized electrolytic cells probably have a somewhat lower temperature, but for some applications that may not matter.

  • After a cold fusion experiment of any duration, the palladium is still all there.

    @JED: This is simply wrong. Pd gets transmuted and can undergo fission etc. If you are lucky then you get silver. Just read the old Mizuno 1996 papers - he already knew this. There is a literature summary in JCF14 (2014) written by Kozima about transmutations etc..


    Certainly, with some research efforts, it is possible to minimize these Pd-losses.

  • Does anyone here know how many researchers in the field (a guesstimate) are currently (or planning in 2017) to be working on Pd CF ? What is the LOE compared to NiH based devices? And if any of the replicator community is planning on working on this either institutionally or 'homebased'?