MFMP: Automated experiment with Ni-LiAlH

BobHiggins

They don't seem to have changed the line I previously indicated.

can,

I can't really test it until it gets to 1:00 pm (13:00) where the difference would show.

Quote from BobHiggins

I can't really test it until it gets to 1:00 pm (13:00) where the difference would show.

The code picks up the time stamp from the OS, so for test purposes you can just temporarily change your time zone in the Windows clock.

BobHiggins

I guess that temporarily changing the system time would help testing it quicker, unless you currently need it to be accurate.

The function they're using builds it from there.

@Alan,

Yes, I could advance the clock, but it can create network problems to do that and I don't want to have files created with a timestamp in the future. In the mean time, I have added a " Z" at the end of the time format that provides the offset between the recorded time and UT. So far, this has worked using the JBytedit program and tested on a multi-run spectrum. If, in another 50 minutes, the date stamp proves to not be working properly, I will edit the format strings myself and report that it is not working to Spectrum Techniques and send them my modified version.

I have already asked Spectrum Techniques why they think the number formatting as can described wouldn't work on my XP system.

Quote from BobHiggins

I have already asked Spectrum Techniques why they think the number formatting as candescribed wouldn't work on my XP system.

The new File call for multi-run is in MultiRunThread.class. This uses two functions the Java system library - File() and String()

The call to String() appears near B46BEh in the binary. It might be possible to reformat the call in the binary code, but some further detective work into the bytecode structure is needed.

The problem with WinXP is probably an incompatibility with the current Java system library calls.

Well, it appears that the Spectrum Techniques modified MCA_Stand_Alone.jar does produce the correct 24 hour format from the multi-run spectra. I have added the " Z" to get the offset from UT also included in the time. Here is the result at 1:00 pm today:

The MCA_Stand_Alone.jar file I used was the one I modified. I modified the version to show as 1.2.00-BH. This version is here: https://drive.google.com/file/…5VFBRd2M/view?usp=sharing

Of course, you will have to rename this file with out the "_BH" and put it in place of the original MCA_Stand_Alone.jar in the installation folder.

BobHiggins

For people reading the file it's probably not needed to download a new version of the program. I can test if you upload a .spu file with the new date format (I am strongly for ISO-formatted dates though).

Now, onto a different subject.

This might seem a bit off-topic at this stage, but perhaps it's the right time to ask as there won't be experiments until next week. To your knowledge, can Piantelli's orbital capture reaction occur - following a suitable impulse or irradiation - on a transition metal surface that does not have nano/micro clusters, if the H- ions come from somewhere else? Also, has Piantelli ever hinted informally that the process of formation of H- could appear exothermic but not as much as the orbital capture reactions involving it?

can,

Spectrum Techniques is saying that they cannot make the file naming change in the multi-run files because,

"I have been advised by our software engineer that we are unable to modify this code because we are only able to compile it on windows 7 or for later versions of windows."

Regarding Piantelli's process ... Keep in mind that I have only had one chance at dialog with Dr. Piantelli a couple of years ago - I do not have communication with him. Piantelli's clusters are "right sized surface metal grains". They are not nano- or micro-clusters that are added to the surface. They are the surface metal grains on a polished Ni rod. The right sizing issue has to do with having the right number of atoms for a condensate (collective) action of these atoms at the right time on the H- anions on the surface of the Ni. Piantelli observes 6 MeV protons coming from the reaction. The energy to supply 6 MeV to a single particle cannot come from chemical action to form H-, or from energy given up in shrinking an H atom (or anion) to a sub-ground state - it is just too much energy. The only way (my opinion) a single particle could emerge with 6 MeV of energy is if some mass were converted to energy, likely taken in some manner from the nucleus.

Piantelli says that when H2 splits catalytically on the Ni surface, it splits into H- and H+, not into two neutral monatomic H atoms. Going from H2 to two neutral H atoms is endothermic, but I don't know about the case of splitting into H- and H+ what the chemical balance is. However, we are talking about chemical scale numbers here, that are normally below 10 eV - we are not talking about even keV scale effects.

Quote from BobHiggins

Spectrum Techniques is saying that they cannot make the file naming change in the multi-run files because, [...]

That's unfortunate, although I am not sure why they would answer that way.

Luckily I can now easily sort the files correctly through coding.

Quote from BobHiggins

Regarding Piantelli's process ... Keep in mind that I have only had one chance at dialog with Dr. Piantelli a couple of years ago - I do not have communication with him. Piantelli's clusters are "right sized surface metal grains". They are not nano- or micro-clusters that are added to the surface. They are the surface metal grains on a polished Ni rod. The right sizing issue has to do with having the right number of atoms for a condensate (collective) action of these atoms at the right time on the H- anions on the surface of the Ni.

I was citing the wording used in the patents. There are references to "nanoclusters" , "nanometric clusters", "micro-nanometric clusters", "nanocrystalline structures" and so on, but I was only referring to these in a very general way as an introduction to my question.

Quote from BobHiggins

Piantelli observes 6 MeV protons coming from the reaction. The energy to supply 6 MeV to a single particle cannot come from chemical action to form H-, or from energy given up in shrinking an H atom (or anion) to a sub-ground state - it is just too much energy. The only way (my opinion) a single particle could emerge with 6 MeV of energy is if some mass were converted to energy, likely taken in some manner from the nucleus.

To be clearer, I'm not saying nor implying that the the energy for the emitted protons he observes comes directly from a chemical reaction or shrinking to a sub-ground hydrogen state. If the latter (especially) happens, it's a process separate from the nuclear reactions that might be observed. I was curious to know if Piantelli in person (he doesn't in the patents) ever suggested or hinted to have observed this in addition to the MeV particles.

Quote from BobHiggins

Piantelli says that when H2 splits catalytically on the Ni surface, it splits into H- and H+, not into two neutral monatomic H atoms. Going from H2 to two neutral H atoms is endothermic, but I don't know about the case of splitting into H- and H+ what the chemical balance is. However, we are talking about chemical scale numbers here, that are normally below 10 eV - we are not talking about even keV scale effects.

I don't think that this alone would have a positive energy balance. However, if under certain conditions it's accompanied by something else (e.g. the previously mentioned shrinking of the hydrogen atom) it could look like it is.

But let me rephrase my true question in my previous comment in a hopefully clearer manner, disregarding the theoretical minutiae:

-> if the H- can be abundantly produced in other ways than catalytic H2 dissociation at the Ni surface, do you think (or has Piantelli suggested) that the "right sized" structures would still be needed for the orbital capture reactions at the transition metal surface?

can,

I don't think Piantelli is suggesting that the "right sized" structures are at all responsible for the catalysis of H2 to H- and H+. According to my take on the Piantelli theory, the "right sized" metal grains are responsible for what I have termed, "Higgins Transient Condensate" action that is responsible for pulling the H- into the metal grain and, at the same time, extracting the energy to shrink the H- anion into a deep Dirac state so that it may behave as a heavy negatively charged composite fermion. Once shrunken, it can enter a nearby Ni atom, wherein it descends to the lowest orbital in tight radius around the nucleus. This f/H- would be about 6x the mass of a muon, which is known to cause nuclear effects upon entering an atom in place of an electron. Piantelli doesn't say how it happens, but he says that the H- enters the Ni atom, descends to the lowest radius orbital, and results in at least one branch of the reaction releasing the 6 MeV proton.

BobHiggins

I see, thanks for explaining your take on Piantelli's theory.

I was thinking about something slightly different in the context of what is described in the following composite image that I made some time ago with information from one of Piantelli's patents ... but I'm unsure of whether to start a potential debate about it in this thread.

can,

Yes, this could probably use a new thread. This is talking about supplying an increased H- flow to/over bare Ni. In the experiments with LiAlH4, the molten Li-Al-H hydride is (wetted to)/(in contact with) the Ni. The only way that hydrogen gets to the Ni is through this molten coating. The Li-Al-H is an ionic hydride that fundamentally stores the H inside the molten film as H-. There is probably catalytic action at the surface of the Li-Al-H to split the H2 into H- and H+ and the only way an H+ would enter is if two electrons were supplied to make it an H-.

Personally I hope you both keep using this thread unless something new comes up-- for me it is easy to follow. I originally wanted to help, but Can has this so well covered (I would just be a bug.)

Others may just not be speaking up the thread is awesome.

Bob- I am interested in what you are trying to do. I respect you greatly. Once you said you did not have a set theory per se that you wanted to discuss, but I never followed up on this. Did you mean something like the Mossbauer effect? I know that you have the scent of something, you have the protocol nailed down as best as I have seen. I think many others will follow in your footsteps. As this work will be the new GA on how to do it. So if I may ask... what do you think will happen? Or if you are not ready now and just experimenting it works for me.

Go @Alan!

I think what you are doing in processing is very interesting and I look forward to seeing how it performs. It doesn't quite fit into my present thinking for what is wrong with the fuels, but it will be a very interesting data point. Just my opinion, and you know what they say about opinions ...

Along that line, here is some thinking out loud about Ni "activity". One of the most active Ni forms is Raney Ni. Raney Ni is a Ni catalyst that is so active, it is pyrophoric. While this Raney Ni is not known to work in Ni-H LENR reactions (and I have seen a recent experiment again suggesting it is not), it is useful to discuss some of Raney Ni's characteristics. Raney Ni is made by creating a fine alloy of Ni and Al. After cooling, the Al is preferentially etched out of the alloy in a NaOH solution, leaving the Ni in a sponge form with chemically cleaned Ni surfaces. Note that any oxide that may have been present in the Ni would have been gettered out by the Al. One of the ways they assess the surface area of the Raney Ni is by measuring its adsorption of hydrogen - lots of hydrogen adsorption means lots of active surface area. So if Raney Ni adsorbs hydrogen (ad-sorption is on the surface), and if it does it catalytically as Piantelli describes as H- and H+ ions on its surface, then you have the surface of the Raney Ni storing the hydrogen in a highly active form - the ionic components for the Langmuir torch. So, the pyrophoric activity of the Raney Ni could be due to the active hydrogen it adsorbs naturally onto its surface.

Question: When have we seen such equivalent Ni "activity" (being pyrophoric) in Ni powders with high EXTERNAL surface area? I haven't seen any reports of any carbonyl Ni powders that were pyrophoric. If the pyrophoric nature of Raney Ni is due to the adsorption of hydrogen as H- and H+ on it surface, it seems desirable from a Piantelli theory standpoint, to induce that same characteristic in the carbonyl Ni powders to maximize its LENR potential.

Are the carbonyl Ni particles, as they are first precipitated, highly active? As they are stored, typically in a jar, I think the carbonyl Ni loses its activity. We have seen reports of a first Ni + LiAlH4 experiment being run showing XH, and then subsequent experiments with the same materials showing little or no XH. Are the materials losing their activity? Is there a better way to store the components? Raney Ni is stored in highly de-oxygenated water. From an oxygen standpoint, it is like storing the powder in a vacuum, but it also helps prevent pyrophoric burning during handling of the powder.

So, how do we induce Ni powders to have surface area that will be chemically active the way the Raney Ni internal surface area is chemically active? How do we activate the carbonyl Ni powders in a way that reaches deep into the nooks and crannies of the particles? Do we dissolve the particles in liquid Al and etch back in NaOH? How do you get the molten Al to wet to the Ni in the first place? Do you add Li in the alloy? Hmmm... this is starting to sound like etching back the spent fuel from a heated Ni + LiAlH4 reaction.

After producing a chemically activated Ni powder, it would be prudent to store it in a vacuum, an inert gas, or in de-oxygenated water until introduced into a reactor for use.

@Alan,

I like your system - it looks nicely organized. These experiments are complicated to run. Organization and planning are the only way to realize your intended protocol.

Alan Smith

Maybe a dedicated thread would be better for this discussion, but your mixture reminds me a bit of this patent which was first posted elsewhere and suggested to be closely related with Rossi:

https://www.google.com/patents/WO2016026720A1

They use(d?) more graphite and less Cu than what you've planned. However they also use externally introduced hydrogen and no Lithium (although it's mentioned).