Nickel-Hydrogen reactor - Important findings

  • Sorry for the delay...


    So after playing with Ni-H I've achieved condition when behavior that I described at the first post I can confirm that this is happening also with high purity Alumina tubes.

    This mean that pressure is going to a negative values too.

    How can you explain this?


    Normally I use SS tube AISI 316. Fully filled with powder -- at the end. Yes, it is touching the wall.

    All materials are from Alfa Aesar. Nickel is around 80 - 150um in size.

  • JohnyFive

    What about the implications for your opening statements, according to which the container material was a key factor and that the effect wouldn't occur with alumina tubes?


    You're asking others to explain your findings, but you are not providing sufficient information to have a more complete understanding of what you did and how/when it happened (data, photos of the setup, experimental notes, etc).

  • I concur with can that more information is required for anyone to understand your findings.


    What do you mean by "negative pressure"? How do you monitor pressure? Can you control it?


    If you use a vacuum pump and a pressure gauge, I confirm that a pressure lower than the one that can be achieved by the pump can be obtained using Ni-H. However I'm not sure that what's you mean.

  • [...] If you use a vacuum pump and a pressure gauge, I confirm that a pressure lower than the one that can be achieved by the pump can be obtained using Ni-H. However I'm not sure that what's you mean.


    This would be an interesting test to perform for those who have the proper equipment. A double ended tube tightly filled with nickel powder could be arranged, and a hydrogen source on one end and vacuum pump on the other be provided. Then the results when applying a vacuum with the hydrogen source closed/open and if mild heating of the powder filled tube makes any effect in either case could be tested. It shouldn't need a very long time to perform.


    It reminded me of this paper whose effects, to my knowledge, have not been specifically experimentally confirmed by other groups yet (i.e. not attributed to hydrogen absorption into the lattice, migration elsewhere, etc): https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10876-011-0410-6

  • JulianBianchi

    I believe the author of that paper had more in mind Rydberg matter (RM) of alkali atoms like Cesium rather than Hydrogen, which would make the pressure decrease primarily a result of RM formation. Leif Holmlid often writes that due to the presence of inner electrons RM composed of atoms heavier than hydrogen (or small molecules like also H2) cannot form ultra-dense states.


    I don't recall Holmlid ever making mention of such pressure decrease effect in his papers, although it's quite possible he might have observed it. Perhaps gas admission flow rate and times that do not seem consistent with chamber volume could indicate that (although since in retrospect such inconsistencies would be difficult to justify, that could explain why they are never reported).


  • I saw similar pressure behavior in several of the Glowstick runs. The Ni powder in an alumina tube was pre-loaded with H at around 200 C and 5 bar pressure. Then the cell was cooled and pumped out to 30 um (the limit of my vacuum pump) and re-heated to 200C. Over the course of several hours, the pressure was seen to decrease to below 1 um, the measurement limit of the Pirani pressure gauge. The expected de-loading of the Ni with resulting increase in pressure was not seen in these cases.


    I thought at the time that this behavior resulted from H2 previously split by the Ni powder, combining with oxygen trapped in the powder as Nickel Oxide. But at this vacuum, water would not condense even at room temperature, so the NiO must have been fully reduced during the loading phase, and the water vapor removed by the vacuum pump. It could be that any residual hydrogen gets re-adsorbed on the freshly exposed substantial surface area of the Ni powder. Or it could result from the formation of dense hydrogen.


    It's not fully repeatable, having been seen in only two of the six runs using this protocol. But the parameter space is small, so it should be possible to improve this process yield.

  • It's not fully repeatable, having been seen in only two of the six runs using this protocol. But the parameter space is small, so it should be possible to improve this process yield.

    Exactly. For the ones that "failed", (1) add more H2, (2) let Ni split H2 and absorb H, (3) cool and pump out, (4) re-heat. With Ni-H, the faster the increase in temperature the higher the chance to create UDH. Cycle the above until you see this pressure decrease. After this onset, add more H2 at a low rate, pressure should not increase significantly, but temperature will.

  • I think that if we want to maximize the production of excess heat we should consider sources of atomic hydrogen. If we depend on the dissociation of H2 into atomic hydrogen on the nickel surface (especially if there are no spillover catalysts being utilized) the absorption won't be optimized. This is because every step of the process consumes energy: the H2 being grabbed by the surface (adsorption), the H2 being split (dissociation), and the atomic hydrogen moving below the surface (absorption). There are many methods of producing atomic hydrogen, and I really think we need to implement one or more in our reactor designs. With careful and tedious work I am certain we can learn how to perfect the methods of Piantelli and Focardi who did not utilize an additional source of atomic hydrogen, but I think with an additional source of atomic hydrogen we can do even better.

  • This is because every step of the process consumes energy: the H2 being grabbed by the surface (adsorption), the H2 being split (dissociation), and the atomic hydrogen moving below the surface (absorption).


    The formation of metallic hydrides (which some metals will do readily) is exothermic. So not all a loss.

  • Alan,


    I am not specifically addressing energy consumed or produced by the system. I'm speaking of the energy needed by an atomic hydrogen atom to be absorbed and deeply penetrate the nickel. Atomic hydrogen dissociated on a nickel surface has very little energy. However, an ionized plasma can give atomic hydrogen copious energy.

  • Hey "can" thanks for the table and reference. But, I see some elements in the above table of hydride and non-hydride forming elements that must be questioned. For example, Si, silicon forms a very well known hydride, that is silane (SiH4), and there is the analogous "germane" (GeH4), both of which are analogs of methane (CH4). In the next column there are the known analogs of phosphine (PH3), that is arsine and stibnine (the hydrides respectively of arsenic and antimony (or stibnium in latin). These are essentially analogs of ammonia, that is NH3. Further, one might understand halogens as forming hydrides, those all being acids of course, although HF is a weak acid, HCl, HBr and HI are strong acids. The latter, HI may have enough anomalous energetics to be considered as a candidate for participating in possible LENR processes. Even oxygen has both an OH- and H2O "hydrides", and to be sure OD-, is likely essential to F-P CF.


    I guess the dark blue elements with their positive heats of formation are effectively metastable, and effectively require energy input from the environment to be formed. Whereas the red elements tend to form giving off heat as enthalpy.


    Another interesting table would be that showing the Gibb's free energy (delta G = delta H minus T delta S) , the more informative delta G giving a clearer view of the degree to which the hydride formation is spontaneous or not.

  • Longview

    I think the context of this reference is of stable solid hydrides under standard conditions. Basically I wanted to point out without linking the usual paper often cited on the subject that very little hydrogen can normally get absorbed in the lattice of Nickel metal. So is the pressure decrease actually absorption? Or adsorption on the surface of segregated pores? Or something else instead (e.g. RM/UDH formation as speculated in the discussion above) ? I don't feel that one should accept without further questions or investigation that a large pressure reduction upon hydrogen admission is simply the result of H absorption into the Ni lattice.

  • Last few days I was doing experiments with Nickel-Hydrogen, Boron and Aluminium. And there was nothing unusual.

    These experiments were followed by Nickel-Titanium-Hydrogen mixture and I can see additional difference in pressure behavior.


    Decreasing pressure is still there but Titanium absorption behavior changed dramatically. For unknown reason it is not absorbing Hydrogen rapidly anymore.

    Instead it seems that already dissociated Hydrogen is not attractive for Titanium. So it starts absorbing Hydrogen rather when Nickel stops with dissociation.

    At higher temperatures - 900degC - pressure starts to be crazy. It goes up and down by 0.2 Bars within a minute or so. This happens all the time. While pressure tendency is decreasing due to Nickel it seems that Titanium is trying to absorb something even at that high temperature. But quickly it free up the Hydrogen back.

    I think that some interesting chemical process is going on there. But I can't explain it.


    BUT my theory to achieve excess heat due to fast dissociation of Hydrogen molecules by Nickel is wrong.

    It seems that Titanium is not interested in Atomic Hydrogen, hehe. But why?

    If that would work there must be excess heat. But it doesn't.