Yokose et al. report 3 kW peak power from Cu-Ni-ZrO composite

  • See:

    https://www.researchgate.net/p…_by_CNZ7_Sample_and_H-Gas

    My comment:

    The sample is ~1 kg. That is much more material than you were using years ago. That's good! I am very pleased to see that people are increasing the mass of reactant. I believe that is why the level of heat increased. I believe more heat comes from a larger number of active sites.

    Okay, that may seem like an odd thing to say. It may seem obvious that heat will increase as the mass of reactant increases. But I do not think that has been tested -- or demonstrated -- up until now. We just assumed that is how it works.

    Even what we consider obvious aspects of the phenomenon should be tested. It is possible that a giant mass of reactant might have no active sites. Or it might sinter and stop working.

    I am pleased to see larger samples being tested, but that does not mean small scale tests such as Beiting and Staker are useless. They do superb calorimetry and their signal to noise ratio is high, so there is much to be learned from their tests as well. I am glad to see high s/n small-scale tests AND glad to see scaled-up tests. Both are valuable.

    Note that Staker also reported run-away heat events. I believe they are roughly similar in scale to this, when you adjust for the amount of reactant and surface area.

    Beiting:

    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BeitingEinvestigat.pdf

    Staker:

    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StakerMRpreprintco.pdf

  • Staker link returns a not found error.


    Ha! I jumped the gun. It will be there in about a half hour.


    . . . Okay, it is there now.


    What is Propulsion Science Department/Space Materials Laboratory

    and what cataloging system does the report number, AEROSPACE REPORT NO. ATR-2017-0176, refer to pls.?

    It is one of the laboratories at the Aerospace Corporation (https://aerospace.org/). It is at their headquarters in El Segundo. The report number is their numbering system. It is a pretty big company, with 3,900 employees and many locations. See p. 26 and p. 28:


    https://aerospace.org/sites/de…eAerospaceCorp-AR2017.pdf

  • Great, and greater that it is in line with replicated work done in cooperation before.

    This is a replication, with scale-up.

    Scientifically this is an answer to the reproducibility crisis!


    Too bad it was only a burst...


    Now there is hope of some "funny" application, like what JF Geneste proposed, a looped engine-reactor, and hope for engineers to tweak the reactor so it is usable as a toy, not just an experiment.

    If the toy works for a month, at least engineers will be interested.


    Now why CuNiZrO works well, maybe better explained by Staker paper ;-)

    We need metallurgy experts

  • I would like to see both the number of active sites produced per unit volume of fuel and the total quantity of fuel increased.


    To produce more active sites, I suspect that either nickel needs to be tediously cycled again and again in an ordinary hydrogen atmosphere (like what Focardi and Piantelli did) or that an external source of atomic hydrogen and other gases (perhaps argon) need to be utilized to both texture the surface and to force more hydrogen into the lattice. I think the key is producing a greater quantity of super abundant vacancies and then inducing powerful electric fields in these vacancies. The electric fields can be triggered by bombarding the highly textured surface with charged particles to produce electron waves that can penetrate below the surface or fractoemission.


    There's a problem though. If you put a large quantity of fuel in the reactor it may be difficult to expose it all to a plasma. Probably, you need some sort of system of loading the fuel in an external corona discharge of a hydrogen and argon mixture and then putting it all in the active reactor.

  • Maybe active sites are cooperative via some kind of long range magnetic effect?

    I doubt that, although I wouldn't know. I just mean there are more sites because there are more chances the NAE will be formed. All else being equal, 1 kg of material will have many more sites than 10 to 50 g, which is the size of the samples Takahashi et al. were testing a few years ago. They could only make small batches of material, which they then separated into even smaller amounts. They were testing 10 and 20 g samples. See:


    http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KitamuraAmdemetalde.pdf


    I still have some doubts about the calorimetry, mostly because I have not read it carefully enough to feel confident I understand it. It is complicated.

  • Katsuaki Tanabe had an interesting session

    based on classical pre-W calculations


    Perhaps Tanabe-San can pass

    through Ginza to buy some silver (Gin)


    On his way back from Morioka, to Kyoto


    Perhaps there is gold in Kobe

    But the best gold may be in Switzerland .