SAFIRE, SUNCELL, E-CAT SK: Three reactors, three theories, one common unifying mechanism - the EVO (Exotic Vacuum Object). [Brown's Gas Joins the Club!]

I'm not sure how 200 psi becomes 13.8 kbar in the indicated patent application from Montgomery Childs on the anode construction. I think one has to keep in mind that these applications may contain deliberately misleading information.

It might then help to focus on what is being actually claimed (i.e. what matters for the patent office). Arranging the claims in a hierarchical tree can assist understanding what the application is actually about.

US20190059149A1

• 1. An electrode apparatus for plasma generation comprising: a hollow electrode assembly connectable to a gas source, comprising, at least one conduit in the assembly for supplying gas under pressure to the inside of the assembly, a gas permeable membrane on the electrode for permitting gas from inside the assembly to effuse across the membrane for supply gas to a plasma discharge from the electrode.
  • 2. The electrode apparatus of claim 1, wherein the electrode further comprises a plasma discharge head from which the plasma is discharged from the electrode.
    • 3. The electrode apparatus of claim 2, wherein the head is composed of a pure element or alloy selected from the group consisting of nickel, iron, carbon, molybdenum, chromium, vanadium, silicon, copper, palladium, platinum, lithium, aluminum, carbon and combinations thereof.
    • 4. The electrode apparatus of claim 2, wherein the geometry of the head is selected from the group consisting of a bulb, sphere, polyhedral, tetrahedral, octahedral, and icosahedral.
  • 5. The electrode apparatus of claim 1, wherein the gas permeable membrane comprising a metal matrix for dissociating diatomic molecules whereby dissociated atomic species effuse through the metal matrix and recombine within the plasma corona above the surface of the metal electrode.
    • 7. The electrode apparatus of claim 5, the hollow electrode further comprising a magnet therein for proving field lines to guide plasma formation, and wherein the metal matrix provides for gas effusion at a constant rate to the environment surrounding the hollow electrode at a lower pressure as compared to the pressure of the environment inside the hollow electrode.
      • 8. The electrode apparatus of claim 7, wherein the magnet of claim 6 being a rare-earth neodymium, samarium-cobalt, or pure ferromagnet, of compositions containing neodymium, iron, and/or boron, or samarium and cobalt.
      • 9. The electrode apparatus of claim 7, wherein the magnet is an electromagnet, the magnetic field of which can be controlled by an electrical current through a particular design of current-carrying wires or media.
      • 10. The electrode apparatus of claim 7, wherein the magnet has a remanence strength of at least 0.0 to 1.5 tesla.
  • 6. The electrode apparatus of claim 1, the hollow electrode assembly further comprising an electrical circuit in a tapered housing.
  • 11. The electrode apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a coating on the anode for promoting a dielectric protective layer which can alter the appearance and characteristics of the plasma discharge.
    • 12. The electrode apparatus of claim 11, wherein the coating is selected from the group consisting of lithium, potassium, sodium in the form of a refractory oxide mixture, decomposable carbonate, decomposable nitrate, a volatile material that would leave behind oxides, and reduced metals of lithium, potassium, or sodium.
      • 13. The electrode apparatus of claim 12, wherein the refractory oxide comprises one or more transition elements of the periodic table.
      • 14. The electrode apparatus of claim 12, wherein the refractory oxide coating comprises one or more lanthanide elements of the periodic table.
• 15. A method for generating a plasma comprising: providing a hollow electrode assembly through which a gas from a gas supply can pass and be effused across the casing of the electrode for supplying a gas for a plasma discharge, introducing the gas under pressure into the electrode assembly such that the gas passes and is effused across the casing, and applying a current and a voltage to the electrode assembly for generating a plasma discharge.

From the patent description and claims, to me it appears that they are using the metal walls of the anode as a hydrogen diffusion membrane, with the diffusion process being governed by the pressure difference between the anode and the chamber atmospheres. Regardless of the metal or alloy composition, hydrogen would inherently diffuse into the anode walls in the atomic form, only to recombine into the molecular form on the low-pressure side or in large pores inside the material, if present.

........but an interesting possibility is ultra dense hydrogen formation from atomic H since there is probably sufficient FeO around to act as a catalyst - which would explain the high rate of fusion and transmutation reactions at such low temperatures. Definitely a winner here!.

Dr Richard

Hydrogen atoms diffusing from bulk metals might have a higher energy than surface-bound Hydrogen atoms—so it might not be strictly required to have metal-oxides similar to those used by Holmlid's group. A possible reference:

https://doi.org/10.1021/ar970030f

Quote

Hydrogen atoms emerging from the bulk of Ni metal to the surface are observed to be the reactive species in the hydrogenation of adsorbed methyl radical, ethylene, and acetylene to gas-phase products. Surface-bound H atoms are unreactive. The distinctive chemistry of a bulk H atom arises largely from its significantly higher energy as compared to that of a surface-bound H atom. These results demonstrate that bulk H is not solely a source of surface-bound H in catalytic hydrogenation as proposed 50 years ago, but rather, a reactant with a chemistry of its own.

This paper was referred in the LENR-Cars patent application by Sottas et al., who are apparently producing ultra-dense hydrogen with a slightly different method than Holmlid, although related.

Quote

[...] In order to create Rydberg matter of hydrogen, it is preferable that it is bulk - and not surface - hydrogen atoms that desorb. Bulk hydrogen atoms traditionally have a significantly higher energy (about 25 kcal/mol when the primary material is Ni) as compared to that of a surface-bound hydrogen atom. See, e.g., ST. Ceyer, The unique chemistry of hydrogen beneath the surface: catalytic hydrogenation of hydrocarbons, Accounts of Chemical Research, 34(9)737-744, 2001. Generally, only the hydrogen species freshly emerging from the bulk of the primary material 14 will efficiently form Rydberg matter then condensed hydrogen clusters.

This could be related to the anode function in the Childs patent application.

Well spotted......they also patent ruthenium, rhodium, iridium as well as Ni as potential UDH catalysts. Which is not surprising since both Ir and Rh have been known to have hydrogenation catalytic activity for a long time. So do we have kaon release and thus muon formation with all its complexities and potential for MeV energy release going on in the SAFIRE reactor?

If in the SAFIRE reactor they do have ultra-dense hydrogen production in the plasma corona—this is how they call it in the patent application—where hydrogen atoms recombine, they might first observe its heat of formation which should be in the order of 1 keV per transitioning H–H pair.

If you're inclined to think that way then you might find this paper of interest: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.…epdf/10.1002/2017JA024498

Quote from can

If you're inclined to think that way then you might find this paper of interest: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.…epdf/10.1002/2017JA024498

I quickly analyzed the Holmlid data. The slow proton expelling energy is absolutely in line with a H*6 ring cluster condensation what is the expected behavior. The central proton of a H7 cluster gets expelled and takes over the the 6* 496eV minus the spin pairing energy lost...

Good find. Of course no correlation with Holmlid's own 630eV.

From today's Rossi's Blog:

1. Anonymous February 2, 2020 at 1:56 AM

   Dr Rossi,

   Do you think that the “scalable ubiquitous EVO” can explain in some measure the Rossi effect and the Ecat operation?

2. Andrea Rossi February 2, 2020 at 3:22 AM

   Anonymous:

   Absolutely not.

   The theoretical bases of the Ecat operation is here:

   http://www.researchgate.net/pu…nge_particle_interactions

   Warm Regards,

   A.R.