Takahashi: Enhancement of Excess Thermal Power in Interaction of Nano-Metal and H(D)-Gas

  • Where on earth did you get the idea that the powder is wet? Wet with what?!?


    There are many clues suggesting that the powder is wet.


    1st clue – The plateau along the TC4 curves is more than a clue, it's a strong evidence that a pure substance is involved in the process, as well known to any chemist or physicist, and even to high-school students.

    From https://sites.google.com/site/…rint%2F&showPrintDialog=1


    Pure substances have fixed melting points

    element%20particles10.png




    2nd clue – The substance presents in the reactor chamber (RC), whose boiling determines the TC4 heating plateau, is water (or heavy water), of course! The confirmation comes from the values of the boiling point in the PNZ and CNZ tests, whose initial gas fill pressures were 0.468 and 0.564 MPa respectively (see Table 1 and 2 of paper (1)). The TC4 temperature for a PNZ test was about 136.92 °C (see the bottom left graph on Figure 1 of paper (1)), while it was about 149.62 °C for a CNZ test (see the bottom left graph on page 36 of the presentation (2)). These values are in good agreement with the boiling points of water at those pressures.


    3rd clue – The presence of water inside the RC could be easily explained as the consequence of the reduction of oxides: This fact is well known, for instance, by those who work with zirconia (ZrO2):

    From https://www.uni-muenster.de/im…/eder/papers/b109887j.pdf


    The stoichiometry of hydrogen reduced zirconia and its influence on catalytic activity


    Reduction of zirconia with flowing dry hydrogen leads to the adsorption of hydrogen and to the formation of oxygen vacancies. The number of vacancies increases with increasing treatment temperature, with increasing hydrogen flow rate and with increasing treatment time. The presence of water vapour in the reducing hydrogen causes the number of oxygen vacancies to decrease, presumably due to an equilibrium shift according to the equation: Zr4++O2+H2 -> H2O+VO+Zr3++e.


    4th clue – As a consequence of the re-calcination treatment, the initial charge PNZ (or CNZ) powder inside the RC is heavily oxidized. The weight of powder increases of 4.87% due to the oxidation caused by the calcination process (see page 5 of the presentation (2)). Considering that the PNZ net weight in the RC is 438 g, an oxigen mass of 21.3 g is tied to the metals of the fine powder, whose complete reduction could form up to 24 g of water.


    5th clue – This water mass is in agreement with the duration of a typical TC4 plateau. In the first PNZ test, for example, it lasts about 25 minutes (see Figure 2 of paper (1)). Assuming that the lower temperature of the boiling water drains about 10% of the total heating power (140+95 W), the available heat would be 35,250 J (= 23.5 W * 1500 s). This energy is sufficient to vaporize 16 g of water, considering that the latent heat of evaporation of water at 140°C is about 2160 J/g.


    (1) https://www.researchgate.net/p…_of_Nano-Metal_and_HD-Gas (JCF20 paper)

    (2) https://www.researchgate.net/p…_of_Nano-Metal_and_HD-Gas (JCF20 presentation)

  • Ascoli's claim that the powder is wet is wrong for the following reasons:


    1. There are several papers about the powder gas loading technique, by Takahashi, Arata and others. None of them says there is water in the powder.


    In the case of the last Takahashi's paper under discussion the problem (a big one) is for the authors of that work, not mine.


    Quote

    2. The powder is calcined for 180 hours in an electric oven, in ambient air, at 450 deg C. (p. 2) "Calcined" means "to heat (something, such as inorganic materials) to a high temperature but without fusing in order to drive off volatile matter or to effect changes (such as oxidation or pulverization)." The whole point is to eliminate any water or other volatile material.


    But, as just reported in my previous comment and by admission of Takahashi et al., re-calcination has the effect to heavily oxidize the powder, increasing its weight of about 5%, due to the extra oxygen tied to the metal atoms of the powder.


    Quote

    3. The powder is then baked at 450 deg C under vacuum "to meet the final RC pressure of less than 1 Pa." (p. 2) If there were liquid left in it, it would not fall to such low pressure.


    The liquid water presumably forms after this step, ie at the beginning of the elevated temperature (ET) runs, when H (or D) is introduced in the reactor chamber (RC) and reduces the heavily oxidized metal powder. This water remains trapped inside the volumes of RC and connected pipes during all the #M-N runs with M=1 (ie those performed after the first baking), being reabsorbed as liquid during the weekend suspensions of the ET runs. This water can be eliminated only by a second baking, provided that it is performed under evacuation condition, as it was done during the CNZ sequence presented at JCF20 (see page 22 of (1)). This is probably the reason why the TC4 plateau disappeared from the CNZ7rr#2-2 run (see page 34 of (1)), while it was present in the CNZ7rr#1-2 run (see page 31 of (1))


    Quote

    4. The cells are sealed, and run at high temperatures. If there were water in them, it would vaporize and probably fracture the cell. The pressure is measured in this and other experiments. It does not rise.


    I didn't see any pressure graph in the last Takahashi's paper or in the corresponding JCF20 presentation.


    Some pressure graphs are included in the ICCF22 presentation (2). The graph at page 16 shows that the reactor pressure (Pr) spikes at the end of the TC4 plateau. At that point, Pr drops and the storage tank (ST) pressure (Ps) suddenly rises from 0.3 to 0.5 MPa, probably due to an emergency opening of the valve located between the RC and the ST (see page 6 of (2)).


    (1) https://www.researchgate.net/p…_of_Nano-Metal_and_HD-Gas (JCF20 presentation)

    (2) https://www.researchgate.net/p…_of_Nano-Metal_and_HD-Gas (ICCF22 presentation)

  • Ascoli65 has introduced a rational point regarding the interpretation of the Takahashi et al results


    As Alan Smith pointed out, this is not rational. It is not possible to calcinate powder in for 180 hours in an electric oven, in ambient air, at 450 deg C, and still have it be "very wet."


    Entertaining a hypothesis is not lying. You guys need to grow up.


    I would not call that a hypothesis. It is so far beyond what is possible, I have to conclude that either Ascoli did not read the paper, or he is trolling us.


    Or do you seriously think that powder that has been left in ambient air at 450 deg C for 180 hours might be wet? Do you find that plausible? Is that what you consider a viable hypothesis, worth discussing here?

  • I trust Jed's intent but I just gave him a blast for a foolishly uninformed comment he made.


    Where did you do this? What comment? I am curious to know. I am not upset but bemused.


    Ascoli is pressing ahead with his latest impossible hypothesis. He is unstoppable. He forges ahead with the serene confidence of a sleepwalker, as Adolf Hitler put it (approvingly!).

  • I haven't yet worked my way through much of this paper, but right off the bat I note that Fig 1, top left, shows the sort of inflection point in the reactor heating curve that I have been saying should be associated with heat-activated heat production. I still think that something of the same sort should have been visible in Mizuno's results. Any way of estimating the relative differences in thermal mass in the two systems?


    It may well be present in Mizuno's system. However, his air flow calorimeter will hide it. The problem is not the thermal mass of the reactor so much as the fact that the air flow calorimeter can only measure the heat after it leaves the cell, whereas the oil flow goes into the cell and detects the heat as soon as it is produced. There is no delay. The results are not blurred together over time.


    Mizuno and I are aware of this shortcoming. He has to use an air flow calorimeter because of the cell is so large, and because of limitations in space, and the money he can devote to instruments. Takahashi's calorimeter is much better. All of his equipment is better. It also costs far more than Mizuno and I could possibly afford.

  • In the conclusions of the paper presented at JCF-20 it is stated ;-


    'Excess thermal power reached at the level of 200 W/kg-sample continuing for several weeks or more, by the elevated temperature interaction of either D-gas or H-gas and Ni-based binary nano-composite powders supported in zirconia flakes.'


    I think that heat output, in a very low pressure D2 environment goes beyond the modest effects recorded in Ascoli65's link :- https://www.uni-muenster.de/im…/eder/papers/b109887j.pdf Effects which were produced in experiments specifically designed to trigger oxidation/reduction effects and involved 'flowing hydrogen' at (presumably) BarG. After all, 200 watts for 200 hours is 40kW/h which is (from memory) the calorific value of the oxidation of a kilo of H. I think they might have noticed that oxidation, since it would have made rather a lot of steam even with a smaller amount of zirconia.

  • Bruce__H wrote:

    Ascoli65 has introduced a rational point regarding the interpretation of the Takahashi et al results


    Jed Rothwell replied:


    As Alan Smith pointed out, this is not rational. It is not possible to calcinate powder in for 180 hours in an electric oven, in ambient air, at 450 deg C, and still have it be "very wet."


    Bruce__H wrote:

    Entertaining a hypothesis is not lying. You guys need to grow up.


    Jed Rothwell replied:


    I would not call that a hypothesis. It is so far beyond what is possible, I have to conclude that either Ascoli did not read the paper, or he is trolling us.


    Or do you seriously think that powder that has been left in ambient air at 450 deg C for 180 hours might be wet? Do you find that plausible? Is that what you consider a viable hypothesis, worth discussing here?

    ------------------------------------------------------------------



    This demonstrates Jed’s (and Alan’s) lack of scientific background in the materials under question (as well as Takehashi, et al). Jed and Alan are partially correct in that heating ZrOx at 450C for an extended period in air will drive off water. However, it also causes full oxidation to ZrO2. Then, when the material is exposed to H2, it immediately forms surface hydroxyls, which then further react with H atoms on the surface to form water, which desorbs. Ascoli’s calculation based on weight gain is likely correct as the weight gained was obviously removable to begin with, and will be removed again, as water.


    For a full discussion of this type of chemistry, see R. Prins, “Hydrogen Spillover, Facts and Fiction”, Chemical Reviews, 112, (2012) 2714-2738. ZrOx materials are explicitly discussed.


    Also note that in my whitepaper in the Appendix I have a manuscript that was submitted to Phys. Lett. A commenting on A. Kitamura, T. Nohmi, Y. Sasaki, A. Taniike, A. Tahahaski, R. Seto, Y. Fujita, Phys. Lett. A 373 (2009) 3109, wherein I bring out this point. Specifically, I wrote:


    “A significant complicating factor with metal oxides is the observation that absorbed hydrogen can migrate onto the oxide, ZrO2 in this case, to form surface hydroxylated material, i.e. ZrO2Hx, where x in indeterminate and difficult to control, in a process typically known as spillover. Kitamura rejects this possibility but without specifying why. PdO/ZrO2 has been specifically studied in this regard and spillover noted9. “


    where ref 9 is L. F. Chen, J. A. Wang, M. A. Valenzuela, X. Bokhimi, D. R. Acosta, O. Novaro, J. Alloy and Cmpds. 417 (2006) 220


    Note that the hydrogen migrating onto the oxide is atomic in nature, and is formed by H2 absorbtion and disassociation on metal particulates/surfaces. Takehashi’s control experiments will not show this effect since he excludes any metal particulate material.

  • Ascoli

    I haven't really kept track of Ascoli65 so I have no particular opinion of his intent.

    Entertaining a hypothesis is not lying. You guys need to grow up.

    Baseball is entertainment too,


    Hypothesis 1.. Mizuno faked the spreadsheets

    Hypothesis 2. Takahashi's calorimeter responds to ambient remperatures


    This is Strike 3. Takahashi puts water in the powder..

    Bruce.. you might do well to review Ascolian form and read ALL the relevant papers in detail..

    You never know.. you might come up with an entertaining hypothesis of you own..Batter up?

  • After all, 200 watts for 200 hours is 40kW/h which is (from memory) the calorific value of the oxidation of a kilo of deuterium


    Yes, I think it is. A round number, by coincidence. 40 kWh = 144 MJ. 1 kg of hydrogen is 1000 moles. It produces 500 moles of water. The heat of formation of water is 285 kJ/mole. So that's 142,500 kJ, or 143 MJ.

  • This demonstrates Jed’s (and Alan’s)lack of scientific background in the materials under question (as well asTakehashi, et al). Jed and Alan are partiallycorrect in that heating ZrOx at 450C for an extended period in air will driveoff water. However, it also causes fulloxidation to ZrO2. Then, when thematerial is exposed to H2, it immediately forms surface hydroxyls, which thenfurther react with H atoms on the surface to form water, which desorbs. Ascoli’s calculation based on weight gain islikely correct as the weight gained was obviously removable to begin with, andwill be removed again, as water.


    Two questions arise:


    1. After baking for 180 hours in an electric oven, in ambient air, at 450 deg, the powder is then baked in a vacuum at 450 deg C for several days. Why doesn't this remove the oxygen?


    2. When you heat the powder up to 300 deg C in hydrogen, why does the pressure gradually fall? (As described in the paper.)


    Takahashi and others have said many times they take these steps ensure there is no contamination in the powder, and that the powder will absorb gas. You are saying this method does not work. They have failed to remove the oxygen, which is known to contaminate and prevent the cold fusion reaction. So, if their method does not work, what do you recommend they do instead? (Side question: And do you really think you know more chemistry than the authors of these papers? Yes, of course you do!)

  • Ascoli65 has introduced a rational point regarding the interpretation of the Takahashi et al results. It is the sort of thing that can be addressed by counterarguments rather than threats. Contributions like that should be welcomed here.

    The TC4 temperature for a PNZ test was about 136.92 °C (see the bottom left graph on Figure 1 of paper (1)), while it was about 149.62 °C for a CNZ test (see the bottom left graph on page 36 of the presentation (2)). These values are in good agreement with the boiling points of water at those pressures.


    The pressure started at .1Mpa or ambient... When you heat gas then pressure obviously increases. TC4 is the lowest measuring TC and obviously cannot be used to document actual gas pressure/temperature.


    May be after two more bottles of Vodka Ascoli will find an old paper that can explain his hypothesis relating to the new paper. May be he will also be able to extract the water vapor pressure for PdNiZrO that forms on the surface only and he also finds an explanation why the pressure is not going down as a function of water formation...


    Even better if he wants to discuss older Takahashi stuff, then he should open an other thread. Proposed title: Ascolis wet dreams.

  • 1 heating metal oxides in vacuum at 450 C causes thermal splitting thus removal of oxygen leaving pure PN or CN nanoparticles on a Zirconia base since the Zr bonds O more strongly and requires higher temperatures. Clever manipulation to achieve a specific nano-structure.

    2 D or H pressure reduces due to absorption by nanoparticles.

    Water formation unlikely :).

  • A round number, by coincidence. 40 kWh = 144 MJ. 1 kg of hydrogen is 1000 moles. It produces 500 moles of water. The heat of formation of water is 285 kJ/mole. So that's 142,500 kJ, or 143 MJ.

    No coincidence Jed. I keep the lights on in the lab working with bulk hydrogen generation systems.

  • Do we know or is it easy to find out the actual mass of hydrogen responsible for a given output to more accurately deduce the mechanism of excitation across experiments? I see often people in anomilous hydrogen/metal heating experiments supposing that the reactions are MeV scale per reaction with little experimental indications to solidify this. Well besides theoretical assumtions, I know there isn't anything wrong with that.

  • And do you really think you know more chemistry than the authors of these papers? Yes, of course you do!)


    A short missive to the authors of the paper can shortcut this Ascolian thread diversion..

    as happened with the most recent Ascoilan hypothesis

    " Takahashi's calorimeter responds to ambient remperatures"


    One can introduce significant H20 into the powders if one tries.. by bubbling H2 thru water but Takahashi et al did not do this..


    Re: H20 desorption from the powder..

    An enquiry might mention this statement


    The desorption of water from the heterolytically dissociated

    2H/ZrO2 (101) surface at ambient pressure requires temperatures

    above 1500 K because of the high endergonic character

    of the process (ΔGII = +3.28 eV) or above 800 K when the

    partial pressure of water decreases to UHV conditions (10−12

    bar). As in the initial hydrogenation step, NPs can undergo

    dehydration at milder conditions compared to the regular

    surface. In particular, water can start desorbing from the

    surface, creating an O vacancy at temperatures above 450 K, a

    temperature at which several catalytic processes involving

    oxides start to occur.6 In summary, NPs of zirconia can

    dissociate hydrogen and desorb water at milder reaction

    conditions compared to the extended surface, changing

    completely the landscape for the chemistry of these systems.

    In the special case of zirconia, this leads a nonreducible oxide to

    become reducible when prepared in a nanostructured form.


    https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acsomega.7b00799

  • In the conclusions of the paper presented at JCF-20 it is stated ;-


    'Excess thermal power reached at the level of 200 W/kg-sample continuing for several weeks or more, by the elevated temperature interaction of either D-gas or H-gas and Ni-based binary nano-composite powders supported in zirconia flakes.'


    IMO, these conclusions are highly disputable, as the rest of the paper. There is no reason to assume the production of any power in excess with respect to conventional sources.


    Quote

    I think that heat output, in a very low pressure D2 environment goes beyond the modest effects recorded in Ascoli65's link :- https://www.uni-muenster.de/im…/eder/papers/b109887j.pdf Effects which were produced in experiments specifically designed to trigger oxidation/reduction effects and involved 'flowing hydrogen' at (presumably) BarG.


    The tests at Kobe University were run exactly at this range of pressure. See Tables 1 and 2 of Takahashi's paper: 0.5 MPa corresponds to 5 bar.


    So, the introduction of hydrogen inside the reactor chamber could have generated around 20 g of water by reduction of the metal oxides formed during the calcination process. This mass of water is enough to explain the behavior of temperatures recorded during the heat up phase of the test runs.