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

Ascoli made a rational point "The increase in the heating rate measured at about t=9:35 by RTD1 and RTD2 is easily explained by the drying off of the PNZ powder at the lower levels of the reactor chamber (RC). No need to invoke any anomalous heating due to an imaginary nuclear reaction triggered at whatsoever temperature level."

What's wrong with this as a hypothesis? Maybe it is wrong but that is for everyone to figure out by looking at the evidence. Jed has done an OK job of making counterarguments but I am not yet persuaded. Everyone else is basically saying of Ascoli65, 'No, no, no, no, no. How dare he! He should be thrown off this site that liar!' Not much there to convince me that Ascoli65 is wrong.

It is particularly rich in irony to see this behaviour here when a favourite refrain on this site is how LENR is a victim of groupthink and exclusionary practices by evil evil mainstream science.

Quote from Bruce__H

RTD2 is easily explained by the drying off of the PNZ powder

What's wrong.. There is no water in the powder.. Ask Takahashi ..

of course Ascoli has not already done this/.. duty.. as it didnt with Hypothesis 2...

fair warning was given twice until I contacted takahashi

which resulted in an embarrassing mishit on strike 2

but ascoli preferred/ prefers to elaborate fantastic scenarios

and now bruce uses them to justify broad attacks on lenr

Quote from Bruce__H

is particularly rich in irony to see this behaviour here when a favourite refrain on this site is how LENR is a victim of groupthink and exclusionary practices by evil evil mainstream science.

that is not my refrain...I like baseball

this innings has a while to go

it should be good on the replay

Quote from Alan Smith

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

No, I meant the fact that Takahashi's energy output just happens to be about equal to burning 1 kg of hydrogen is a coincidence. It is a very round number. Suspiciously round. When I come up with a round number from a calculation, I get a bad feeling I must have made a mistake. Which I often do. As I often say, what are one or two decimal places between friends? And as my late mother said to me: you really should learn to use a slide rule so you won't lose track of decimal places so often.

Quote from JedRothwell

, I meant the fact that Takahashi's energy output just happens to be about equal to burning 1 kg of hydrogen is a coincidence

I can check your calculations..

Pharmacists often do..

the energy outputs per hydrogen atom from Takahashi seem a tad more than the 2 eV or so due to combustion

Quote from Alan Smith

Hypothesis 3. Ascoli is wasted here.

Do you mean his talent is wasted, or that he is inebriated?

Quote from Bruce__H

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

Post #32, this thread.

Oh, boy, did you get that wrong! Post 32:

"The field of LENR could do without more of this sort of conspiricist babble. Jed has little experience with the world of academic research world and as a result he thinks in cartoons."

First, I am the least conspiracy theory minded person in this field. I don't even believe conspiracies when they are later revealed to be mostly true, such as MIT fudging the data. I have NEVER said there is a conspiracy against cold fusion. A conspiracy is surreptitious, planned and organized. Opposition to cold fusion has always been open, unplanned and disorganized. The people leading the opposition, such as Morrison, are not the sharpest knives in the drawer. They are, so to speak, several tacos short of a fiesta platter. So they are not capable of conspiring their way out of a paper bag. See:

https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf

Second, regarding the world of academic research, I attended two universities, and I have been editing and translating papers for prima donna scientists for many, many years in cold fusion. So I know academic professors and their little tricks. Particularly this set of professors, many of whom were sent by Central Casting.

As a prelude to a strikeout .. a replay..of hypothesis 1/Strike 1 is in order..

Much of this thread is diversion ..it needs to be relegated to the minor league..like Ascoli

the notion that the calcined and crushed powder is watery is 100% Ascolian spin..and false

without specification or reference..

......Another point is how does the recalcination produce such a dramatic increase in excess heat ? It's not discussed in the paper at all - does it progressively increase the optimal nanostructural configuration of the CN or PN particles on the zirconia base up to some saturated level?

Quote from Dr Richard

how does the recalcination produce such a dramatic increase in excess heat ?

That mechanism is the subject of current research.. hopefully the gamma fingerprint is revealing..

the report on the low gamma window preliminary investigation will be in English within 2 months..

.....or look at the fine ultrastructure of the catalyst using SEM as it changes following each calcination (might even find some of Bob G's doughnut markings from EVO strikes following the excess heat runs. ....and look for transmutations.....should be interesting and could turn out to be another way of fuelling Mizuno' R20 reactor adding powder with the mesh.

Quote from Bruce__H

Ascoli made a rational point "The increase in the heating rate measured at about t=9:35 by RTD1 and RTD2 is easily explained by the drying off of the PNZ powder at the lower levels of the reactor chamber (RC).

No, this is not rational. It is impossible. There is no liquid in the powder. Nothing to dry off. They spend days heating it high temperatures in air, and then in a vacuum, to ensure there is no liquid, and no oxygen.

If this assertion is "rational," it would be equally rational to say: "The increase in the heating rate comes from the stream of gasoline and air that is pumped into the cell." Or: "The increase in the heating rate comes from the chunk of plutonium-238 they put in the reactor several hours after the experiment begins." Do you see the problem? There is no gasoline added to the cell. They do not put a chunk of plutonium into the cell. There is no way they did either of these things. So how can it be "rational" to assert that they did?

“In return, we only ask everyone abide by a basic decorum, show some professional respect, and avoid accusations...no matter their opinions on LENR.”

True, except for the last part, as this thread clearly demonstrates.

Quote from interested observer

“In return, we only ask everyone abide by a basic decorum, show some professional respect, and avoid accusations...no matter their opinions on LENR.”

True, except for the last part, as this thread clearly demonstrates.

Wish this was a matter of opinion, claiming discrediting parameters that aren't even hinted or given credence in the paper is not just "opinion". But I guess respect is always due!

Quote from LeBob

. But I guess respect is always due!

Quote from interested observer

True, except for the last part, as this thread clearly demonstrates.

SECOND RESPECTFUL WARNING

If the entity Ascoli65 has legitimate concerns about the air conditioning WATER

why does it not contact Akito Takahashi directly..?

As an accomplished pic bloodhound Ascoli should be able to find Akito Takahashi's email easily

Of course Ascoli may prefer to pepper this thread with foolishness

and develop a fantastic scenario..

For those who think Ascoli has legitimate concerns about water in calcined powder

A short recap of the most recent Ascolian fallacy Is educationaL

The NEDO Initiative - Japan's Cold Fusion Programme

It's perhaps germane to note that when Matt Trevithick approached the forum to ask for suggestions about which experiment the LF forum community would most like to see performed, many people sincerely tried to answer what was a very difficult question. Ascoli repeatedly and disingenuously proposed a (to my understanding) - somewhat marginal - experiment, specifically because he thought it was likely to fail, prove that LENR wasn't real and thus dissuade Google from further research in the area. Quite aside from the fact that a single negative experiment doesn't prove anything about whether LENR is real or not, Ascoli was disingenuous about why he was suggesting the experiment. He presented the experiment as a good candidate for replication according to the criteria that were being discussed, rather than outlining his motive for advocating for the experiment. It was only later that his reasoning became clear. He repeatedly dragged the thread off-topic, and if my memory serves correctly, continued to advocate for the experiment even after he was asked, more than once, to desist.

It was incredibly frustrating to read his contributions to the thread, because it was repeatedly pointed out to him that his chosen experiment was a bad candidate for a number of reasons. Ascoli persisted because, as became clear later, he wasn't thinking about the question the same way others were. He was pushing for an experiment he thought would fail, and so the technical challenges inherent in the experiment were of no consequence to him.

In short, he repeatedly sucked the oxygen out of an important discussion by advancing a disingenuous and vandalous argument.

Jed wrote:

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!)

-------

Re: 1. Baking for 180 hrs in air at 450C reacts atmospheric oxygen with the substoiciometric ZrOx, bring it back closer to the theoretical ZrO2 composition. To decompose that oxide under vacuum will require considerably higher temperatures. However, placing hydrogen oven the material, if an atomizing substance like metal particles or surfaces is present, will allow the occurrence of a different sequence of chemical reactions involving formation of various types of surface hydroxyl moieties, which can then further react to form water. These reactions will release heat as they are spontaneous. As can be seen from the results in the tables presented in the paper referenced at the start of this thread, the yield decreases with each cycle and is restored by recalcining. This behavior is reminiscent of the systematic behavior I noted in Ed Storms Pt anode/Pt cathode experiments in my 2002 paper.

The formed water may or may not be released from the surface depending on conditions. However at the usual reaction temperatures most of it would come off.

Some people may think that having a large mass of zirconia beads is good for avoiding this, but the reverse is true. Atomized hydrogen is highly diffusive and reactive. If there is an atomization source, such as metal surfaces or particles present, atomized hydrogen will be formed and diffuse to all of the zirconia in the reactor.

Curbina asked where the hydrogen comes from. The answer is from Takehasi, when he adds it. (P.S. Your sarcastic tone is an example of why I don't participate here much anymore.)

RB cited a DFT calculation as to the energetics of the situation. In doing so he misinterprets how those results apply here. Those authors computed cases for a flat surface and nanoparticles. The flat surface calculation would be representative, insofar as it is accurate, to the bulk of the zirconia. We are not talking about fully metallizing the Zr in the ZrO2. That as shown in the calculation is extremely difficult to do in the fashion simulated. What we are talking about could be termed ‘defect ZrOx’, and it represents some unspecified low fraction of the total Zr oxide. (One could potentially calculate the amount by comparing the O2 uptake by weight gain measurements to the total mass of ZrOx, which is essentially what Ascoli did to calculate amount of water formation.) The NP (nanoparticle) results are more appropriate to compare to the defect-site ZrOx. As the Italian authors write: “on zirconia NPs, characterized by the presence of low coordinated ions [i.e., defects], water desorption becomes accessible such that even at temperatures close to 450 K [that’s 177C] the reaction becomes exergonic [i.e. gives up heat]”

Re. 2: If one understands the mechanisms described above, the answer is most likely because a.) some hydrogen remains in the solid as hydroxyl species, and b) esp in the Pd-containing case, some hydrogen remains in the Pd, this is less applicable with the CNZ case. However, to actually come up with a definitive explanation, a lot more data is needed, especially concerning the gas phase composition and some idea of what was happening to the bulk solids.

In the end the ‘PNZ’-type work fails to provide adequate information to understand what is going on chemically, and then attributes apparent excess heat to speculative nuclear reactions. Further, even though there are clear examples of the need to evaluate error levels quantitatively now, this is also not done.

Re: “So, if their method does not work, what do you recommend they do instead?”

I recommend they take all relevant factors into account in their data analysis. Given the materials they are working with there is little they can do to avoid this oxidation-reduction cycle.