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

  • I recommend they take all relevant factors intoaccount in their data analysis. Giventhe materials they are working with there is little they can do to avoid thisoxidation-reduction cycle.


    From the calorimeter the excess heat is well derived and as stated in the range of up to 100000eV/ hydrogen. From point of COP its still low.


    From a point of practical use I would recommend a simpler setup with a more stable H*/D* catalyst.


    Japanese researchers always try to avoid giving all details but like to show us their success. Without a detailed 3D! pressure/temperature graph correlated with heat it's difficult to make detailed conclusions. E.g. there is a significant part of Nickel in the fuel that is known to have long stable oxides too. I would like to know the real amount of hydrogen that has initially been absorbed by Nickel and platinum together with the internal pressure change.


    Speculations as done by Ascoli are just FUD as they are unrelated to the finding of excess heat. Any serious poster should clearly state what aspect he discusses. Discussing the short initial heating phase can be interesting but then you have to clearly state that you just look at this fact.


  • Thanks kirkshanahan , sorry if my languaje appears somehow sarcastic, not intended, I just intend to employ a sort of teathrical dramatic languaje, sorry if it comes out as Sarcasm.


    So, about your answer:


    I understand what you say is that the whole excess heat does not come from the hypotethic hidden well of water claimed by Ascoli, but comes from the reaction between the oxygen (that at those pressures can only come from a greatly underestimated, hidden pool that stubbornly scapes all the experimentators attempts of removing it from the experimental material), in the form of highly resistant oxydes in the powder, that once the hydrogen and/or deuterium is injected, comes out of its hiding and creates the plain ordinary heat excess, but somehow manages to get back to its hiding place in the metal as oxydes and repeat the cycle indefinitely, creating a lot of excess energy for several days.


    That is some miracolous oxygen, don't you think?

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • Denying the obvious paradigm shift in compact hydrogen energy density at play. Arigato gazimasu, for the due diligence!

  • I find I need to correct a mistake I made in my last post. I wrote:


    “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.”


    I was working from memory, always a bad thing to do, and that is not the trend displayed. However, what is actually presented is misleading. Takehashi, et, al, present tabular data for Wex (max) and also list the RTD4 max T, and as one can see the T’s are different between the first run after air oxidation and the subsequent runs. So clearly, the full curve shape needs to be considered, i.e. the integrated area and what should be compared is not the peak maximum but the peak area. IOW Tables 1 and 2 are not reliable indicators of what was going on.


    Curbina wrote:


    So, about your answer:


    I understand what you say is that the whole excess heat does not come from the hypotethic hidden well of water claimed by Ascoli, but comes from the reaction between the oxygen (that at those pressures can only come from a greatly underestimated, hidden pool that stubbornly scapes all the experimentators attempts of removing it from the experimental material), in the form of highly resistant oxydes in the powder, that once the hydrogen and/or deuterium is injected, comes out of its hiding and creates the plain ordinary heat excess, but somehow manages to get back to its hiding place in the metal as oxydes and repeat the cycle indefinitely, creating a lot of excess energy for several days.


    That is some miracolous oxygen, don't you think?

    ---


    I didn’t think Ascoli ‘invented’ a ‘hidden well of water’. I thought he computed how much water could be formed if the observed weight gain during calcining were O and covered to H2O. As I noted in the last post, that is what I am saying can happen. But perhaps I got that wrong. I entered the fray again because people here are using ridicule to deal with Ascoli’s comments, which a) is rude, and b) is useless scientifically.


    Your presumption is that the calorimetry is correct. Why do you presume that? They ‘calibrate’ with a significantly different system, zirconia only, vs. the experimental runs of zirconia + oxidized metal alloy. Haven’t you learned from my analyses of Storms’ Pt experiments and F&P’s calorimetric method that ignoring reality usually bites you? I detailed in the comment on Takehashi’s 2009 Phys. Lett. A paper (Appendix B of my whitepaper) why his results were suspect at that time, but he and his coworkers have completely ignored that and proceeded ‘as usual’. I simply expect that a careful consideration of ‘mundane’ everyday chemistry in this system will explain the observed thermal characteristics. But I admit I haven’t done that for the recent paper, nor am I likely to, until such time as the authors decide to consider all the real chemistry instead of just the parts and pieces they like. However, your use of ridicule and ignoring real chemistry doesn’t prove your points at all.


    I will be exiting the fray once more…



  • I, and perhaps many others that have followed your lenghty cruzade against the dark forces of LENR and its stolid entourage of self deluded believers, have learnt that you will never accept the possibility of a non conventional explanation, and will insist in hinting and pursuing (but never proving) a convoluted and improbable conventional explanation, even if the conventional explanation is by far more unlikely than the non conventional one.


    We will miss you, but we know you will come back, eventually.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • 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.


    But there is bound oxygen in the powder put inside the reactor chamber, as stated by Takahashi and coauthors in their presentation to JCF20. This oxygen is bound to the metal atoms of the PNZ (or CNZ) powder, as well as to the Zr atoms of the zirconia beads, by forming oxides. I don't think that this bound oxygen can be removed from the PNZ powder by the treatment you mentioned. So, IMO, it is still there when the H (or D) gas is introduced at high pressure in the RC, causing the metals to be reduced as explained in the already cited paper from Edar & Kramer (1), so causing the formation of water inside the RC.


    This hypothesis doesn't seem so irrational to me. Maybe this jpeg could help in summarizing its basis.

    T8wfwFH.jpg


    (1) https://www.uni-muenster.de/im…/eder/papers/b109887j.pdf

  • .......the control experiment of zirconia beads alone shows no excess heat - if water is forming from recombination of H or D with oxide - sourced oxygen the same amount of energy due to this source would occur in both test and control conditions. Secondly, any recombination reactions would persist only for a brief timescale until all the available oxygen is used up - certainly not over periods of days or weeks. The progressive increase in excess power with recalcining also suggests there is an optimal configuration of nanoparticles which enhances fusion reactions, something which would not be observed if it were due to a simple exothermic chemical reaction. Then there is also a very recent Google patent on electron clusters using a very similar nanostructural setup with Thz stimulation (a fancy name for heat) which would support Takahashi's work, the theory being that electron clustering between protons lowers the Coulomb barrier and so raises the probability of fusion etc. Or maybe H* is involved too in forming quasi - neutrons which removes the barrier. Well if it's good enough for Google after their negative Nature paper then these positive results from Japan should not be rejected out of hand by being overly skeptic.

  • 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.


    Your reconstruction of the facts is not correct. I've not been disingeuous.


    Being aware of the intent of Team Google, I refrained from intervening in the thread until a comment appeared in which:

    THHuxleynew wrote:

    One way to answer this question that might help people is this:


    What is the experiment that, if replicated negative, would most convince you that LENR was not real.


    This proposal was clearly aimed at solving the "Cold Fusion cold case", as defined in the title of the article in Nature authored by Trevithick et al., by demonstrating its unreality by performing a suitable and meaningful experiment.


    Only at that point, I posted my first comment in that thread (*), explicitly endorsing the aim of THH's proposal and suggesting to replicate the "1992 boil-off experiment" of F&P. Not at all a "marginal" experiment, as you have defined it, but the most important and best documented experiment which was published by the two founders of CF.


    Quote

    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.


    No reason to be frustrated. I just proposed to repeat the most classic of the F&P tests, that was also included among those proposed by JR (1).


    I still hope that Team Google will eventually follow my suggestion and will solve the CF cold case, as it was its commitment to the scientific community.


    (*) Team Google wants your opinion: "What is the highest priority experiment the LENR community wants to see conducted?"

    (1) Team Google wants your opinion: "What is the highest priority experiment the LENR community wants to see conducted?"

  • Dr Richard wrote:


    "......the control experiment of zirconia beads alone shows no excess heat - if water is forming from recombination of H or D with oxide - sourced oxygen the same amount of energy due to this source would occur in both test and control conditions. Secondly, any recombination reactions would persist only for a brief timescale until all the available oxygen is used up - certainly not over periods of days or weeks. The progressive increase in excess power with recalcining also suggests there is an optimal configuration of nanoparticles which enhances fusion reactions, something which would not be observed if it were due to a simple exothermic chemical reaction. Then there is also a very recent Google patent on electron clusters using a very similar nanostructural setup with Thz stimulation (a fancy name for heat) which would support Takahashi's work, the theory being that electron clustering between protons lowers the Coulomb barrier and so raises the probability of fusion etc. Or maybe H* is involved too in forming quasi - neutrons which removes the barrier. Well if it's good enough for Google after their negative Nature paper then these positive results from Japan should not be rejected out of hand by being overly skeptic."


    Since you haven’t replied before I will come back to respond to you. You obviously haven’t read what I wrote. I wrote:

    “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.”


    So, if an atomizing metal surface is not present (with significant physical contact to the beads), the reduction to water will likewise not happen and there will be no heat signal that can be misinterpreted.


    Note that this is the premise behind this that I wrote:

    “Your presumption is that the calorimetry is correct. Why do you presume that? They ‘calibrate’ with a significantly different system, zirconia only, vs. the experimental runs of zirconia + oxidized metal alloy. “


    Re.: “any recombination reactions would persist only for a brief timescale until all the available oxygen is used up - certainly not over periods of days or weeks.”


    Examine Figure 6 in the Takehashi report. There are two things going on in the apparent excess heat curve, a peaking reaction that seems to peak in about 2 hrs. and last for ~6 hrs plus a baseline shift. I don’t consider a 6 hr. long reaction unusual for this kind of chemistry, especially if you fold in calorimeter response time to make sure part of that is not just slow response. The baseline shift is a potentially separate issue involving calibration issues, electrical noise, and/or many other things. (Ask Dr. Storms about why he repeated the 10 runs I reanalyzed in my 2002 paper. I used the Feb. 2000 data, the first posted set was from January 2000.) Trying to claim a baseline shift indicates real excess heat is a stretch without demonstrating control over it. They haven’t done enough to do that at this time.


    “The progressive increase in excess power with recalcining also suggests there is an optimal configuration of nanoparticles which enhances fusion reactions, something which would not be observed if it were due to a simple exothermic chemical reaction.”


    Agreed, except for the word ‘fusion’. Delete it, add 'apparent', and this is correct.

    “The progressive increase in apparent excess power with recalcining also suggests there is an optimal configuration of nanoparticles which enhances reactions, something which would not be observed if it were due to a simple exothermic chemical reaction.”


    The reported observations may well indicate that a conditioning of the material occurs, which is not expected or unexpected.


    I haven’t look at the patent you reference, but I doubt it is real. Do they indicate how they exclude mundane chemical reactions and the implications that might arise from them? If not, they are ‘doing it’ as well, I.e., not investigating mundane alternatives adequately.


    “these positive results from Japan should not be rejected out of hand by being overly skeptic.”


    I don’t reject them, I attribute them to normal, everyday chemistry.

  • In doing so he misinterpretshow those results apply here.

    I INTERPRETED NOTHING as is evident in this link Takahashi: Enhancement of Excess Thermal Power in Interaction of Nano-Metal and H(D)-Gas

    KS has interpreted nothing but KS into Shanahanese

    God Bless his heart

    The citation may be relevant. or not

    It is a point of discussion with Takahashi et al

    Inter alia


    Speculations as done by Ascoli are just FUD as they are unrelated to the finding of excess heat. Any serious poster should clearly state what aspect he discusses. Discussing the short initial heating phase can be interesting but then you have to clearly state that you just look at this fact.

    '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.'


    Translation from Ascolianese

    It is assumed without evidence that the PNZ powder contains water.

    This assumption explains why the heating rate increases at 9.35

    This explanation holds water for the entire day long observation of excess heat

    This is nondisingenuous ,self-evident and no calculation is needed



  • Agreed, except for the word ‘fusion’. Delete it, add 'apparent', and this is correct.


    Seems like a paranoia is developing... Please show us a chemical reaction that produces the documented heat and runs at the thermal excess level for two weeks...


    To save your time: Initially 4 litter of Hydrogen have been added. = 3.6 gram about 2 mole H2. You can produce 2mols of water.. But use your brain: The net gain might by as low as 0.1 eV/molecule as you have to account for the split oxide bond...


    We are all very eager to see your proposal...

  • [email protected] as your previous post shows zirconia itself dissociated hydrogen molecules to atomic form so as I said the same energy release would occur from water formation with or without the PdNi or CuNi being present. Which makes the control valid, no?:)Although you might argue that the metal catalyst could be a better hydrogen splitting catalyst, which would only increase the rate of the reaction ..... but not alter the total energy released from recombination. So a small component of the heat is from recombination in both test and control, the larger component only observed in the test PdNi or CuNi present could be considered of nuclear origin.

  • I didn’t think Ascoli ‘invented’ a ‘hidden well of water’. I thought he computed how much water could beformed

    'Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.'


    These words of wisdom from the 1st century AD do not apply to Ascoli's CALCULATION- free assertions..

    but to more spiritual matters

  • @Wyt Your questions have already been answered before your post. As usual, you don't read, just like 95% of those here.


    I wrote:

    Re.: “anyrecombination reactions would persist only for a brief timescale until all theavailable oxygen is used up - certainly not over periods of days or weeks.”


    Examine Figure 6 in the Takehashi report. There are two things going on in the apparentexcess heat curve, a peaking reaction that seems to peak in about 2 hrs. andlast for ~6 hrs plus a baseline shift. Idon’t consider a 6 hr. long reaction unusual for this kind of chemistry, especiallyif you fold in calorimeter response time to make sure part of that is not justslow response. The baseline shift is apotentially separate issue involving calibration issues, electrical noise,and/or many other things. (Ask Dr.Storms about why he repeated the 10 runs I reanalyzed in my 2002 paper. I used the Feb. 2000 data, the first postedset was from January 2000.) Trying to claim a baseline shift indicatesreal excess heat is a stretch without demonstrating control over it. They haven’t done enough to do that at thistime.


    To summarize, I suspect the reduction reaction lasts a very few hours at most. I also suspect a baseline shift, whose origin is unknown.



    [email protected] as your previous post shows zirconia itself dissociated hydrogen molecules to atomic form so as I said the same energy release would occur from water formation with or without the PdNi or CuNi being present. Which makes the control valid, no?


    You are referring to the paper refs I posted I assume. Substoichiometric ZrO2 has free metal atoms exposed, thus they function like any other metal atom, so you get some dissociation. The question is: Is there enough of these sites in the zirconias used by T, et al, during calibration to register a heat signal in his calorimeter. Since they fail to acknowledge that such things can happen anyway, I doubt we can answer that question from his work. Perhaps with full data disclosure, like Ed Storms did in 2000.


    You discount the difference between having the oxidized alloys present. I do not. It is a major difference, fully capable of producing heat bursts in a few hour window, especially if the calibration is wrong. You continue to assume no calorimetric error exists (as per every other 'true believer' on this forum). My experience so far in this field is that is typically all there is.


    RB's comments are ignores as usual.


    Wyt and Dr R are unlikely to agree, so I am done here now, even if a newbie replies.

  • I don’t reject them, I attribute them to normal, everyday chemistry.


    No, you do not. In this case, you attribute them to a perpetual motion machine. Previous "explanations" you attributed to things like invisible 30 mph fans. Your explanations are always impossible, outlandish, and without a shred of evidence to support them. It is astounding that you are a professional scientist. I suppose you are trolling us, and you do not actually believe in perpetual motion machines. Either way, you contribute nothing of value to this discussion.


  • "An apparent neutron count increase (green in lower right display) looks

    correlating to the excess temperature rise of RTD1, 2, although neutron yield is closeto natural background level."


    The wording makes it sound as if they were hesitant about putting this in the report.

  • - if water is forming from recombination of H or D with oxide - sourced oxygen the same amount of energy due

    to this source would occur in both test and control conditions.


    It is respectful to read ALL the papers..especially if one intends to communicate directly with the authors


    Takahashi et al considered the possibility of heat from the reduction of oxides in the calcined powder.

    They found that the heat evolved remained constant whether the powder was calcined 1,2 or 3 times


    If the heat generation by PNZ6 at RT is from reduction of calcined sample (namely from formation of D2O water by D2 + O reactions),

    we should have observed very increased integrated heat and “apparent” increase of loading ratio values.

    Evidently, it is not the case. We can conclude that reduction process is negligibly small for D (H) absorption runs of PNZtype samples.

    Since specific reaction energies are observed as almost same values (0.55 eV/D in average),

    microscopic reaction mechanism seems common in three samples.

    We regard that D-absorption is into Ni nano-cores mostly because of 1/10 minor Pd content.

    About 0.55 eV/D for nickel is considerably large exothermic value at RT.

    Article · May 2019

    For those new to the discussion, water is NOT present during calcination of the Zr Pd Ni alloy


    The thin sheets were calcined in air at a temperature of 450 C for 60 h, during which
    preferential formation of ZrO2 supporter zone with isolated
    distribution of nano-structure zones of PdxNi0.35-x is expected.


  • Another thing to consider what other phenomina would trigger a neutron detector based on how it works? Some of those neutron analogue dense hydrogen forms mentioned in another thread (Holmid) could excite sensors as well, while penitrating/ionizing less. Raised trace levels similar to environmental ionizing radiation should be expected regardless of how the majority of the energy is released.

  • Unless something similar to what Holmid is experimenting is happening in the powder it would work to posit H2* formation and novel H/metal pico-hydrides would definately fall within this range along with a slightly increased rate of standard nuclear reactions. A lot of but not all hydrogen/metal experiments top out at around 100keV per interaction as an average. That's what I gather from reading. This isn't a bad thing, life and combustion have been getting through on ~2eV per interaction in the densest standard chemical systems quite fine.


    The Japanese, that seem the furthest along in mainstream academic research seem to knowingly avoid labeling these affects as predominantly nuclear. This could be more than politics and avoiding nuclear haters. I suppose this affect is mostly a different exothermic interaction of thermal/electric input, hydrogen, catalysts and metal than fission/fusion. They probably know it but are avoiding details.