Posts by DAK

    The GC results look interesting. However, in a typical thermal conductivity gas analysis, the peaks for a standard of hydrogen are negative going as hydrogen has a higher thermal conductivity than the He carrier gas. Instruments are set-up to invert the peaks in a certain time frame. Did the authors have the instrument invert peaks in a window - i.e. around H2 elution but not before or after? If a window, than perhaps the window was too narrow and for some reason the retention times of the gases shifted slightly. Thus, the split peak could be an instrumental artifact where the system is only reversing the polarity in a too narrow of a window. Why they should have a positive going peak before the negative peak would not be consistent with this explanation unless the positive peak is deuterium or HD or switching polarities causes an electrical artifact. The peak shapes of the sample is not the same as the standards, which causes me concern. The presentation mentions running the TCD at 60C to make the peaks positive. I an too ignorant of TCD detectors to know if that statement is correct. A brief reading of the literature indicates that hydrogen should retain its thermal conductivity difference over He at most temperatures so to me this statement does not make sense.


    If the authors are observing hydrogen by MS, then what is the expected binding of the electrons in this shrunken hydrogen? The MS typically has an electron energy of 70eV (mean) so if the ionization potential is above this, then the MS should not show the shrunken hydrogen. Coupling the MS to the GC would have been helpful and varying the electron energy of the MS would also have been helpful to show that the expected gas is somehow different from ordinary hydrogen gas in the appearance of the H2+ peak. i.e. plot electron energy vs. signal level for the two gases and show that the onset energies are different. (This is best done with specialized equipment but most MS can vary this number and if the Ionization potential of the molecules are quite different then you should see this difference. You cannot get and absolute number without comparison to a standard. However, a relative number would suffice in this case and maybe just using the methane or CO2 as a reference would work)

    Not reading Russian, is it possible that the different forms of titanium are just absorbing different amounts of tritium from the deuterium? i.e. deuterium contains tritium and the tritium maybe absorbed preferentially in some matrices compared to others.

    It may be possible that the authors burnt the deuterium and measured the tritium in the resulting deuterium oxide and concluded that the TOTAL exposure of the various Ti particles to deuterium (total D2 used) was insufficient to explain the tritium results. Can someone clarify that from the original article?

    From my brief reading of Mats Lewan, Rossi will sell heat at a 20% discount to electricity. Who would ever want that? I can get heat at a 200% discount using a heat pump. Am I misreading Lewan?

    The report would be of more help is the actual numbers for a representative run were included in a separate spreadsheet. In any case, I read the results as 15W of heater power + 5W of Q power in (for a total of 20W) and 20W out. If you assume that only 50% of the Q power is absorbed, then you have the COP of 2 as they apparently do not count the 15W of heater power. Am I missing something?


    BTW: Isn't the H2 LEL 5%?

    Alan,


    I never replied to your comments on alumina vs. aluminum recycling. You stated that you have patents applications pending on your process. Can I get the reference(s) so that I can comment not from ignorance?

    Jed,
    Maybe you could help decode this paper. For example, figs 3-10 (as per the caption in Fig 3) reflect cell #4 summarized in the Table on page 9. Yet the calculated power in is ca. 72W (from Figs 3 &4) and the excess power out is 17.3 (Table 4 and Fig 10) for a percentage of 24% excess not the 250% in the Table. Also, the excess power percentage in fig 10 does not match the excess shown in Figs 8 &9. Additionally, the time of 70 days comes from where? It is like they had taken data sets from various runs and mashed them together with some representing run 3 and some run 4. The data match better run 3 but the percentage in fig 10 matches better run 4 (except for the time interval).



    BTW: What do you think the internal temperature was? Can you explain Fig 5?

    @ DAK


    Re: the ref. you give


    OK, in Figure 5a-d we have mass spec for the ~91-101 AMU range. They show
    sample results in a-c and an Mo spectrum in d. First off, note that the
    Mo spectrum is ~500-1000 times more intense than the sample spectra. This…


    I do not know what gas that you believe is in a SIMS instrument. It could be anything. It even depends on the bombardment species. Often it is Ga but others used Xe. Ar is also used as well as O, He, and Ne. Generally, hydrogen and water are the dominant species in high vacuum systems. If you believe the peak at 141.07 is a hydride, I think you are misidentifying that peak. It is likely a hydrocarbon contaminant due to its mass excess. Thus, the label of unknown is correct as that HC would not be IDed. The 141.91 is either Ce or Nd. The resolution is insufficient to tell and the mass range shown is too small (although it would have been available - you could ask MHI if you want for the full spectrum).


    As to the intensity vs. ID/quantitation. It is not necessary to do what you suggest for ID. It is helpful for quantitation but not required. We can go into many details, if you wish, but I need not give a lecture on SIMS because this is an irrelevant detail.


    As to the spectrum in Fig 5. The S/N on the small peaks is poor so the intensity will vary and many matches are possible. You will have issues with HC contamination because the resolution is too poor to reduce/eliminate. The bottom line is that it is not entirely natural Mo from contamination (so that is ruled out but some Mo may be present (which should be subtracted before looking at the residual)) so either it is transmutation or molecular species. You cannot tell from the data presented. The peaks fit CaFe well. You should plot that pattern yourself and visually compare (frankly, Ca2O matches visually better but I will stick with CaFe).


    The numbers are:
    CaFe
    94 6.36759
    95 0
    96 100
    97 2.31732
    98 1.11136
    99 0.154608
    100 2.15644
    101 0.0501017
    102 0.0230183
    103 9.52519e-005
    104 0.192832
    105 0.00445303
    106 0.000592616



    Ca2O


    96 100
    97 0.0380926
    98 1.54033
    99 0.279028
    100 4.31095
    101 0.00407231
    102 0.0460235
    103 0.00601124
    104 0.432239
    105 0.000188429
    106 0.00364057
    107 0.000538339
    108 0.00830781
    109 4.2665e-006
    110 3.29795e-005
    111 6.06397e-009
    112 0.00037214
    113 1.41745e-007
    114 7.64678e-007

    It looks like I am beating a dead horse where you are trying to rationalize a mistake (or at least my mistaken understanding of your comments).
    As to your MS experience, - I have no idea - but someone with extensive experience would not postulate examples using an average isotopic number.


    The examples of interference that you postulate - such as SrD4 - do not work because:
    1. That cluster would not form by SIMS.
    2. If it did form, then you would see the isotopic distribution of Sr, which is not observed.
    Yes anyone can add element together and get mass 96 - for example a cluster of Ca-H56 (56 hydrogen atoms + 1 Ca40 atom) would equal 96 with the pattern shown. But generally such an entity would not form in typical experimental setups. You could pick O6 (six oxygen atoms) as well, but again, not likely.


    If you wish to illustrate some issue with molecular interference, just select the more reasonable ones consistent with the spectrum, the resolution of the MS, and the type of analysis (XPS vs. SIMS vs. ICP-MS as these all have different forms of interferents).


    The data is published by MHI in a localized region for Sr ==> Mo96 in several publications. First one I found was:
    Figure 5 of:
    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IwamuraYlowenergyn.pdf.

    I am confused by the Raman spectrum. The specs on that system say a laser at 785 not 780. In any case, the Q(0) branch should be at 14802 (780) or 14720 (785). It is calculated to be 13186 - not quite in agreement.


    Where are they getting the experimental numbers in slide 20?


    Also, on slide 17 0.2414 eV = 1947 cm-1 rather than 1950 cm-1. Not sure it is a match.
    Not sure why the peak moves on slide 19 it is at 1988 but on slide 18 it is at 1982.

    Note that if MoS2 contaminated the sample, it is there, and should be observable by any technique
    capable of doing so. So seeing m/e=96 isn't surprising


    You are missing a large point. MHI saw an ABNORMAL pattern for Mo (m/z 96 was too large compared to the other isotopes present). Thus, they concluded that they were adding 4Ds to Sr88 to make Mo96 (it was not clear what happened to the other isotopes of Sr but for some reason they did not react). The actual level was very trace and barely above background. However, there was enough S/N to claim its presence. I agree. However, in SIMS you form clusters. So m/z 96 could be a cluster of other elements. The most likely is FeCa as both Fe and Ca were present. Toyota concluded it was an artifact but claim it is Ca2O. The pattern actually does not completely match Ca2O but does FeCa. In any case, it can be explained by what is well known in SIMS - a cluster ion.


    The Pr work was by ICP-MS. This does not show molecular species (with a few exceptions), so IDing Pr was correct. It was Pr - origin unknown.


    BTW: The Pr was not from normal contamination as contamination (outside a lab and few other locations) does not have Pr in pure state. Always found with other lanthanides.



    As to:
    PdSD2 = 104.6 + 32 + 4 = 140.6.


    You need to better understand mass spectrometry. You do not use an average molecular weight for Pd but each isotope. So a molecule like PdSD2 would have a significant isotopic pattern (mostly matching Pd) hat would be easily recognizable. Also 140.6 (which would not happen) is not 141 and unless using a poor resolution instrument, would be easily distinguishable. The resolution was at least 10K in this case.

    KS - As to your MoS2 example, this does not account for the data. MHI showed an isotopic anomaly at m/z 96. Mo contamination would not have that anomaly. What made Pr so problematic is that it is monoisotopic. In any case, the Mo results is like an artifact due to molecular species in SIMS. In this case, Fe56Ca40 dimer. You should rethink your arguments. I believe that your conclusion is correct but how it is reached is in error.


    As to CCS. It did happen in some data sets but not always. As to recombination, many cells are now run closed. That does not mean that artifacts are absent. They could be or could not be. We cannot tell.

    Sieves - done all the time. Generally to make dry air free of CO2. Doesn't generate hydrogen nor purify as well as a Pd/Ag membrane. Simple absorbents such as Drierite + Fe (basic pyrogallol is the classic method) would work reasonably to remove water and oxygen on limited volumes.

    It depends on the volume of H2 produced and the service requirements for hobbyists vs. industrial applications. I was thinking of 1-10 mL/min. A number so low that there is no safety issues. Remember the LEL for H2 is about 5%. The real issue is all the regulatory requirements to sell anything in the US.

    We have the similar requirements but it is for liquid hydrogen. As to flammable gases, methane tends to be the bad actor in the US but we do not have many people using bottled hydrogen vs. propane or natural gas. Hydrogen is actually quite safe but a similar LEL to methane. The Hindenburg caught fire due to its flammable covering (at least that is the story I remember). The hydrogen certainly helped fuel the fire but was not the initial cause. That disaster was in the US in any case - NJ.


    Enough for now on this subject. I still think you could build a small electrolysis system for <$100 and it would be or interest to the LENR community if properly engineered and with a gas purifier present. Safety approval may be a challenge and thus likely double (or more) the cost.

    I did read you post. Turnover number is a measure of the effectiveness of the catalyst which reflects in the cost of the whole operation. It is a common metric for an industrial process. In your case you can express it as either grams of hydrogen/grams of carbon or grams of aluminium used/gram of carbon. Hydrogen would be easier to work with.


    There is no catalyst that I know of where the turn-over number is infinite. However, I should temper that with the statement that I am not a catalyst expert. I guess in your case, the amount of carbon affects the rate of hydrogen production. You can test if the catalyst degrades by measuring the rate of production vs. time assuming that aluminum is in vast excess over the carbon. You also need a blank.


    I guess in your case you are aiming for hydrogen production and not the by-product of alumina. At $6/kg that is not cheap. The cost of hydrogen is tied to the cost of natural gas. At the 2012 prices it was retailing for about $3.50/kg. Now is it under $1.50/kg.
    You can of course make it from any carbon source and water. Those are not industrial prices so you factor in a lot of extra costs.


    A crap-grade (99%) cylinder costs somewhere at $20 (I forget as I buy it so infrequently and the cost is low enough to ignore) and contains about 700g of H2 but these are not industrial prices and includes delivery of single cylinders. Thus, I believe the above estimates are reasonable. If you have other figures, let me know.

    I was just guessing that you or some group members were looking for a source of alumina for business purposes. Thus, the suggestion of fly ash. It was not to make hydrogen but recycle some sort of waste into sellable products, if the chemistry can be developed.


    I will investigate the chemistry in more detail.

    How does this cost for aluminium hydroxide (I assume that you will get it to Alumina for aluminium production but that is an assumption) compare to purifying Bauxite via the Bayer process? In the US Bauxite is <$30/ton and 30-60% Alumina. Of course the purification increases the cost dramatically and makes lots of waste (mostly iron sludge that is basic (if I remember correctly)). They had issues with the waste in Europe a few years ago. One would think that you could sell it as fertilizer in the proper context like Milgornite or Ironite (which I never have used) is marketed.


    If you are looking for projects, have you considered isolation of alumina from fly ash? It is a rich source that is essentially free. In fact may have a negative cost for reuse. "Only" need to get rid of the silica.


    I do not understand the chemistry yet because aluminium forms a protective layer of oxide. This layer can be breached with base or acid but you need a continual input of either one.


    As an aside, have you measured the pH of your catalyst just suspended in water?