Posts by BobHiggins

Just to add to the fun ... I am participating in the write-up and I can say you are all essentially wrong in your speculations.

@Mary Yugo
Yes, Dr. Kullander may not have been "convinced" there was a real effect, yet what he found obviously provided sufficient impetus for him to continue to investigate at the expense of his valuable time. If you read Lewan's book, you will see that what they got to measure in Rossi's apparatus was never what they hoped. Rossi used tricks, like requiring Lewan to run the experiment at the last minute instead of preparing the experiment himself as was expected. I don't blame Kullander, Essen, or Lewan for not getting from Rossi what the world wanted Rossi to share - Rossi is his own world and will only share what he wishes. That's his right. Still, what has been shown is interesting enough to invest in replication/back-engineering.

Rob Duncan created a funded island of LENR research in a university world that will generally not recognize the field as being valuable. That lab has been continuously investigating and replicating LENR experiments with an objective eye and with some of the best equipment that a university can supply. Have they seen excess heat? I am almost certain. Have they identified its source - I am almost certain they have not. But, the point is, they have seen enough to warrant continued investigation - and that is the most important part.

I have met Piantelli. He is a scientist's scientist - a devout follower of Galileo's scientific method. He spends a great deal of time in calibration of his system measurements, and is able to reproduce his LENR results. He is convinced that there is excess heat - a great deal of it - as are his backers, Nichenergy. They have built a first class lab in Tuscany, and have leveraged it for years to try to develop data that can elucidate the nature and origin of the excess heat. I have seen his cloud chamber that he used for particle detection occurring after the excess heat has occurred. He measured protons with nuclear class energy (>1MeV) coming from Ni rods after they produced excess heat. He is working on in-situ particle detectors to see what is emitted during the reaction. This is a big investment in time & equipment and it is commensurate with their confidence that there is a real and valuable effect that has been demonstrated in his lab.

Has LENR been proven to exist? In the spectrum of LENR observers, experimenters, and theoreticians (basically everyone involved at all in LENR) there is also a spectrum of "evidence" that will be required to convince each that the effect exists.

As a thought experiment, consider another hard to believe proposition: the purported ET visitation of the Earth. Ask yourself what it would take for you to believe that UFOs are actual ET visitations. Would it take a preponderance of imperfect reports? Would it take only one credible report? Would it take a video [of course fake-able today]? Would it take an announcement by the government? Or, would you have to see it for yourself under conditions you could control? Second, ask yourself how much evidence it would take to make you seriously pursue a better answer.

Rob Duncan was a skeptic (but open minded) and saw excess heat for himself in the Energetics lab - enough for him to be convinced of the need to dig into the "anomalous heat effect" as he called it. He started an institute at U. of MO [SKINR] to pursue the effect. Sven Kullander, Swedish physicist, member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, chairman of its energy committee, and member of the Swedish Skeptics Society, became convinced that there was a real effect at play after his interaction with Rossi (and perhaps other investigation). These scientists were convinced ENOUGH that there was a real effect at play, that they were willing to spend portions of their own career and available resources to learn more. I suspect the same is true for the bulk of the scientists who are working on LENR - they have seen something so compelling that they wanted to learn more - to pry the nut from the shell. Momentum seems to be building, and the need for an alternate energy source is high. Investors are becoming convinced enough to hedge their bets. How much evidence (and of what type) is necessary to get money allocated for critical mass investigations of the effect at universities?

LENR could turn out to be a supra-chemical effect - proposed for example by Naudts, Mills, Maly & Vavra, Paillet & Meulenberg - that energy can be extracted from electron orbital reduction below historical ground state of hydrogen. Perhaps the nuclear signatures barely detected are just a side effect. Whether anyone will be successful in harnessing LENR as it is believed to exist as a "nuclear effect" or "supra-chemical effect" remains to be seen. There will likely be serendipity along the way. Sometimes an anomalous effect proves to be real - as in the case of High TC superconductors - predicted to be impossible by prior theories and still not completely understood.

Personally, I think this path of discovery is going to be immensely fun and rewarding to pursue. I am happy to live with the hard core skeptics and hard core enthusiasts. Skeptics will keep us honest and enthusiasts will keep us motivated to continue. Hopefully the path of discovery will deliver a salve for the world's energy problems.

@Thomas Clarke
Be careful when you say "we have an accurate surface temperature". The surface temperature is complicated by the ridges that are molded in to maximize convection. MFMP's coarse thermocouple tests [coarse because the thermocouple bead was reasonably large compared to the ridge pitch) on molded ridges showed substantial temperature difference between the ridge roots and the tips. The temperature difference could be more than 50C - hotter at the root and cooler at the tips. Some IR cameras, such as the Optris, do not image to sufficient resolution to resolve this and instead record the average temperature in each pixel. Other near IR cameras would record the maximum value in their spot. So, for the ridged surface, you need to know the temperature's functional form on the ridges as viewed from normal incidence. The average temperature the Optris would read is probably not just the simple average of tip temperature and root temperature; though that may be a reasonable first order estimate.

@Antoine10FF
Have you considered that the pitch you see evidence for in your analyzed photo is the "beat" between the pitch of the ridges on the outer tube and the pitch of the heater coil?

The heater coil is 99% likely to be as shown in the patent drawings - a triple wound 3-phase coil that is wound with about 1-2 wire thickness spacing.

@Thomas Clarke
Yes, Tom, it would probably be good if I went back to that paper that was written over a year ago and just take out that section. The paper was really about emissivity. At the time it was written, I had not threaded through the other issues yet. In some sense, revising the paper now may not have much impact because the paper in its original form is in the ether. Do you think it would have value to revise the paper in that way today?

I have come to think about this reactor more like an ordinary incandescent light bulb. In the light bulb, you have total power output that comes from envelope convection and radiation at its temperature + heat conducted through its base + power radiated through the partly transparent envelope (which depends largely on filament temperature and spectral transmission of the envelope).

In the case of the Lugano experiment, what I haven't threaded through is how use of data from the dummy run may have "calibrated out" (cancelled) some of the errors in the actual experiment evaluation, providing a more correct answer than absolute calculations would have allowed.

I have not continued in this analysis because of lack of time, and lack of perceived merit [from my perspective] given the unknowns. Here are some observations to add to your list:

• For photometry with a camera, you have to know the exact camera that was used for the "visible" light photographs. Many camera manufacturers have allowed the red band of their filters to extend into the infrared for improved low light sensitivity. The "purple fringe" is caused by IR light leak of the blue filters in the camera - also related to the longer wavelength used for the IR blocking filter in the camera (if it even had one). It is hard to do photometry without knowing just what camera and sensor are being used and what the filter line-up was for the optics.
• The other thing that confounds visible light photometry analysis is the transparency of the alumina and how it differs in the visible band and within the Optris band. This also affects the radiation calculation. As the blackbody spectrum shifts into the visible spectrum, the higher temperature heater coils will emit more radiation directly in the visible and it will pass through the alumina. Without having multi-band information, calculating this flux is painful or impossible. It is also hard to estimate transparency for a cast alumina - their's was NOT "pure" alumina as the Lugano analysis suggested. [Pure alumina would have to be fired at a temperature that would have destroyed the heater wire. Cast-able aluminas are only about 70-80% alumina. The XRD technique used to analyze the material of the cast section probably would have only seen the crystalline phases and missed the filler/binders.]
• What has bothered me about the 780C estimate for the temperature is that it is inconsistent with the apparent brightness that is observed. What happens when the blackbody gets hotter is that not only does the spectrum peak shift toward the visible at higher temperatures, but it also gets brighter from increased radiation. Both factors contribute to increased perceived brightness of the blackbody object. I have run my alumina reactors with the temperature measured using thermocouples [easier to do with no ridges]. The brightness and apparent color at 780C for my alumina reactor was no where close to what I perceived from the Lugano photos, suggesting that the calculated estimate for the Lugano temperature of 780C was too low for some reason not considered.
• In the Lugano reactor, the transparency affects the amount of power radiated from the hotter [than the surface] heater coils and the hotter core of the reactor. Radiation will be the dominant path for energy exit. So a different calculation must be used for radiation and a different temperature (the heater wire temperature, the core temperature) for the visible spectrum. Convection, on the other hand, must be calculated on the basis of the outer skin temperature [which may be in the 780C range] - higher at the root and colder at the tips. But convection was not the dominant heat release path. My point here is that because of the transparency in the visible range, a single temperature cannot be used for both convection and radiation calculations. An effective or composite single temperature, if used, will require nonlinear compositing as the temperature rises, and the compositing will be VERY device and materials specific. Believing that a single temperature could be used for both radiation and convection in the Lugano calculations was probably another mistake.

Because I had insufficient information to continue with analysis, and because personal experience suggested that the reactor was too bright to have been at 780C [for a single effective temperature] as others suggested, I decided that continued analysis would be of little value. As it stands, the actual Lugano numbers have been appropriately called into question. I considered that new data was needed before I could justify a particular composite temperature estimate. While re-creating the Lugano setup could be done [and there is some MFMP data on this that should be examined], I do not consider that having better data from a dummy re-creation of sufficient value for the effort required.

All of this has made a difference in my work. It has caused me to believe that credible quantified excess heat data can only be secured by using a well calibrated calorimeter.

Eric,
I spent years with electromagnetic theory as part of my job, but what happens inside an atom still baffles me. From a macro perspective, or a Bohr perspective, it is not possible for a static positive charge (proton) to be completely shielded/neutralized by a moving negative charge (electron). Sure, the proton is not truly static in the Bohr model - the proton would have to move a tiny bit to maintain the center of mass. However, the proton motion is small enough to consider it stationary. Therefore, the proton has a static electric field. So, how can you balance the proton's static field with a field in motion from the electron so as to have it appear neutral from all perspectives outside the electron's orbital?

From a QM standpoint, the argument would be made that the electron would have to be considered to be everywhere on its shell at once. If that were the case, it would be a static shell of negative charge density to cancel the static field of the proton. This doesn't sit well with me, but Feynman would probably tell me that I have it correct if it is unsettling.

Likewise, I don't understand in Mills' shells of current density how the electron would be able to neutralize the static field of the proton.

You are probably right to consider that that question is not properly answered.

@'Ecco
These references discuss the formation of Cs RM on hot surfaces. Do any discuss the lifetime of the RM in high temperature dusty plasma or high temperature neutral dusty gas? It seems more likely that RM could be stabilized on a surface, but not as a dusty cloud of RM at high temperature.

Why is it you believe that hydrogen RM is implicated in LENR? From what I have heard, only the un-replicated, poorly substantiated UDD form of hydrogen RM has suggested involvement in LENR. Even this would only seem to implicate HH, HD, or DD reactions and cannot explain a lot of LENR phenomena such as transmutations. It does not appear from UDD descriptions that the compacted atoms can exist as individuals or doublets to interact with Ni. Personally, at best I can only see hydrogen RM as a possible means to stably support hydrogen adsorption on a Ni surface to make it available for LENR.

Ecco
Piantelli is very specific about the H- anions. He was specifically looking for means to catalytically split H2 into H- and H+ rather than into two neutral monatomic hydrogen atoms. It is possible that Piantelli is mistaken about the role of the H- anion because that is just his theory. However, he derived his theory from 2 decades of observations of his own working experiments.

At Piantelli's temperatures, it is not out of the question that the hydrogen Rydberg matter could exist, though unlikely at that temperature. The hydrogen Rydberg matter clusters are only loosely bound into this form and at high enough temperatures, collisions between particles will cause the Rydberg cluster to dissolve. I suspect that above 1000C, the hydrogen Rydberg matter clusters probably cannot survive.

My own supplement to Piantelli's theory has to do with his 2 observations: 1) that certain grain size is required for the needed hypothetical condensate action on the H- anion, and 2) that a shock is required to start the process. Most argue that BEC-like condensates cannot occur at room temperature and above. I like to think of this proposition as: stable, long lived condensates cannot survive at room temperature. I propose that in bounded groups of atoms, condensates form and evaporate statistically at any given instant, provided suitable boundary conditions are present. These condensates (call them Higgins Transient Condensates or HTCs for fun) may have a lifetime of only a nanosecond, but that is a long time compared to nuclear event time scales. Piantelli's shock may stimulate an HTC to a state in which it can absorb, in a distributed way, a great deal of energy (say 510 keV) from an H- anion on the surface of the Ni. This causes the H- anion to shrink to a DDL size where it appears as a heavy muon-like negatively charged massive particle, and substitutes for an electron in one of the Ni atoms. The DDL H- anion descends the Ni orbitals quickly due to its large mass and immediately finds itself in a 1-2 femtometer orbital around the Ni nucleus. At this point, there are a couple of branches to the reaction with the Ni nucleus, one of which is ejection of a high energy proton which Piantelli observes. Another branch results in Ni transmutation.

It is fun to speculate. I wish I had the mathematical skills to evaluate the vision.

Valeriy Tarasov

Quote from Valeriy Tarasov

Can we say undoubtly that nickel is melted in functioning E-cat, or it is only an idea? As I remember Rossi was saying that melting of E-cat fuel will stop the reaction. Did I miss something ?

The carbonyl Ni used in these hotCat-like experiments is a micron sized particle when you look at the size of a hole that would allow it to pass. However, the particle has a flower-petal like shape having nano-thin petals with sharp edges. If one applies the thinking that nano-scale particles melt at about half of the temperature of the bulk element, then here is what I would expect to happen in the Parkhomov reactor. At relatively low temperature (200C) a lot of hydrogen is evolved from the LiAlH4. At 250C this hydrogen strips the oxide from the Ni surface. At 300C, the clean Ni particles begin to sinter where they are touching, forming a connected, but highly porous body still having nano-scale features. At 700C, the aluminum and LiH melt. The LiH preferentially wets to the oxide-free Ni surface area, and at the same time the finest nano-scale features of the Ni are beginning to melt. Some of this Ni goes into solution in the LiH, but most simply curls back to become a thicker, shorter petal on the Ni particle. As the temperature increases, the petals on the Ni particle become shorter and thicker. If you look at the SEM in the Lugano report and the SEM from the MFMP bang experiment (made by Ed Storms), you can see that this is what appears to happen (it was the essentially the same morphology in both). What is seen is a Li coated sponge Ni with the nano-scale features rounded out and not as long as the original carbonyl Ni particle petals. The bulk of the Ni particle will not melt until about 1455C, though long before this temperature the particle will have become more and more spherical as any protuberances melt first.

It is because of this, I find it hard to believes that cracks comprise the NAE for the Ni [Storms]. The bulk of the carbonyl Ni particle surface area is comprised of these nano-thin petals. Cracks in these would quickly be melted closed - "healed". I think that Piantelli's implication of the hydrogen anion applied to the surface of the Ni is more appropriate because the molten LiH had the hydrogen inside as hydrogen anions. But, the problem with this is that Piantelli believes that properly sized Ni metal crystal grains are required to act each as a condensate on a hydrogen anion to bring it into the grain and subsequently modify it in some way so as to allow it to penetrate deeply into a Ni atom. I find it hard to believe that in a petal of the carbonyl Ni particle at 1100C that the grains will remain small - the grains will grow larger and larger. Perhaps a large grain is required for the hotCat modality of LENR?

Eric and Echo,
I think the answer to the periodic uncovering of the proton by the neutralizing electron is that a standing wave is created by the electron's motion. That which is radiated by the electron on one side of the proton is cancelled by what is created on the other side of the proton. If this doesn't happen then the electron radiates and looses energy, causing it to rapidly transition to the next lowest energy level.

Regarding Echo's question, he was wondering if it was possible that the Rydberg hydrogen could appear as an ANION, I.E. an H- ion that comes from the H atom taking a second electron. I don't see how.

In fact, I don't see how, in Piantelli's theory, the normal H- anion is absorbed into a Ni atom and decends to closer to the nucleus than an inner electron orbital. The hydrogen anion is BIG. As it would enter a Ni atom, the proton's positive charge would quickly become exposed. I asked if he believed that H- anion became compacted like a DDL. Piantelli's answer was not clear, but he appeared to say that he had no data how the hydrogen anion actually was able to approach the Ni nucleus without the proton's charge being exposed. I asked Jerry Vavra whether he thought it was possible for the hydrogen anion to enter a DDL state. He did not think so because he considered the hydrogen anion to be "fragile". Though, he knew of no one who had gone through the math.

@echo

Quote from Ecco

As far as I can tell after some reading, pure Al2O3 is often directly used for the synthesis of lithium aluminate. Here are a few sources:

I stand corrected regarding the chemical erosion of even pure alumina. I read a Hanford paper

http://www.iaea.org/inis/colle…Public/09/410/9410560.pdf

about Li properties and materials compatible with molten Li in reactors. Even 100% pure alumina was rated as "bad". Chemically, Li is slightly more active than Al and at the high temperatures being used in Parkhomov reactions, it will react. [Interestingly, pure Fe is rated as good at high temperatures, while stainless is rated as short term only above 800C.] However, we cannot conclude from experiments with "alumina" ceramics that the damage seen to an "alumina" body was caused by direct reaction of Li with Al2O3, because the alumina ceramics are variably filled with silicates as binders and sintering enhancers. These binders will, in general erode more easily than the Al2O3 crystallites.

The Piantelli patent excerpt is interesting, and seems a little relevant. In the Parkhomov case, there is no gap. The Li is wetted to the Ni surface, and is entirely capable of delivering H- ions because that is the ion species that exists inside the Li hydride (partial or full). Above 1000C, one might even consider the LiH(1-x) film on the surface of the Ni to be a H- filter. As the Li breathes the hydrogen from the surrounding atmosphere, it likely splits H2 into H+ which remains outside the Li and H- which is absorbed into the LiH(1-x). At that high temperature, the H- anions are probably active (high mobility) inside the molten Li. These H- anions will certainly be presented to the Ni and if the Ni does take them into the grain as Piantelli suggests, the wetted LiH(1-x) would seem to be a great way to supply the anions. I can't imagine in this scenario how Al2O3 would be of value.

Quote from Ecco

As a side question: don't you think that hydrogen atoms excited in their Rydberg state (i.e. with their electron occupying an orbital higher than ground state) might "appear" as negatively ionized?

I am sure that statistically the answer has to be that the atom appears neutral. The Rydberg orbitals are large flattened saucers that completely enclose the nucleus. Rydberg hydrogen atoms will appear electrically neutral, but because the outer radius of the electron orbital is so large, the Rydberg state atoms have a huge magnetic moment. Can you explain your thinking as to how such atoms would appear as though they had a second electron?

@echo
From a chemical standpoint, Al2O3 is extremely energetically favored. Once formed, Al2O3 will be chemically inert in this system. It is extremely unlikely to react with Li as pure Al2O3. Where Li attacks the "alumina" tubes is in the silicates that act as a binding and sintering agent in the formation of the alumina ceramics. It is likely that alumina powders added to the fuel would be pure alumina and thus chemically inert.

There is an easy way to find out if alumina powder has been added - ask Parkhomov. Bob Greenyer knows how to contact him, and he can just ask Parkhomov - and he could follow-up with asking what purity of alumina powder was added. Parkhomov is not Rossi, and if asked, he will probably answer without parable.

Piantelli can consider the possibility of nano-metric features in his system because of his relatively low temperatures. Nanopowder and nano-features on a macro body will melt at about half the temperature of the elemental condensed matter material. In the case of Ni, the melting point for nano-features is on the order of 730C. So, for the active Parkhomov reaction, at it LENR temperature of >1000C, it is unlikely that nano-metric features of the carbonyl powder exist anymore underneath the coating of LiH.

Going back to the danger of using carbon with Ni, producing deadly nickel tetracarbonyl ... note that Piantelli likely tried carbon and he is now dying from pulmonary failure. Dennis also worked with Ni and carbon and has had severe respiratory illness and will no longer work with Ni. PROTECT YOURSELF!

Note the SIMS analysis in the Lugano report and the discussion of the carbon initially measured on the sample and its origin in the sticky tape.

LiH is a reversible hydride. What would decomposition of LiH comprise? It would be release of the hydrogen. However, given LiH's nature as a reversible hydride, there will always be a small amount of H in the LiH(1-x) and the hydrogen will freely come and go through the Li coating in an equilibrium for a given temperature. I have no doubt at all that there is hydrogen in the Li at the operating temperature and that it is free to come and go throughout the lithium film. The amount of H in the Li above 1000C will depend on the hydrogen pressure. Considering that the Li film itself may be a relatively quiet liquid film, the hydrogen within the Li may appear as a hydrogen plasma inside the Li - with the H ions and anions bouncing around similar to the way they would in a vacuum plasma.

@me356
You are correct - Songsheng Jiang's experiment with nickel wire + H is another good example of an Ni-H only experiment; but it stopped producing XH after 80 minutes and the high XH did not repeat. Songsheng went on to do a Ni + LiAlH4 experiment. Why didn't he stick with the Ni wire + H? What motivated Songsheng to change direction [it would be worth asking him that]? Piantelli has had pure Ni rod + H operating for years continuously, but the COP is low (though he has seen meltdown events).

If one is inclined to do a pure Ni-H experiment, then consider exactly replicating another Ni-H experiment that was credibly reported to work. I think Songsheng Jiang is quite credible.

@me356
Starting with just Ni and H is going to be a frustrating path to LENR success. There are VERY FEW reports of excess heat from only Ni and H. Two that I am familiar with are Piantelli and Mizuno. Piantelli uses carefully prepared Ni rods (he says to produce the correct surface grain size) and has a very specific protocol. To my knowledge, no one has replicated his work (though Piantelli has replicated it convincingly many times). Mizuno uses Ni wire and a low pressure hydrogen plasma. This is promising, but the system required for replication is complex and not many experimenters have tried. I don't know of anyone who has been successful in getting a positive LENR experiment using just pure Ni powder (of any type) and hydrogen. Rossi claims the use of a catalyst for the eCat, and I believe it is necessary for success in eCat-like experiments.

I highly encourage direct replication. Gold miners have a saying, "to find gold, you look where gold has been found before." In this case, LENR gold is most likely to be found in direct and complete replication of experiments that have shown success. In general, this doesn't mean you will be successful for having a "better" replication. In the beginning we won't know what is important and what is not, though we always seem to know a way to do it better. But, the "better" replications commonly don't work. Such has been true for the "better than Parkhomov" replications that we have seen - something important is being missed. Better to try to do the experiment exactly as Parkhomov has done, with the same apparatus. Then we only have to figure out what was happening that Parkhomov might not have reported because it was a factor he was unaware of. I believe the hydrogen pressure profile that resulted primarily from uncharacterized leaks in his devices are a missing key parameter in reproducing his success.

I would like to comment about about adding carbon. When carbon is added to the ordinary Parkhomov fuel, there is a very real danger for the creation of nickel tetracarbonyl inside the reactor. When the reactor is heated with the internal oxides (for example NiO), CO can form and the combination of CO and Ni can form nickel tetracarbonyl, a low vapor pressure liquid (most frequently be encountered a vapor). Nickel tetracarbonyl is known in the industry as "liquid death", because inhalation of even a small amount can be terminal. So, if adding carbon, you have to be really careful about where the gas goes that comes out the reactor from venting, leaking, or vacuum exhaust.

There is much talk about incidental carbon in the fuel. Keep in mind that EDS and SIMS typically measure the powder adhered to aluminum Ted Pella pedestals using a carbon-filled conductive tape. Carbon from this tape unavoidably ends up in the analysis of the powder, so you cannot be sure from these types of measurement that there is any carbon in the Ni at all. There is likely to be a tiny amount of carbon in the Ni from the imperfect reduction of the Ni powder from its nickel tetracarbonyl precursor; however, this will be less than 1%.

Personally, I don't believe there is any benefit for carbon or iron in the Parkhomov/hotCat reactions. The lower temperature Rossi eCat may make good use of the catalysts like Shell 105 at temperatures up to 500-600C. However, the modality appears to be completely different for the Parkhomov/hotCat reaction where the LiH completely envelops the Ni surface area. For the hydrogen to reach the Ni, it must go through the molten, hydrogen starved LiH; and the catalyst created RH clusters would not go through as a cluster. Further, I don't believe the delicate RH clusters would survive the high temperatures of the reaction. I don't believe the UD form exists from the data I have seen.

I am not sure how the presence of alumina (Al2O3) in the Parkhomov fuel has been ascertained. Keep in mind that the LiAlH4 will react with water in the air to form a hydroxide on its surface. It could be that the surface measurements of LiAlH4 (EDS, SIMS) would show a lot of oxygen, but that would not be representative of the powder's volumetric ratio of aluminum to oxygen. I don't believe this can be taken as evidence of added alumina powder by itself. What is the evidence?

Note also that Al2O3 will form at high temperature inside the reactor, to likely great benefit to the system. The molten aluminum from the decomposition of LiAlH4 will getter out the oxygen from the system and will form Al2O3. Al2O3 is a super-stable oxide and once formed, the oxygen will not later be released. So, one would expect to find Al2O3 in the ash of the Parkhomov reaction.

The authors of this paper ("The Question of Excess Heat in Nickel-Hydrogen) pointed out a mis-translation in final paragraphs of my original translation of the document. After email discussion with the authors, the translation error has been resolved. I also corrected the surnames of the authors for proper presentation in English. The revised paper is enclosed as an attachment and can also be found on my Google drive at:

https://drive.google.com/open?…Pc25a4cOM2REZscms4VjhjY28

I wrote to Dr. Jiang on 10/20/2015 to ask for more detail on the preparations for his experiment. What follows was the exchange.

Questions from Bob Higgins to Dr. Jiang on 10/20/2015:
"When I read your slide 3, the (continued) text description of the experiment, you stated: ‘In the first day, the reaction chamber was vacuumed to 10^-4 mbar, and then was heated up. The LiAlH₄ was degassed, and the upper pressure in the chamber reached 400 kPa at temperatures of 150-300°C or so.’ When you say the LiAlH₄ was degassed, what exactly do you mean? Do you mean that the act of pulling the vacuum degassed the LiAlH₄? Or, was there another step for degassing the LiAlH₄?

How long was your fueled reactor maintained in a vacuum before you began heating?

Before you began heating, was a valve activated to seal the reaction chamber from the vacuum pump?"

Dr. Songsheng Jiang’s reply on 10/21/2015:
“To clean out other gasses in the reactor chamber, the reactor was heated at 100°C or so and pumped to a vacuum about 10^-4 Pa for about 100 hours before starting the experiment. When the valve was closed, the reactor chamber can maintained in a vacuum for more than 24 hours.

When starting the experiment, the vacuum valve was closed and fuel cell temperature increased by heating to 140-400°C. Then the pressure in the chamber increased from a vacuum to 400 kPa quickly, and then decreased to a pressure -100 kPa at 400-800°C slowly. We consider that the increase of pressure was the result of LiAlH₄ degassing [decomposition] and subsequent pressure decrease was the result of hydrogen absorption by nickel and others.

For your reference, the chemical reaction mechanism of LiAlH₄ is shown as below:

3 LiAlH₄ → Li₃AlH₆ + 2 Al + 3 H₂ (R1) ~150°C
2 Li₃AlH₆ → 6 LiH + 2 Al + 3 H₂ (R2) ~200°C
2 LiH + 2 Al → 2 LiAl + H₂ (R3) above 400°C ”

I applaud these authors for having performed a good experiment and publishing the results -THANK YOU FOR SHARING! Everyone hopes for a perfect experiment where there are no details left that can be criticized and the results are completely confident. For the sake of helping improve follow-on experiments, I offer the following observations:

• As Alain points out, there appears to have been no calorimetry calibrations (at least not reported). This should consist of dummy heating and measurement of the total recovered heat from the calorimetry compared to the total input heat. Better yet, develop a dynamic, calibrated thermal model of the calorimeter in SPICE.
• It was reported that k-type thermocouples were used, but there was no description of the configuration. Were the couples sheathed or bare junction? Bare junction thermocouples in the reactor tube will be exposed to both molten metal and H2. Either of these could change the junction alloy and hence the junction voltage. Bare junctions in the water flow would corrode and will ultimately fail. Since the entire experiment is based on thermometry, careful choice of thermocouple type and configuration is very important. I would recommend platinum RTDs for measuring the water to provide fast accurate response and no corrosion.
• The Tee fittings used to make the taps for measuring the calorimeter water appear to be high thermal mass metal parts. Use of plastic parts is better to prevent inaccuracy by heat flow into and through the fitting.
• The Aquarius-P flow meter is being operated at the very minimum of its range of calibrated reading. It would have been valuable to have done a bucket filling test to determine whether the flow meter was reading true.
• Insufficient details were reported about the assembly of the reactor tube with its fuel. The sealing of this tube is a critical part of reactor construction and may greatly affect success. The sealing should be described in explicit detail where the materials, procedure, times, and temperatures are explicitly called out.
• How was the fuel prepared and inserted into the reactor tube?
• Inside the reactor tube, the sealed empty volume into which the fuel was placed was not reported. This may also be a critical success factor.