Re: [Vo]:The melting miracle

[Bob Higgins]

Bob, I don't know if anyone responded to this.  I have been busy and I am
not going back through emails to catch up.

One thing to notice is that stainless steel, particularly thin stainless
steel should not be used above 800C with pressurized hydrogen.  At 400C,
stainless is OK, but by 800C the hydrogen permeation of stainless goes up
by many orders of magnitude and it keeps going up exponentially at
temperatures above this.  So at the high temperature of that ad hoc dogbone
experiment, I believe the hydrogen just leaked out through the stainless.
The alumina tube inside was not sealed and so the full pressure generated
from the thermal decomposition of the LiAlH4 was applied to the stainless
tube.

Bob Higgins

On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 11:18 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:

  I for one did not understand that the center tube was made from
 stainless steel.  Apparently it was not  sealed very well.  The access port
 for the pressure transducer to allow it to sense pressure, but remain at
 below 85 degrees, probably leaked.  That design and the welding or bonding
 of the access tube at the port should be reviewed as the most likely
 problem area for the leak that occurred.

 At least the temperature measuring equipment seemed to work and act to
 confirm the thermal characteristics of the alumina.  The bonding of the
 Stainless steel inner tube to the alumina outer vessel should be described
 and checked for gaps that may have caused higher local internal
 temperatures.

 I would guess that the stainless steel tube was grounded?  You would not
 want it to act as an electrical conductor?

 I hope someone familiar with the dog bone test design can answer some of
 these questions.

 Bob

 - Original Message -
 *From:* ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Sent:* Friday, January 02, 2015 9:09 PM
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The melting miracle

 I think a grounded metal pail might act like a faraday cage and absorb
 EMF, but if it was open at the top microwaves not absorbed by the water
 should leak out

 On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
 wrote:

  On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 10:40 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 I had that weird thought too that the reactor might be generating
 microwave radiation and heating the water...


 Would the microwaves make it through the metal pail?

 Eric

Re: [Vo]:Explosion May Be Out of Control LENR

[Bob Higgins]

Having a switching control of the heater bias is not at all going to fix a
reactor that is unstable once it reaches a critical temperature.  Such a
reactor will continue to rise in temperature with NO input at all (pulse
width =0).  Such devices as have been shown today have essentially a fixed
thermal resistance to some temperature sink near ambient.  The only thermal
change that will quench such an out of control reaction is to lower the
thermal resistance to the low temperature sink.  One good way to do this is
with having convection cooling and having a fan blow a variable amount of
cool air over the reactor.  There is no need for water because it is
difficult to control the amount of cooling you get to such a high
temperature device.  Air can be really linear in thermal cooling.  In fact,
you could use the air flow as a temperature regulator in combination with
the heater control.

Also, note that Rossi does use a thermocouple control for his hotCats - it
is seen in his lab photographs.  He monitors the core temperature and puts
that into a PID controller.  Such a controller can behave in ON/OFF mode to
completely turn OFF the bias heat when the temperature rises above a preset
limit.  There can also be alarms put in that controller that would turn on
a fan to lower the thermal resistance to ambient.  All with his hotCat
hardware today.  And Rossi does use pulse width control of the AC power he
is supplying.

On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 1:40 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 Jones,

 When I first began modeling the ECAT several years ago I used exactly the
 concept that you are suggesting.  It did in fact appear to yield a COP of 6
 or in that vicinity with careful adjustment of the PWM drive waveform.   I
 used the duty cycle that Rossi had revealed within his blog entries before
 the recent shut down of important data.  I even applied the amount of power
 that he spelled out.

 That was how it was left to await further proof until the Swiss
 experiment.   During that experiment I saw a behavior that did not match
 the negative resistance region requirements from my earlier models.   I
 could never arrive at a COP of 6 without having one of those to boost the
 output power.  At the time I was a bit puzzled by the device and the
 apparent lack of that important condition.  I soon realized that either
 Rossi intentionally gave them a low fuel charge that guaranteed stability
 for their test or that he had produced a new design of the type 2 category.

 Had the scientists carefully increased the input drive power is small
 steps I could have easily determined whether or not a type 2 system was now
 in existence.  Unfortunately this was not done so I must conclude with
 caution that a type 1 is what was tested.  In that case the thermal
 feedback is limited so that a negative resistance region is not present at
 any operating temperature.  The COP will then be limited to less than 4
 under ideal conditions which is lower than most of us would like to see in
 the long term.

 Perhaps Rossi realized that even a COP of 3 would prove to the world that
 he had some magic.  The latest replications are not limited in the same way
 as Rossi did and the extra insulation as well as amount of fuel can be set
 as desired.   This is just what we needed.  It appears that we are now
 observing the negative resistance region of operation and the thermal run
 away that can easily tag along.  I have my fingers crossed that someone
 will find the magic solution that leads to a type 2 system which will be
 highly desired since the COP can be very large and stable in that mode of
 operation.

 This is an exciting time for all of us and what we have been waiting for.
 It does mean that many devices are going to melt down before the process is
 tamed.  I hope that proper precautions are taken to ensure that no one is
 injured by the multitude of explosions that might well be seen in the near
 future.  How much energy can be released during the worst case melt down
 event is not obvious so there may be substantial risk to the brave guys
 working within the labs.  So far Rossi is still among us so the danger may
 not be too much greater than already witnessed by the MFMP crew.

 Dave



  -Original Message-
 From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Tue, Feb 10, 2015 1:11 pm
 Subject: RE: [Vo]:Explosion May Be Out of Control LENR

  *From:* David Roberson
  Actually the characteristic curves suggest that the input power acts
 like a bias that stands behind the incremental behavior.  If that bias is
 quickly removed then there should exist a point of operation that is
 located ahead of the dangerous region.  Unless some strong memory exists, I
 can imagine that the process would reverse as we all hope.

 Dave,
  Given what you say above – what about the possibility of a higher level
 of control simply by use of pulsed power (at very low duty)?
 For instance, if we know from 

Re: [Vo]:Ceramic-to-metal hermetic bonding

[Bob Higgins]

While this is a nice reference for thermal decomposition of LiAlH4, it is
for a low pressure.  The decomposition will be different in a small closed
volume as the pressure goes into the range of 50-200 bar.  Other reversible
hydrides saturate at about 30 bar.  It is valuable to determine the max
pressure released in a closed volume vs. temp for this material.  The MFMP
experiment confirmed that in first stage decomposition the pressure reached
in the range of 30 bar.  After that the data is not reliable for 2
reasons.  First, there appeared to be a problem with the pressure sensor
producing huge output variation of hundreds of PSI - that is just not
correct.  Second, at high temperatures (800C for example), hydrogen
permeates that stainless readily.  I think there is good evidence that the
pressure will be high with full decomposition without a leak, perhaps in
the 100 bar range.  It is worth additional experiments and data taking, all
of which will require good seal technology.

MFMP is beginning to get feedback from Dr. Parkhomov.

Bob Higgins

On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 8:01 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:

  CB Sites--

 Check out the following for LiAlH4 decomposition:

 http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royprsa/211/1106/335.full.pdf

 Mark Jurich provided a nice reference list on the properties of LiAlH4
 yesterday,  Saturday, January 03, 2015 11:56 AM nere on Vortex-l. The one
 cited above is from his list.


 Bob

 - Original Message -
 *From:* CB Sites cbsit...@gmail.com
 *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Sent:* Saturday, January 03, 2015 10:04 PM
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Ceramic-to-metal hermetic bonding

 You know Axil, maybe they are based on the internal pressure estimates
 I've read here.  When the MFMP finally had the pressure transducer
 stabilized they had 100psi which decreased linearly to 0 after power off.
 A redo of that experiment would be worth doing just to get the kinks out of
 the pressure gauge.  Then you might see the disassociation of LiAlH4 to Li
 and H in the pressure change.  As another vortexian mentioned, I don't
 think that has ever been published.  So knowing PV=nRT the value 'n' can be
 deduced or the expected value of P can be deduced with temp as some have
 already done.   Given a temperature goal, and perhaps knowing the strength
 of the contain these can be designed into the experiment.  So instead of
 worrying about seals, just design a tube that can contain hydrogen gas at
 1400C and be loaded with fuel under a vacuum to maintain purity of the
 reactants.


 On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 11:29 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 I think that MFMP is concerned about melting or exploding the core.

 On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 11:07 PM, CB Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote:

 I agree with you Bob.  Getting a good seal will be the challenge of this
 experiment.   I've seen a few electron micrographs of hydrogen is Si and
 other metals and it is amazing how deep H will migrate into a lattice.
 Jones Benne points to the S-bond.com.   It will take something more than
 that to seal this structure at the high temps, high pressure and
 embrittlement from hydrogen gas in this experiment.Knowing the pressure
 and core temp is a noble cause, but until replication is done, do we know
 enough about the phenomena to pursue those experiments?


 On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 6:40 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com
 wrote:

  Jones--

 Unless the thermal expansion of the alumina body is matched to the
 expansion of the Stainless Steel sleeve, it will be very hard to maintain a
 seal.  The thermal stresses will become very high at the interface of the
 two materials. I think that the pressure changes seen in the recent MFMP
 test were due to thermal expansion acoustic emissions upon each increase in
 temperature.  This emission caused the pressure sensor to spike.   A sonic
 acoustic emission monitor would be valuable to deduce where the strain is
 and its intensity as a function of heating, if good sealing of the
 connection is necessary.  I am not sure the objectives of the test required
 such sealing and pressure containment.

 (Acoustic emission monitoring is an old technique to look for micro
 cracking in fission reactor equipment that happens during thermal
 transients.  Its quite sensitive and has/had been resisted by reactor
 vessel manufacturers, because it was so good for identifying defects
 in their forgings that other wise might not be discovered.)

 Bob

 - Original Message -
 *From:* Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Sent:* Saturday, January 03, 2015 1:49 PM
 *Subject:* [Vo]:Ceramic-to-metal hermetic bonding

  It is possible to bond alumina, such as a modified dogbone reactor
 directly to stainless tubing, using the proprietary S-bond alloy :



 http://www.s-bond.com/blog/2011/04/04/ceramic-metal-bonding-part-one/



 The advantage would be allowing a permanent fill port for hydrogen,
 along with a pressure

Re: [Vo]:What did Rossi learn from the Lagano test?

[Bob Higgins]

From analysis of the remains of the MFMP Bang! experiment, it is clear that
the carbonyl Ni particles sinter into a finely porous 3D web of particles
(probably happening by 400C).  By 1000C, the evidence shows that this web
of hydrogen cleaned Ni particles are completely covered in a molten Li-Al.
By analysis of the Li-Al on the alumina tube ID, it is clear that this
molten Li-Al has dissolved Ni from the web into the molten metal to 3-4%
molar fraction (not counting the Li).  The fine features on the carbonyl Ni
particles are what is dissolving into the molten Li-Al-Ni metal.

This also happened to the HotCat.  Based on the MFMP SEM images, it is easy
to identify particle 1 (TPR2 page 43, Figure 2 left) as having come from
the sintered Ni 3D web in the core of the reactor.  Be sure to pay
attention to the scale in this image - the 2 micron bar in the picture is
small.  The features are as big as the whole Ni particles that comprised
the fuel, now sintered into a web (these are not tiny tubercles on top of
a particle - tubercles are an alleged part of Rossi's low temperature
fuel).  The sintered Ni particle web is cleanly coated with about 200 nm
thickness of the solidified metal.

All of the nanoscale features of the carbonyl Ni particles have dissolved
into the molten Li-Al metal - there are no tubercles.

At reaction temperatures (800C) this metal film was liquid and wetted to
the hydrogen cleaned Ni.  Also, at this pressure of H2, it is likely that
much of the Li in the molten metal was melted LiH, an ionic hydride - the
molten metal was probably saturated with hydrogen in the form of H- anions
as part of the ionic hydride of Li.  This appears to be a [liquid metal
ionic hydride - Ni] reaction, not a gas phase reaction.

Bob Higgins

On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 5:03 AM, Roarty, Francis X 
francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote:

  [snip] But maybe these tubercles serve a function at relatively low
 temperatures, then as the reaction takes hold, the tubercles are mostly
 distorted and destroyed. But the function that these tubercles are meant to
 serve have been put in place and are independent once established and self
 reinforcing. [snip]



 And here we come all the way back to whether a fractional molecule can
 persist once formed outside of the environment that produced it. Such that
 after sufficient heat the environment is gone but fractional molecules
 remain. Heat after death reports would suggest it does persist for a time
 and the questions regarding restart of hot cats in the fall begs the
 question if the sealed reactor is allowing these fractional molecules to
 hibernate in the reflowed lattice without run away reactions.





 *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com]
 *Sent:* Saturday, March 14, 2015 6:08 PM
 *To:* vortex-l
 *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:What did Rossi learn from the Lagano test?



 More...



 We were all amazed that the fine nano surface features on the nickel
 particles could ever be preserved at reactor operating temperatures above
 the temperature that these nano features were expected to deteriorate.



 But maybe these tubercles serve a function at relatively low temperatures,
 then as the reaction takes hold, the tubercles are mostly distorted and
 destroyed. But the function that these tubercles are meant to serve have
 been put in place and are independent once established and self
 reinforcing.



 On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 The Lagano test may have revealed to Rossi that the function of the nickel
 micro-particles are transitory. These particles may only be required at
 startup just to get the LENR reaction going without producing the BANG.

 But the Lagano testers ran the reactor very hot, and many if not most of
 the nickel particles melted. But after 32 days of operation, the reaction
 was gaining in effectiveness and vigor even as the nickel particles were
 being degraded by the high heat. This revelation may have allowed Rossi to
 rethink his fuel mix strategy. Rossi may have been surprised that the
 nickel particles showed limited transmutation.

 The nickel particles may only be required to setup a quantum mechanical
 preconditions that allows the LENR reaction to begin gradually and smoothly
 without a BANG.

 Once startup is achieved, the LENR reaction precedes as a fire would by
 maintaining the conditions necessary for its continuing progression.

 No LENR reaction has yet to be restarted. Could it be that the nickel
 particles can only be used once at the initial startup. And once used these
 particles become ineffective?

[Vo]: Thermometry

[Bob Higgins]

I brought up this in an internal MFMP discussion and I would be interested
in getting input from the Vorts on the topic.

I have been thinking about thermocouple measurements with a reactor tube or
a glow stick.  I now believe it is a bad idea to measure the core
temperature inside the tube as a metric.  The reason is that this
temperature could be only loosely related to what you are trying to gauge -
the output heat of the device.  We know from analysis of the Lugano
experiments that the emitted heat is related to the surface temperature,
both for radiation and convection.  The same cannot be said for internal
measurements of temperature.
Imagine for the moment that you had 2 tubes, one with 2mm thick wall and
one with 3mm thick wall.  The one with the higher wall thickness will have
more insulation to the outside and the core temperature will be higher for
the same excess heat.  This is an extreme example, but each of the
typically used tubes have different wall thickness from different shrinkage
during firing.
Another concern is that the dummy run and the fueled run will not be
equivalent.  Suppose you fueled the dummy with just the Ni powder or with
nothing at all.  The contact to the thermocouple will be poor.  Now imagine
adding the Ni+LiAlH4.  When the Li melts, it will begin conducting heat at
a much greater rate to the thermocouple and this conductivity will change
with each of the breakdown phases of the LiAlH4.  This will create a
difference in thermometry between the dummy run and the fully fueled run.
I think it would be a more accurate metric to measure temperature at the
outside of the tube as this is a more representative metric of output
heat.  You can still measure the core temperature but its interpretation
may be a little obscure - so don't use it as a metric of output heat - even
in comparison.

Re: [Vo]:Seeing the Light

[Bob Higgins]

The LockTherm testing is certainly interesting, but it is not clear to me
that it has any advantage over Parkhomov.  I have seen no additional
videos, nor have I heard that they achieved excess heat.

An interesting phase of this whole Parkhomov/Rossi fuel is what is
happening in the 700-1100ºC range.  By 700ºC, both aluminum and LiH are
melted.  LiH is an ionic hydride with the hydrogen as an H- anion.  At
temps of 900-1000ºC, the LiH is reported to dissociate.  However, high
ambient H2 pressure may keep the LiH from dissociating until higher
temperatures.  I think the high temperature molten LiH + Al in contact with
the Ni is a very interesting place to find LENR.

However, in the LockTherm case with only 5 bar of H2, the lower pressure
may allow the dissociation of the LiH in the 900ºC range, and the
opportunity for LENR may not exist until the temp reaches 700ºC where the
LiH and AL have melted.  This would perhaps leave a lesser, narrower temp
range where LENR could occur with their use of only 5 bar of H2 pressure.

On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

  Interesting note from Quantum Heat/Hunt/MFMP/.

 Quote: LockTherm LLC representatives did not say if they had seen excess
 heat in these tests… they demonstrated a video where, with 5 atmospheres
 of pressure put into a used tube, they could see light…

 Does anyone have a citation for that video or is it this one which turned
 up on YT?

 *https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6e1dhVnWupY*
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6e1dhVnWupY

 There seems to be a direct link between light emission (incandescence) and
 thermal gain. This seems to indicated that SPP are the operative mechanism.

 BTW – it looks now like “LockTherm LLC” is a major player in the race to
 understand this phenomenon.

 Jones

Re: [Vo]:Seeing the Light

[Bob Higgins]

Well, this could be true, but we have no evidence that it was an advantage
since there has been no report of XH from LockTherm.  Better to compare
experiments that show XH, and that is a really small group.

It would be interesting to have an SEM of their heated pill.  Since they
appear to be a company, they may have no interest in sharing.  Of course,
MFMP can always replicate that - it is simple to do.

On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Roarty, Francis X 
francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote:

  Bob,

One advantage not mentioned was on geometry, nature opposes
 construction of Casimir geometry in bulk powders and skeletal cats… this
 method is far easier than leaching aluminum out of a nickel alloy or
 counting on stiction forces to maintain the powder in bulk form .. It
 should increase the catalytic properties of the powders by packing the
 individual grains closer together and making the geometry between grains
 smaller. IMHO a more robust dynamic tapestry of smaller geometries is
 better than loosely packed larger geometries.

 Regards

 Fran



 *From:* Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com]
 *Sent:* Monday, March 09, 2015 12:34 PM
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Seeing the Light



 The LockTherm testing is certainly interesting, but it is not clear to me
 that it has any advantage over Parkhomov.  I have seen no additional
 videos, nor have I heard that they achieved excess heat.



 An interesting phase of this whole Parkhomov/Rossi fuel is what is
 happening in the 700-1100ºC range.  By 700ºC, both aluminum and LiH are
 melted.  LiH is an ionic hydride with the hydrogen as an H- anion.  At
 temps of 900-1000ºC, the LiH is reported to dissociate.  However, high
 ambient H2 pressure may keep the LiH from dissociating until higher
 temperatures.  I think the high temperature molten LiH + Al in contact with
 the Ni is a very interesting place to find LENR.



 However, in the LockTherm case with only 5 bar of H2, the lower pressure
 may allow the dissociation of the LiH in the 900ºC range, and the
 opportunity for LENR may not exist until the temp reaches 700ºC where the
 LiH and AL have melted.  This would perhaps leave a lesser, narrower temp
 range where LENR could occur with their use of only 5 bar of H2 pressure.

Re: [Vo]:Seeing the Light

[Bob Higgins]

Yes, this is an advantage, and it is one that MFMP has already
demonstrated.  I guess I should have said that it has no clear advantage
over MFMP.

My experiments going forward should allow the pressure to be measured in
the small Parkhomov-size volume, do the experiment in a non-boiling
calorimeter, capture radiations during the experiment, capture the gas
after the experiment, and be able to analyze the solid ash after the
experiment.  All of this will be done at Parkhomov-like pressures (up to
5000 PSI) and temperatures to over 1100C.  Most of Parkhomov's reactor
fabrication hours are spent sealing the tubes.

LockTherm is only using fused quartz tubes.  This won't allow them to work
at the Parkhomov pressures.  And, we have no reports of excess heat from
them.

On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

  *From:* Bob Higgins

 Ø

 Ø   The LockTherm testing is certainly interesting, but it is not
 clear to me that it has any advantage over Parkhomov.

  Well, the one HUGE advantage is that they are able to seal the ceramic
 with a compression fitting and are therefore able to both relieve excess
 pressure or add hydrogen from a tank.

 This practical advance should reduce the “bone yard” of broken cells…
 Every broken cell in that pile represents 30-40 man-hours of lost time –
 not to mention the out-of-pocket expense.

 Jones

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment

[Bob Higgins]

I don't believe Ed Storms and Kiva Labs has SIMS or ICP-MS.  I know he as
an SEM with EDX capability.

Actually, MFMP is looking to catalog organizations and individuals who have
access to various means of testing who might be willing to look at the
materials we make.  I know that Ed is willing to help us with SEM and EDX,
when he is available.  Who can we get to help MFMP with the following:

   - SIMS for near surface isotopic analysis
   - ICP-MS for analysis of bulk samples
   - Tritium detection
   - Light gas isotopic analysis [high resolution for m/z8]
   - Light gas RGA [low resolution mass spec]
   - XRD
   - Thermocouple calibration furnace
   - IR spectroscopy

Please feel to private email me if you think you can help.

Bob Higgins

On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:

  Higgins comments are right on.

 MFMP should do mass spec analysis of the Ni particles to determine
 isotopic concentration in the Parkhomov test.   If the Parkhomov test
 actually produces a variety of Ni--some reacted and some not reacted--that
 would be a nice comparison to do.

 Does anyone know if Ed has done the isotopic analysis suggested by
 Higgins?   It seems it is a definite must to do and I would be surprised it
 has not been done by somebody.

 The Lugano test was restricted by plan it seems to limit the determination
 of changes of the fuel/loading from beginning to end.  This was in way of
 protecting IP of Industrial Heat.  The key was the significant production
 of excess heat to demonstrate a useful energy producing device, not a
 scientific explanation of the theory of LENR, in contrast to the wishes of
 many.

 Great changes in society most  frequently happen as a result of
 contrarian individuals and their ideas.  In some societies such individuals
 are considered special and honored.  In others where the status quo is
 honored and promoted, they are despised and called fraudsters.  I think
 Rossi belongs to the former group.

 Dr King was thought by many as a contrarian and despised.  However his
 actions managed to change the social fabric of this country and the World.
 He subsequently has become honored.

 In Native American society, King and people like would be honored, and in
 the Lakota people he would have been a heyoka person.  In early English
 society, jesters were such people and the kings and queens wisely kept them
 around.

 Bob Cook

 - Original Message - *m:* Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com

 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Sent:* Sunday, March 08, 2015 9:51 AM
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment

  Some features of the Lugano HotCat ash can now be identified based on
 the follow-on work of MFMP and Parkhomov.

 When trying to decide whether the Lugano team actually sampled the
 important part of the HotCat ash, have a look at the TPR2 - Apendix 3 -
 Figure 2, the SEM photo of Particle 1.  This image is almost exactly the
 same as the SEM photos that Ed Storms took of the MFMP sample of the
 sintered Ni core material (molded into a rod matching the ID of the tube)
 that started out as Vale T255 carbonyl powder.  Here is the link to the
 folder of images:


 https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2fnRiS3FkLW9md2w1RkZGc0oxYU1pUHgxRmkzS1Znbkx1Wk1UREJOZHduakUusp=sharing


 It is highly likely that the Ni cores look the same in all 3 reactors
 (HotCat, Parkhomov, MFMP).

 I wish the experimenters had been more specific about which samples were
 analyzed by TOF-SIMS and ICP-MS.  It would have been valuable to have SEM
 analysis of the actual particles used in the MS studies to understand from
 where, within the reactor, these particles had come.

 However, the Lugano experimenters did not have the benefit of the MFMP
 results when they went to identify their samples, so they had no way to
 identify what place within the reactor the sample represented.  The MFMP
 Bang! was serendipitous because it left the entire Ni charge as a sintered
 molded rod of Ni covered in Li-Al alloy metal - like Lugano Figure 2 (see
 the Debris photo in the folder linked above).  The Lugano Appendix 3-Figure
 2-Particle 1 is representative of the sintered Ni core.

 Since Ed's analysis shows that the Ni dissolved only to a small extent in
 the Li-Al molten metal, most of the ash analysis of the Ni isotopic ratios
 must have been from a sample of the core because that's the only place
 where there is a significant amount of Ni.  Note: Ed's EDX analysis of the
 solidified Li-Al showed almost 4% Ni, but the percentage did not include
 the Li (which EDX does not detect), so the actual percentage of Ni in
 solution may have been more like 2%.

 Bob Higgins

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment

[Bob Higgins]

I was referring to the SIMS and ICP-MS that was done for the Lugano
experiment.  These tests have not been done for the MFMP ash.  We do not
have partners for these tests [yet].

On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:

  Bob--

 I thought you indicated that ICP_MS was assomplisheD--I wish the
 experimenters had been more specific about which samples were analyzed by
 TOF-SIMS and ICP-MS. It would have been valuable to have SEM analysis of
 the actual particles used in the MS studies to understand from where,
 within the reactor, these particles had come.

 What MS studies are you talking about?

 Bob Cook

 - Original Message -
 *From:* Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Sent:* Sunday, March 08, 2015 1:31 PM
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment

 I don't believe Ed Storms and Kiva Labs has SIMS or ICP-MS.  I know he as
 an SEM with EDX capability.

 Actually, MFMP is looking to catalog organizations and individuals who
 have access to various means of testing who might be willing to look at the
 materials we make.  I know that Ed is willing to help us with SEM and EDX,
 when he is available.  Who can we get to help MFMP with the following:

- SIMS for near surface isotopic analysis
- ICP-MS for analysis of bulk samples
- Tritium detection
- Light gas isotopic analysis [high resolution for m/z8]
- Light gas RGA [low resolution mass spec]
- XRD
- Thermocouple calibration furnace
- IR spectroscopy

 Please feel to private email me if you think you can help.

 Bob Higgins

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Patent Final Rejection

[Bob Higgins]

Be careful not to read too much into the USPTO's stamp of final
rejection.  It is not uncommon to receive this notice during the process
of patent prosecution.  I have issued patents, which, during the course of
prosecution, got stamped final rejection.  It is time for the patent
attorneys to do their work - to make counterarguments against those of the
examiner.

However, if the Lugano report is being used as the basis of proof of the
patent claims, then the errors in the Lugano report will certainly affect
the patentability of the HotCat.  Some of these errors were directly called
out by the patent examiner.  I believe the Lugano report is capable of
being fixed in revision - at least enough to make the results and
observations all self-consistent.  I also believe the result of the revised
Lugano calculations will still show excess heat - just not as much as
claimed initially in the report.  This revision of the report will be
required quickly if it is to play a role in the patent arguments to
overcome the examiner's objections (a shortened time of reply of 3 months
was given).

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:

 The patent office issued a final rejection of Rossi's patent
 application.

 https://www.scribd.com/doc/258595858/USPTO-Final-Rejection-Rossi-Patent

 I'm not surprised ... he didn't reveal anything of the internal
 structure or catalysts, and recently added the Legano report as
 evidence.

 I classified that as inconclusive -- based mainly on the
 emissivity of the ceramic used, and (as for high temperature
 superconductivity) there is no agreed theory for overcoming the
 coulomb barrier.

 Though anyone who believes that the free-space coulomb equations
 apply on to a metal/hydrogen matrix, with a sea of electrons
 surrounding it, and the possibility of multi-atom quantum
 conglomerates such as Bose-Einstein condensates, plasmons, phonons
 etc etc ...  is (IMHO) willfully-ignorantly nuts.

 The condition of cold fusion is not the same as hot fusion. (rough
 quote).

Re: [Vo]:HotCat Design Explained

[Bob Higgins]

It is not clear from your description of this book on the website, but it
appears to be a compilation of the published work of others plus pure
speculation by R. Ventola.  Does author Ventola have any first hand
knowledge of the construction and fueling of the HotCat?

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Lewan Mats mats.le...@nyteknik.se wrote:

  Hmm, here's apparently how the high temp E-Cat is designed.

  www.ecat-thenewfire.com/blog/hot-cat-20-how-last-generation-ecat-are-made


  I suppose it's a must-read.

  Mats
 www.animpossibleinvention.com

Re: [Vo]:Questions Raised by Parkhomov Experiment Failure

[Bob Higgins]

Fran,

I have seen exactly this done by Dennis Cravens.  Dennis composed a set of
experiments in a single tube, along with control materials, running along
its length with gas permeable separators.  All were exposed to the same
hydrogen isotope mix, and the whole tube was ostensibly uniformly heated.
Then he could use an IR pyrometer, and run it along the length of the tube
and see the temperature of the controls and each of the experiments.
Dennis is a master of this, running almost every experiment with a
simultaneous control/blind/dummy.

It may be harder, but possible, to do this at such high pressures as seems
is required in a Parkhomov-like experiment.  The long tube, compression
seal is well suited to this because it can be sealed cold with the
experiments carefully loaded into sections.  Alumina is a relatively poor
thermal conductor (about the same as stainless), to experiments could
easily show hot spots and not have them blurred out by the thermal
conductivity of the tube.  From the lesson I learned from Dennis, the most
valuable part of multiple experiments is to have a control and an active
sample in the same tube.  Then, for the bulk of the screening, you could
simply measure that the active portion is hotter than the control, and by
how much.  This is much quicker than calorimetry, though you will want to
do calorimetry as well to convince yourself and others that there is really
XH there.

From an engineer's perspective, I want to run an experiment with just the
LiAlH4 and determine the full pressure profile vs. temperature.  Then do
the same with the Ni + other catalysts and look not only for XH, but for
changes in the pressure profile.  I also plan to collect the product gas
for analysis in a sample cylinder at the end of the experiment.
Opportunities there are to look for enhancements of hydrogen isotopes and
for He.

Bob

On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 4:56 AM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com
 wrote:

  Good Points Bob and  taken with Axil’s reply re arc gap vs RF by Rossi
 begs a question.. how hard would it be to design and monitor an array of
 experiments inside a single reactor tube.. stepped or tapered mini cells
 inside a single tube with a variable exterior thermal gradient – metrics
 could be collected into arrays at different levels of submersion /cooling
 for each mini cell where each cell  represents  different variables of
 powder and geometries.. shot gunning may be the quickest way to identify
 the most important variables..  multiple heating wires and pwm of the
 source could even allow more variability.. IMHO minimal telemetry could
 quickly isolate the most important variables and then we can worry about
 meticulous measurements.

 Fran



 *From:* Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com]
 *Sent:* Sunday, March 01, 2015 9:01 PM
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Questions Raised by Parkhomov Experiment
 Failure



 From the pictures I saw, Parkhomov changed to use a separate tube for the
 heater.  If nichrome does make a difference, it would have to be against
 the alumina reactor tube.  So, if you use the heater tube, it wouldn't make
 any difference if it was kanthal or nichrome - the H2 would leak out of the
 gap between.



 I think it less likely that having the heater wire in proximity to the
 main reactor tube makes or if it is nichrome makes any difference.  The
 inside of the tube is coated with Li-Al-Ni alloy that would fill any
 porosity in the alumina.  Examining the alumina shards from the MFMP Bang!
 experiment, I saw no evidence of penetration or erosion of the alumina tube.



 For more likely is that the experiment could have been a success, as
 MFMP's experiment could have been a success.  In Parkhomov's new design,
 there is increased insulation around the reactor tube (the air gap,the
 second alumina tube with the heater coil, and the additional alumina cement
 around the coil).  Only this time, the heater wire is on the outside of the
 insulation.  If he heats the reactor tube to where XH occurs, the
 temperature may quickly rise out of control and cause the reactor tube to
 break open.  This is due to the increased thermal resistance to ambient or
 to the calorimeter water.  When the heater is turned off, he still has all
 of that alumina wrapped around the reactor tube.  In previous experiments
 when Parkhomov insulated the reactor in alumina powder, it caused the
 reactor tubes to break.



 On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote:

 The failure of Parkhomov's experiment raises a few questions that
 hopefully he can answer with future experiments.  There was some
 potentially bad news from Greenyer's visit including that his original
 supply of nickel has been exhausted except for 1 gram.



 http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2015/03/02/parkhomov-demonstration-fails/



 Jack

Re: [Vo]:Questions Raised by Parkhomov Experiment Failure

[Bob Higgins]

I don't know why you think it would be less safe to run LiAlH4 by itself in
the reactor. As the temperature rises and H2 is released, the liquid Li is
also being released.  If there is oxygen present, it will form LiOH which
doesn't decompose until over 900C.  This is the first stage of O2
gettering.  Also, as the aluminum melts (660C), it will also, and extremely
stably, getter the oxygen to form Al2O3.  When the LiOH decomposes and
releases the O2, it will immediately be gettered by the molten Al.
Further, molecular H2 doesn't thermally split until over 2400C, so when the
catalysts are not present to split the H2 (Ni, Fe), the pressure could be
lower.  Once the Li and Al are molten, I think the molten alloy becomes
saturated with with hydrogen, probably monatomic H, causing a net reduction
in pressure, but that is just a hypothesis.  When the Ni is present, there
is only a minor take-up of H - it doesn't fit easily into the lattice - so
there will only be H very near the surface and only a small volume will be
taken up by Ni.  As I understand it, at very high pressures H is taken more
deeply into the metal, but still not very deep.

There may be some danger if there is a leak, but only a small one.  The
actual volume of H2 generated from the amounts of LiAlH4 being used is
fairly small (0.5 liter STP) and if there is a leak it will come out
gradually as the LiAlH4 decomposes.  If it explodes, the small STP volume
limits the chemical energy release to a mildly dangerous explosion (Bang!),
that is easily shielded.  But it must have a shield!  It is also going to
be a loud implusive pop, so one safety item to consider is ear plugs.  Plan
for it to explode (but design it not to explode).

Of course, the amount of LiAlH4 you put in the reactor volume to decompose
will determine the peak pressure in the reactor.  This LiAlH4 mass to
volume of reactor ratio is an important one to get the pressure in the
right range for LENR.  Any leaks, and the pressure will quickly go down by
orders of magnitude and the LENR will likely not occur.  I say this, but we
all know that Rossi historically worked at lower H2 pressure and got LENR
at lower temperatures.  So with the right catalyst, it may not need as much
LiAlH4 for the same volume and LENR could begin at a lower temperature.

Yes, Dennis is a very creative and experienced researcher.

Bob

On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote:

 That's useful information Bob.  Very creative techniques by Cravens.

 You probably already know this, but I would urge caution running with
 LiAlH4 alone.  Expect that it will explode.  Nickel and other materials
 (e.g., Fe2O3) in the cell attenuate the risk of explosion, but with only
 hydrogen producing materials in the cell, it is extremely likely
 (particularly if the oxygen has not been removed).

Re: [Vo]:Questions Raised by Parkhomov Experiment Failure

[Bob Higgins]

Yes, this is why I was worried about Alexander's new design that puts an
air gap and another ceramic around the reactor core - increasing its
thermal resistance to the lower temperature air around it and/or the water
in the calorimeter.  He already showed that if he put alumina powder
insulating the reactor (to lower the input power to get it high temp) that
it failed catastrophically.

I am working on a large water volume calorimeter in which to test my
Parkhomov-like reactors.  It will include a variable convection fan to
change the thermal resistance between the reactor tube and the cool water
in the surrounds.  This convection will only be activated if the heater
coil power is turned off and the temperature of the reactor continues to
rise.  The intent in this design is for the water to never reach boiling.
Also, the calorimeter will be a good shield for any explosive shrapnel
(primarily alumina shards).  The calorimeter also provides a port to
measure radiations with low mass density between the reactor core and the
sensor. Here are 2 links to diagrams of the calorimeter I am building:

   https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2R1RYemRlTEdZSEEauthuser=0

   https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2dWh5VXJFSU1uT1Uauthuser=0

Here is the link to my planned ZDV plumbing that will allow me to measure
the pressure, sample the gas product, and vent the system before opening
the reactor post-experiment.

   https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2WU9MR3hyQ2NIWkEauthuser=0

As Bob Greenyer likes to do, he has dubbed this system in ASCII as
{Garbage Can}.

Bob

On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Roarty, Francis X 
francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote:

  Thanks Bob, that is great information but I still have a nagging concern
 that thermal loading is more important than anyone is currently aware and
 that XH needs an environment that is robustly subtracting heat away from an
 otherwise self destructing cell to rise above the noise. IMHO researchers
 need to perform something equivalent to an isometric where they are
 vigorusly fighting their own heating effort via thermal loading and then
 repeatedly push the drive thru the threshold temp while slowly increasing
 the load..and …with luck..decreasing the drive [I think this what Rossi has
 been doing]. The stories about life after death, evaporating water and
 explosions where reactors were left leaning in a bucket of water may have
 created a thermal gradient centered about the waterline that eventually
 favored a particular area within the tube and powders with just the right
 properties to run away…. Shot gunning by accident.

 Fran

Re: [Vo]:Re: Rossi/Parkhomov reaction and the hydrogen anion

[Bob Higgins]

Ryan Hunt would better to ask this question.  I believe the reactor tube in
the Bang! experiment was from CoorsTek.  The other dogbone alumina tubes
were also from CoorsTek.  They have an online store.

It is the dogbone Lugano HotCat replica that has the heater coil wrapped
around a second alumina heater tube and then overmolded with the finned
convection surface.  The design called for a heater tube ID of 7.95mm and a
reactor tube OD of 6.35mm.  I don't know what the actual tube measurements
were.

However, the Bang! experiment did not use the dogbone as the tube furnace
for the experiment.  Bob Greenyer had gotten some sample SiC tube heaters
that could go to very high temperature.  They tried molding one into a
dogbone, but it was too fragile and just shattered during the molding
process.  The closed-one-end reactor tube was slipped into the SiC tube
heater with no convection surface other than the bare SiC heater tube.  I
don't know what the clearance was for the SiC heater tube, but it was
probably about 4-5mm in diameter.  The SiC heater could go easily to 1500C,
so there was no problem in getting the reactor tube as hot as they wanted.
It would have been difficult to measure a real COP for that experiment.
The thermocouple was attached to the reactor tube and it was also measured
using the Williamson pyrometer.  When the alumina tube exploded in the
Bang! experiment, it completely shattered the SiC heater tube around it and
that was the last sample.  Future experiments will likely be in the dogbone.

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 8:16 AM, Mark Jurich jur...@hotmail.com wrote:

   Bob, what was the Free Tolerance between the Reaction Tube OD
 and the Heater Tube ID in the MFMP Bang! Experiment?

 Who was the manufacturer of the alumina tubes?

 Thanks,
 Mark Jurich

Re: [Vo]:diversity, one of the 6 pillars of LENR

[Bob Higgins]

Axil, what you are describing as proper sized and tubercles are
applicable to Rossi's low temperature catalyzed Ni fuel.  This is not what
was used in the HotCat or Parkhomov experiment.  SEM images of the Ni core
from the MFMP experiment (Bang!) show that early on the Ni particles are
completely reduced of oxide by the evolved hydrogen and by 300C, they are
sintering into a sparse 3D web like structure.  Then above 900C, the
released Li-Al alloy molten metal is wetting to the Ni and actually
dissolving the fine features while completely coating the Ni.  This coating
is a Li-Al-Ni-H alloy and this is likely a new modality of LENR with Ni
inside liquid metal and with the hydrogen ions in the liquid metal.  The
iron in the Lugano experiment is a known catalyst to make LiAlH4 decompose
at a lower temperature.  That is probably why the Lugano HotCat worked
better at a lower temperature than Parkhomov (the Lugano temperatures were
significantly off, with the 1410C measurement probably ~1130C; I can send
you the paper if you want).  This also decreases that calculated COP by at
least 20% which is getting closer to Parkhomov.

Lugano and Parkhomov are commensurate.  Rossi's low temperature eCat
catalyzed fuel is different and the reaction there is gas phase.

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:


 I said...

 *There is now experimental analysis that discounts that the nickel
 powder has contributed any power to the LENR reaction. From a theoretical
 standpoint, this could be explained by the lack of proper sized particles
 used in the experiment and also the lack of tubercles on the surface of any
 nickel particle no matter its size.*

 * This may mean that there has been no value added to the LENR reaction
 from Parkhomov type nickel particles: these particles are LENR inert. For
 Parkhomov, his LENR+ reaction is only carried by Dynamic NAE.*

Re: [Vo]:diversity, one of the 6 pillars of LENR

[Bob Higgins]

Axil, have you looked at the SEM images (courtesy of Ed Storms) of the Ni
from the MFMP reactor?

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2fllFSWpFNVJoUlIxbERhRTE2M2FTY0s3TU9sZ2FsVG5wMGdodlE2ZW1JMVEusp=sharing


On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 5:40 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
 wrote:


 Axil, what you are describing as proper sized and tubercles are
 applicable to Rossi's low temperature catalyzed Ni fuel.


 For a temperature of 1200C, the proper size is about 2 microns give or
 take.


 This is not what was used in the HotCat or Parkhomov experiment.  SEM
 images of the Ni core from the MFMP experiment (Bang!) show that early on
 the Ni particles are completely reduced of oxide by the evolved hydrogen
 and by 300C, they are sintering into a sparse 3D web like structure.


 Page 43 figure 2 of the Lagano report shows a particle with tubercles. The
 other has been  melted.


 Then above 900C, the released Li-Al alloy molten metal is wetting to the
 Ni and actually dissolving the fine features while completely coating the
 Ni.  This coating is a Li-Al-Ni-H alloy and this is likely a new modality
 of LENR with Ni inside liquid metal and with the hydrogen ions in the
 liquid metal.



 There is no experimental proof of this statement.


 The iron in the Lugano experiment is a known catalyst to make LiAlH4
 decompose at a lower temperature.


 true



 That is probably why the Lugano HotCat worked better at a lower
 temperature than Parkhomov (the Lugano temperatures were significantly off,
 with the 1410C measurement probably ~1130C; I can send you the paper if you
 want).  This also decreases that calculated COP by at least 20% which is
 getting closer to Parkhomov.


 Key to my point, Lugano demo worked better than the Parkhomov system
 because Rossi's nickel particles are LENR reaction proven. Parkhomov nickel
 did not work as stated by Parkhomov's own experimental analysis.




 Lugano and Parkhomov are commensurate.  Rossi's low temperature eCat
 catalyzed fuel is different and the reaction there is gas phase.

 Rossi's nickel powder looks the same over all his applications.

Re: [Vo]:diversity, one of the 6 pillars of LENR

[Bob Higgins]

Yes, that is correct.  We do not have an SEM of Parkhomov's Ni particles.
You don't know that they were not similar to MFMP's.  However, the same
thing happened to Parkhomov's particles as the MFMP particles - they were
covered with liquid Li-Al-Ni-H at the time of the reaction and the fine
features were substantially dissolved giving the Li-Al-Ni-H its 4% Ni.
This tends to equalize bigger and smaller particles.

Parkhomov's choice of Ni powder seemed to have worked.  He didn't get quite
the COP claimed by the Lugano team for the HotCat (but the Lungano numbers
appear to be wrong too high).  In the Lugano case, look on page 43 Figure 2
- it is almost identical to the micrographs of MFMP, and MFMP was
replicating Parkhomov.  It is a pretty compelling case that all 3
experiments were commensurate at the core, save for some iron particles in
the HotCat.

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 4:21 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 I have no problem with the surface features of the MFMP nickel powder. The
 comparison was between Lagano and the latest Dr. Parkhomov's  experiment of
 the 27th/28th February.

 Where is the micrograph of that Russian powder?

 Your mixing apples and oranges.

 On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Axil, have you looked at the SEM images (courtesy of Ed Storms) of the Ni
 from the MFMP reactor?


 https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2fllFSWpFNVJoUlIxbERhRTE2M2FTY0s3TU9sZ2FsVG5wMGdodlE2ZW1JMVEusp=sharing


 On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 5:40 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
 wrote:


 Axil, what you are describing as proper sized and tubercles are
 applicable to Rossi's low temperature catalyzed Ni fuel.


 For a temperature of 1200C, the proper size is about 2 microns give or
 take.


 This is not what was used in the HotCat or Parkhomov experiment.  SEM
 images of the Ni core from the MFMP experiment (Bang!) show that early on
 the Ni particles are completely reduced of oxide by the evolved hydrogen
 and by 300C, they are sintering into a sparse 3D web like structure.


 Page 43 figure 2 of the Lagano report shows a particle with tubercles.
 The other has been  melted.


 Then above 900C, the released Li-Al alloy molten metal is wetting to
 the Ni and actually dissolving the fine features while completely coating
 the Ni.  This coating is a Li-Al-Ni-H alloy and this is likely a new
 modality of LENR with Ni inside liquid metal and with the hydrogen ions in
 the liquid metal.



 There is no experimental proof of this statement.


 The iron in the Lugano experiment is a known catalyst to make LiAlH4
 decompose at a lower temperature.


 true



 That is probably why the Lugano HotCat worked better at a lower
 temperature than Parkhomov (the Lugano temperatures were significantly off,
 with the 1410C measurement probably ~1130C; I can send you the paper if you
 want).  This also decreases that calculated COP by at least 20% which is
 getting closer to Parkhomov.


 Key to my point, Lugano demo worked better than the Parkhomov system
 because Rossi's nickel particles are LENR reaction proven. Parkhomov nickel
 did not work as stated by Parkhomov's own experimental analysis.




 Lugano and Parkhomov are commensurate.  Rossi's low temperature eCat
 catalyzed fuel is different and the reaction there is gas phase.

 Rossi's nickel powder looks the same over all his applications.

Re: [Vo]:diversity, one of the 6 pillars of LENR

[Bob Higgins]

I meant exactly what I said.  Do I have justification?  Yes.  The first is
that Parkhomov's experiment appears to have worked and I don't' think he
made a specific effort to match the Lugano powder size.  Second, the Ni is
dissolving into the Li-Al-H liquid metal at that temperature, removing the
fine features of the carbonyl Ni.  If the small features of the Ni are not
complicit in the LENR, then it is not clear that size of the starting
particles mean very much.  The Ni particles get reduced of their oxide
easily by 300C and they begin sintering into a porous web long before the
reaction begins.  Thus, the starting particle size bears fairly little
relation to the powder configuration at 900C and above.

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 What does this mean...


 May mean that the specific nickel powder Dr Parkhomov first used is not
 so important

 On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 6:45 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Yes, that is correct.  We do not have an SEM of Parkhomov's Ni
 particles.  You don't know that they were not similar to MFMP's.  However,
 the same thing happened to Parkhomov's particles as the MFMP particles -
 they were covered with liquid Li-Al-Ni-H at the time of the reaction and
 the fine features were substantially dissolved giving the Li-Al-Ni-H its 4%
 Ni.  This tends to equalize bigger and smaller particles.

 Parkhomov's choice of Ni powder seemed to have worked.  He didn't get
 quite the COP claimed by the Lugano team for the HotCat (but the Lungano
 numbers appear to be wrong too high).  In the Lugano case, look on page 43
 Figure 2 - it is almost identical to the micrographs of MFMP, and MFMP was
 replicating Parkhomov.  It is a pretty compelling case that all 3
 experiments were commensurate at the core, save for some iron particles in
 the HotCat.


 On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 4:21 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 I have no problem with the surface features of the MFMP nickel powder.
 The comparison was between Lagano and the latest Dr. Parkhomov's
 experiment of the 27th/28th February.

 Where is the micrograph of that Russian powder?

 Your mixing apples and oranges.

 On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Axil, have you looked at the SEM images (courtesy of Ed Storms) of the
 Ni from the MFMP reactor?


 https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2fllFSWpFNVJoUlIxbERhRTE2M2FTY0s3TU9sZ2FsVG5wMGdodlE2ZW1JMVEusp=sharing


 On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 5:40 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
 wrote:


 Axil, what you are describing as proper sized and tubercles are
 applicable to Rossi's low temperature catalyzed Ni fuel.


 For a temperature of 1200C, the proper size is about 2 microns give or
 take.


 This is not what was used in the HotCat or Parkhomov experiment.  SEM
 images of the Ni core from the MFMP experiment (Bang!) show that early on
 the Ni particles are completely reduced of oxide by the evolved hydrogen
 and by 300C, they are sintering into a sparse 3D web like structure.


 Page 43 figure 2 of the Lagano report shows a particle with tubercles.
 The other has been  melted.


 Then above 900C, the released Li-Al alloy molten metal is wetting to
 the Ni and actually dissolving the fine features while completely coating
 the Ni.  This coating is a Li-Al-Ni-H alloy and this is likely a new
 modality of LENR with Ni inside liquid metal and with the hydrogen ions 
 in
 the liquid metal.



 There is no experimental proof of this statement.


 The iron in the Lugano experiment is a known catalyst to make LiAlH4
 decompose at a lower temperature.


 true



 That is probably why the Lugano HotCat worked better at a lower
 temperature than Parkhomov (the Lugano temperatures were significantly 
 off,
 with the 1410C measurement probably ~1130C; I can send you the paper if 
 you
 want).  This also decreases that calculated COP by at least 20% which is
 getting closer to Parkhomov.


 Key to my point, Lugano demo worked better than the Parkhomov system
 because Rossi's nickel particles are LENR reaction proven. Parkhomov 
 nickel
 did not work as stated by Parkhomov's own experimental analysis.




 Lugano and Parkhomov are commensurate.  Rossi's low temperature eCat
 catalyzed fuel is different and the reaction there is gas phase.

 Rossi's nickel powder looks the same over all his applications.

Re: [Vo]:diversity, one of the 6 pillars of LENR

[Bob Higgins]

Inline below...

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 5:34 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 7:20 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 I meant exactly what I said.  Do I have justification?  Yes.  The first
 is that Parkhomov's experiment appears to have worked and I don't' think he
 made a specific effort to match the Lugano powder size.


 Yes the powder does not work.

   The evidence says otherwise.  I believe Parkhomov to be an honest
man.  If the XH is never reproduced, then it would be likely that it was a
mistake.
   However, the evidence shows that what Parkhomov is doing produces
features similar to Lugano HotCat and I still think the HotCat produced XH
   even after my emissivity analysis (paper written).




 Second, the Ni is dissolving into the Li-Al-H liquid metal at that
 temperature, removing the fine features of the carbonyl Ni.


 Rossi says that his nickel is 5 9s pure.

   5 9's pure has no bearing on whether the Ni was dissolving.  The Ni
has been seen in EDX (Ed Storms' analysis of MFMP ash) the Li-Al-Ni-H
solidified
   metal encasing the sintered Ni web.  It is now known that the Ni
dissolves in the liquid Li-Al-H.



 If the small features of the Ni are not complicit in the LENR, then it is
 not clear that size of the starting particles mean very much.


 Where is reference to this?

   The reference is the Lugano report and Ed Storms' micrographs of the
MFMP ash.  They show the Ni sintered into a 3D web with much larger
dimensions.
   I have personally seen this sintering in my experiments with Ni
powder in H2 at much lower pressure.  I published a paper showing this.  In
the
   gas phase experiments, much of the fine features on the carbonyl Ni
particles are maintained, sintering at touching edges.



 The Ni particles get reduced of their oxide easily by 300C and they begin
 sintering into a porous web long before the reaction begins.  Thus, the
 starting particle size bears fairly little relation to the powder
 configuration at 900C and above.

 There is no oxide. Rossi says that his nickel is 5 9s pure.

Chemically that statement, is total crap.  Whether Rossi started
with 5 9's Ni, it was handled in air so there was an oxide.  Further, the
reactor
was sealed with ambient air in it.  The fuel also included other
ingredients (Fe2O3 for example, more oxygen and iron which is a normal
contaminant of Ni.  Another contaminant is carbon because it is
from a carbonyl process.  The carbon may actually be a catalyst in the
end, but it is there in tiny quantities and will be burned out of
the Ni before 700C.  The Ni oxide is easy to form and easy to remove in hot
H2.
The 5 9's part is irrelevent in the reaction as long there were no
significant poisons present.  Rossi either used it because he had it or
used it
just to be sure what he started with.

Re: [Vo]:diversity, one of the 6 pillars of LENR

[Bob Higgins]

See inline ...

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:


 A sign that the nickel power is not working is the explosions that are
 occurring when the LENR reactions begin in the nano particles produced by
 lithium and hydrogen plasma as it cools from the high temperatures over
 1100C.

There is no hydrogen plasma or lithium vapor for that matter.  Lithium at
that pressure will not boil at the temperatures being used.  If you read
Langmuir's work, you will see that it takes over 2500C for any significant
hydrogen molecule dissociation, and it would be much hotter still to get a
hydrogen plasma.


 Rossi says that his nickel is 5 9s pure.

5 9's pure has no bearing on whether the Ni was dissolving.  The
 Ni has been seen in EDX (Ed Storms' analysis of MFMP ash) the Li-Al-Ni-H
   solidified metal encasing the sintered Ni web.  It is now known that
 the Ni dissolves in the liquid Li-Al-H.


 There was a hydrogen fire that occurred after the alumina core raptured.
 Much the nickel melted because of the extra heat added to the 1057C
 temperature where the core failure took place. The fuel was sintered into a
 solid block by high heat.


This is completely wrong.  The micrographs of the Ni ash in the MFMP
experiment were the same as the Lugano Ni ash.  There was no explosion in
the Lugano experiment.  Also, from personal experience, when Ni is heated
in H2, it is fully oxide free by 250C and by 300C the sintering of the
particles begins.  This happens long before there was ever an explosion.
Not only that, but after the explosion, the Ni core was a completely intact
molded rod of sintered material.  If you look at the micrographs, it would
be impossible to create the sintered 3D web structure found by melting of
the Ni.



 If the small features of the Ni are not complicit in the LENR, then it
 is not clear that size of the starting particles mean very much.


 Where is reference to this?

The reference is the Lugano report and Ed Storms' micrographs of
 the MFMP ash.  They show the Ni sintered into a 3D web with much larger
 dimensions.  I have personally seen this sintering in my experiments
 with Ni powder in H2 at much lower pressure.  I published a paper showing
 this.  In the gas phase experiments, much of the fine features on the
 carbonyl Ni particles are maintained, sintering at touching edges.


 Thanks for this info. I have always thought that placing the fuel in a
 pile was a bad idea. The DGT idea of spreading the fuel out in three
 dimensions in a scaffold of nickel nanofoam would keep the nickel particles
 apart so that they would not sinter together.


In my experience, once you coat your carbonyl Ni particles with a
nano-catalyst, the catalyst can prevent substantial sintering into a solid
and help leave the Ni porous.  However, the carbonyl Ni particles by
themselves don't want to sinter easily into a solid block - they want to
sinter into a porous body naturally.



 The Ni particles get reduced of their oxide easily by 300C and they begin
 sintering into a porous web long before the reaction begins.  Thus, the
 starting particle size bears fairly little relation to the powder
 configuration at 900C and above.

 There is no oxide. Rossi says that his nickel is 5 9s pure.

 Chemically that statement, is total crap.  Whether Rossi started
 with 5 9's Ni, it was handled in air so there was an oxide.  Further, the
 reactor
 was sealed with ambient air in it.  The fuel also included other
 ingredients (Fe2O3 for example, more oxygen and iron which is a normal
 contaminant of Ni.  Another contaminant is carbon because it is
 from a carbonyl process.  The carbon may actually be a catalyst in the
 end, but it is there in tiny quantities and will be burned out of
 the Ni before 700C.  The Ni oxide is easy to form and easy to remove in hot
 H2.
 The 5 9's part is irrelevent in the reaction as long there were
 no significant poisons present.  Rossi either used it because he had it or
 used it
 just to be sure what he started with.


 To really know how the chemistry of the fuel evolves with time and
 temperature is to run a series of experiments that test the fuel at regular
 temperature steps by stopping the experiment at those temperature
 snapshots and do an chemical analysis of the fuel as it existed at that
 particular temperature.

 This chemical evolutionary process is complicated and experiment is more
 determinative than analysis.


In my version of the experiment, I plan to have samples of temperature,
pressure, input current and voltage, radiation count and gamma spectrum,
and then I will collect the product gas at the end for offline analysis.
Of course the Ni ash will also be collected for examination.  This, plus
the existing papers on LiAlH4 decomposition will go a long way in
understanding what is going on.  I will be able to stop the experiment at
any point and gather the gas and analyze the ash.

Re: [Vo]: Rossi/Parkhomov reaction and the hydrogen anion

[Bob Higgins]

We are all grateful to Ed Storms and Kiva Labs for analyzing the sintered
Ni ash of the MFMP Bang! experiment.  Those images are from the sintered
Ni, molded int o a rod by the ID of the reaction tube.  There is woefully
insufficient evidence that the Bang! experiment produced any LENR.
However, when it exploded, it was in the right temperature range to begin
seeing LENR, so the ash per se is really just a sample of the conditions
at the temperature and pressure where Parkhomov (and Lugano) began to see
LENR occur.

Perhaps LENR would have been observed if the explosion had not occurred.
The tube used was substantially weaker than what is used by Parkhomov
because it is hard to find the closed-one-end tubes having a thick alumina
wall.  Bang! was just a first experiment.  It will be run again, perhaps
with a smaller charge of LiAlH4 to reduce the pressure somewhat.

We have also determined that the Parkhomov tubes are probably mullite which
is only about 50% alumina (and the rest are metal silicates).  This may be
the reason that his cement formulation worked OK on his tubes and didn't
work well at all on the high alumina (99.5% alumina) tubes used by Alan
Goldwater who attempted so seal some with Parkhomov's formula.

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 11:43 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 6:30 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Since the SEM images of the fuel


 https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2fllFSWpFNVJoUlIxbERhRTE2M2FTY0s3TU9sZ2FsVG5wMGdodlE2ZW1JMVEusp=sharing


 Thank you, Bob.  (And thanks to Ed Storms.)

 Am I correct in understanding that these images were provided by Ed in
 connection with the MFMP Bang! experiment?

 I have not been following the details of the Bang! experiment closely.  I
 gather there is a question that there might have been something anomalous
 that happened.  Am I correct in understanding that this question goes back
 primarily to the GM counter clicks that were observed?

 Eric

Re: [Vo]:diversity, one of the 6 pillars of LENR

[Bob Higgins]

What you say is absolutely true, Bob.  I don't believe that LENR occurred
in the MFMP Bang! experiment.  However the conditions were very similar to
the Lugano experiment at that temperature and with the fuel that MFMP
used.  Check the Lugano SEM images of their Ni ash and compare to the SEM
images of the MFMP Ni ash.  The images are almost identical. What I am
saying is that the conditions for LENR were likely pretty close to the same.

We would love to test some Parkhomov ash from an experiment that has shown
notable (outside error bar) excess heat.  If we don't see that from
Parkhomov, hopefully we will see it reported from someone else among the
many replicators of Parkhomov.

Since we are unlikely to get any ash from Rossi's HotCat, it is incumbent
on the replicators to do long runs and have isotopic analysis done on their
fuel and their ash.

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 10:59 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:

  Axil and Bob--

 You both seem to ignore the statement from the Lugano experiment that the
 Ni isotopic concentrations changed during the reaction.  It would be nice
 to get an isotopic analysis of the MFMP and the Parkhomov experiment's Ni
 powder available after the experiment to see if there are changes
 from normal Ni.

 I am not sure either the Parkhomov nor the MFMP test have good evidence of
 a nuclear reaction with a change in nuclear species or total mass of the
 the system.  Without an evident mass-to-energy conversion, what is the
 source of the explosive energy release in the two experiments?

 I do not consider either experiment has sufficient time producing XH to be
 indicative of LENR.  That is not to say the two experimental set-ups
 have no potential for producing excess heat, if properly controlled. ( I
 would agree that there seemed to be a start of an excess heat reaction
 prior to the bangs, however the extent of this production of excess heat
 was not very long. )



 Bob



 - Original Message -
 *From:* Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Sent:* Tuesday, March 03, 2015 9:23 PM
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:diversity, one of the 6 pillars of LENR

 See inline ...

 On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:


  A sign that the nickel power is not working is the explosions that
 are occurring when the LENR reactions begin in the nano particles produced
 by lithium and hydrogen plasma as it cools from the high temperatures over
 1100C.

 There is no hydrogen plasma or lithium vapor for that matter.  Lithium at
 that pressure will not boil at the temperatures being used.  If you read
 Langmuir's work, you will see that it takes over 2500C for any significant
 hydrogen molecule dissociation, and it would be much hotter still to get a
 hydrogen plasma.


 Rossi says that his nickel is 5 9s pure.

5 9's pure has no bearing on whether the Ni was dissolving.  The
 Ni has been seen in EDX (Ed Storms' analysis of MFMP ash) the Li-Al-Ni-H
   solidified metal encasing the sintered Ni web.  It is now known that
 the Ni dissolves in the liquid Li-Al-H.


 There was a hydrogen fire that occurred after the alumina core raptured.
 Much the nickel melted because of the extra heat added to the 1057C
 temperature where the core failure took place. The fuel was sintered into a
 solid block by high heat.


 This is completely wrong.  The micrographs of the Ni ash in the MFMP
 experiment were the same as the Lugano Ni ash.  There was no explosion in
 the Lugano experiment.  Also, from personal experience, when Ni is heated
 in H2, it is fully oxide free by 250C and by 300C the sintering of the
 particles begins.  This happens long before there was ever an explosion.
 Not only that, but after the explosion, the Ni core was a completely intact
 molded rod of sintered material.  If you look at the micrographs, it would
 be impossible to create the sintered 3D web structure found by melting of
 the Ni.



 If the small features of the Ni are not complicit in the LENR, then it
 is not clear that size of the starting particles mean very much.


 Where is reference to this?

The reference is the Lugano report and Ed Storms' micrographs of
 the MFMP ash.  They show the Ni sintered into a 3D web with much larger
 dimensions.  I have personally seen this sintering in my experiments
 with Ni powder in H2 at much lower pressure.  I published a paper showing
 this.  In the gas phase experiments, much of the fine features on the
 carbonyl Ni particles are maintained, sintering at touching edges.


 Thanks for this info. I have always thought that placing the fuel in a
 pile was a bad idea. The DGT idea of spreading the fuel out in three
 dimensions in a scaffold of nickel nanofoam would keep the nickel particles
 apart so that they would not sinter together.


 In my experience, once you coat your carbonyl Ni particles with a
 nano-catalyst, the catalyst can prevent substantial sintering into a solid
 and help leave the Ni porous

Re: [Vo]:diversity, one of the 6 pillars of LENR

[Bob Higgins]

This is not true.  There are many physical and chemical thing happening
that set the stage for LENR, and just because the stage has been set, it
doesn't mean the show started.  The chemical changes are the dissociation
of the LiAlH4 and the dissolving of the Ni (at higher temperatures).  The
physical changes include the low temperature sintering of the cleaned Ni
into a 3D web.  Hydrogen cleaning of the Ni and the alumina surfaces
allowed the molten metal to wet which is a chemical reaction in a sense
because it involves monatomic hydrogen attachment to the surface oxide in
the case of the alumina and stripping of the oxide to water vapor in the
case of the Ni.  Lots going on before LENR occurs.

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 11:17 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 This is completely wrong.  The micrographs of the Ni ash in the MFMP
 experiment were the same as the Lugano Ni ash.  There was no explosion in
 the Lugano experiment.  Also, from personal experience, when Ni is heated
 in H2, it is fully oxide free by 250C and by 300C the sintering of the
 particles begins.  This happens long before there was ever an explosion.
 Not only that, but after the explosion, the Ni core was a completely intact
 molded rod of sintered material.  If you look at the micrographs, it would
 be impossible to create the sintered 3D web structure found by melting of
 the Ni.

 Thanks for your first hand observation. Doesn't your observation mean that
 the MFMP BANG was a LENR event since the fuel residue between Lagano and
 the bang are affected in the same way? Without the bang, the fuel is
 unchanged. I believe that I had seen that fuel difference reported on
 facebook or ECat news.

Re: [Vo]:Investigative journalism rewarded

[Bob Higgins]

Mats, you are a brave and insightful journalist.  I believe you will one
day be rewarded for capturing the birth of a critical new technology for
the future of our planet and its people.

[If not, you will still have gained the experiences needed to become a
blues musician.]

Bob Higgins

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 2:09 AM, Lewan Mats mats.le...@nyteknik.se wrote:

  The scientific news team at Swedish National Radio, SR, received a
 honorary mention a few days ago at the Swedish Rewards for investigative
 journalism, The Golden Spade, for its four part reportage on Swedish
 researchers' (those who made the Lugano measurements) collaboration with
 the fraudster Andrea Rossi (and where also I was a main target).

 sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=406artikel=6106378

  It will take som time and impressive proof before any other Swedish
 media will dare to touch the topic.

  This was my comment on the reportage when it was broadcasted (before the
 Lugano report):

 animpossibleinvention.com/2014/05/31/swedish-national-radio-paints-it-black


  Mats
 www.animpossibleinvention.com

Re: [Vo]:diversity, one of the 6 pillars of LENR

[Bob Higgins]

This is a wonderful video, so thanks for pointing us to watch it.  However,
the molten Li-Al is not in a super-critical phase, but as he said, it
doesn't have to be supercritical - just hot and high pressure.  He also
demonstrated a chemical mixing that produced nanoparticles as a
precipitate.  That kind of chemical mixing is not taking place in the
Parkhomov/Rossi reactor as near as I am able to identify.

That having been said, and as I posted before, the Li-Al-Ni-H alloy becomes
saturated with Ni.  It may be possible to cycle the temperature (up to
dissolve and down to precipitate) and get the Ni to precipitate on the
surface of the remaining solid Ni like a co-deposition - taking H- anions
with it into the Ni surface at an accelerated rate.

Dennis Cravens pointed me to a very interesting paper that has many
similarities to this process:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LiawBYelevatedte.pdf
See the paper by Liaw.

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 10:57 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:


 There is no hydrogen plasma or lithium vapor for that matter.  Lithium at
 that pressure will not boil at the temperatures being used.  If you read
 Langmuir's work, you will see that it takes over 2500C for any significant
 hydrogen molecule dissociation, and it would be much hotter still to get a
 hydrogen plasma.


 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zurHSq4CB4

 This video shows how a super critical medium produces nanoparticles from
 dissolved ionic substances when there is a super critical phase transition
 caused by cooling the super critical medium so that the dissolved solids
 nucleate and form nanoparticles. Both dissolved Lithium,
 aluminum, and hydrides will nucleate and form nanoparticle in a cooled
 region of the supercritical hydrogen gas.

Re: [Vo]:diversity, one of the 6 pillars of LENR

[Bob Higgins]

One of the things not sampled in the Lugano experiment is the product gas
or gas ash.  This may have very important clues to the nature of the
reaction.  In my replication (under construction), I intend to be able to
collect the product gas for analysis off-site.  We could find enhanced
deuterium, tritium, and helium as a result of the process.  The HotCat was
not outfitted to be able to collect this gas - when they opened it, they
just had to let it go woosh into the air.

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 11:07 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 I believe that the reactor would need to run for some time like it did at
 Lagano for nuclear changes to show up. Maybe the Russian experiment that
 produced XP ran long enough to show changes.

 On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 12:59 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:

  Axil and Bob--

 You both seem to ignore the statement from the Lugano experiment that the
 Ni isotopic concentrations changed during the reaction.  It would be nice
 to get an isotopic analysis of the MFMP and the Parkhomov experiment's Ni
 powder available after the experiment to see if there are changes
 from normal Ni.

 I am not sure either the Parkhomov nor the MFMP test have good evidence
 of a nuclear reaction with a change in nuclear species or total mass of
 the the system.  Without an evident mass-to-energy conversion, what is the
 source of the explosive energy release in the two experiments?

 I do not consider either experiment has sufficient time producing XH to
 be indicative of LENR.  That is not to say the two experimental set-ups
 have no potential for producing excess heat, if properly controlled. ( I
 would agree that there seemed to be a start of an excess heat reaction
 prior to the bangs, however the extent of this production of excess heat
 was not very long. )

 Bob

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Questions Raised by Parkhomov Experiment Failure

[Bob Higgins]

Thanks Fran.  I would love to be able to just see the XH to start.  It
would be a happy circumstance to then go on to evolve the software control
to regulate temperature by modulating the thermal load.

I am most of the way through making the small pieces for the convection
system (it will have 4 ball bearing mounts).  All of this needs to be
capable of working at fairly high air temperature (but the drive motor will
be outside the box at ambient temperature).  In the DAQ that I use (Omega
DAQ-56), I have 4 counter inputs.  I am using 2 of these for radiation
counts, and I could use one for tachometer pulse counting from the fan
drive shaft.  Then I could use 4 of the digital outputs of the DAQ to
provide fan motor speed control - so it wouldn't have to be 1 bit on/off.

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com
 wrote:

  Bob, very nice design [I downloaded from home] and realized the
 gas/plasma inside the tube is a far superior transfer medium. I understand
 your purpose of only transferring heat in case of temp increase when the
 drive is removed for calorimetry BUT would you also consider dual use  as
 part of the control loop instead of just for calorimetry.. this would be an
 additional [luxury] test where instead of only on to dampen temperature
 rise it is always on at mid speed requiring much more heat from your drives
 to reach threshold.  This would be the “isometric” situation I mentioned
 where the cooling fan is fighting the work of the drivers.  IMHO this
 environment would be more robust at exhibiting the anomaly if it is present
 because you have dual controls allowing the drives to be reduced more as
 the load is modulated instead to keep the device at the same duty factor of
 runaway before being pulled back by increased air flow [push pull of air
 flow above and below an average level instead of just on off].. if nothing
 else it may provide finer control of the system via combinations of drive
 pw and dynamic cooling.

 Fran

Re: [Vo]:Questions Raised by Parkhomov Experiment Failure

[Bob Higgins]

From the pictures I saw, Parkhomov changed to use a separate tube for the
heater.  If nichrome does make a difference, it would have to be against
the alumina reactor tube.  So, if you use the heater tube, it wouldn't make
any difference if it was kanthal or nichrome - the H2 would leak out of the
gap between.

I think it less likely that having the heater wire in proximity to the main
reactor tube makes or if it is nichrome makes any difference.  The inside
of the tube is coated with Li-Al-Ni alloy that would fill any porosity in
the alumina.  Examining the alumina shards from the MFMP Bang! experiment,
I saw no evidence of penetration or erosion of the alumina tube.

For more likely is that the experiment could have been a success, as MFMP's
experiment could have been a success.  In Parkhomov's new design, there is
increased insulation around the reactor tube (the air gap,the second
alumina tube with the heater coil, and the additional alumina cement around
the coil).  Only this time, the heater wire is on the outside of the
insulation.  If he heats the reactor tube to where XH occurs, the
temperature may quickly rise out of control and cause the reactor tube to
break open.  This is due to the increased thermal resistance to ambient or
to the calorimeter water.  When the heater is turned off, he still has all
of that alumina wrapped around the reactor tube.  In previous experiments
when Parkhomov insulated the reactor in alumina powder, it caused the
reactor tubes to break.

On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote:

 The failure of Parkhomov's experiment raises a few questions that
 hopefully he can answer with future experiments.  There was some
 potentially bad news from Greenyer's visit including that his original
 supply of nickel has been exhausted except for 1 gram.

 http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2015/03/02/parkhomov-demonstration-fails/

 Jack

Re: [Vo]:Questions Raised by Parkhomov Experiment Failure

[Bob Higgins]

If you looked at the links for my calorimeter (in my previous post), you
would see that it is a 20 gallon metal fish tank (a garbage can).  Instead
of glass that would be cool for a movie for seeing through, the metal can
makes it less breakable, and the copper container for the reactor conducts
the heat out easily into the water.  The added convection fan provides a
means to adjust the thermal resistance to the water.

A third port is provided specifically for radiation detection.  It may be
possible to make the reactor viewable through this port if a high
temperature window is used (probably multiple) to keep the heat loss down.
Mica might be an acceptable window, which doesn't melt until 1200C.  It is
also low mass to pass the radiations.

Bob

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 4:35 AM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com
 wrote:

  Alan, Thank You for voicing these concerns – I wanted to suggest the
 same focus on fine control of the drive because of the inherent  latency in
 sensing thermal data. The suggestion of induction heat is excellent and I
 would even go so far as to recommend a PWM induction heater where different
 control algorithms  could be tested over time – I think you need a control
 scheme just to approach the window so slowly that the latency can be
 tolerated without  cell destruction.. Again I think robust heat sinking is
 required to establish this sort of tolerant environment where a sensor
 [pressure/ temp or both] near the source can capture thermal excursions as
 the heat is sucked past on it’s way out of the system.  I also wonder if
 the fan cooling Bob is planning will be enough to avoid run away.



 I wonder if the sci fi examples of reactions in a big fish tank are
 actually a better suggestion for safety and cooling control? I could see an
 upside down clear trough submerged in the tank  with the reactor fixed
 inside just above the waterline. Cooling the tube would be quickly
 controlled by  air pressure to vary the waterline inside the trough and
 submerge the reactor to different levels as part of the control loop. The
 other advantage being safety since you now have a reactor that is
 surrounded on all sides by water.



 Fran

[Vo]: Rossi/Parkhomov reaction and the hydrogen anion

[Bob Higgins]

One of the final decomposition products in the fuel bearing LiAlH4 is LiH.
LiH decomposes in the 900-1000ºC range to Li metal and hydrogen.  Note that
LiH is an *ionic hydride*.  That means that the hydrogen has more or less
permanently grabbed an electron from the Li, making it an H- anion inside
the compound.  Decomposition of LiH is reversible, and I suspect at high
temperatures and at the Parkhomov hydrogen pressures, the LiH is still
liquid.

Since the SEM images of the fuel

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2fllFSWpFNVJoUlIxbERhRTE2M2FTY0s3TU9sZ2FsVG5wMGdodlE2ZW1JMVEusp=sharing

show the Li-Al-Ni-H metal engulfing the Ni foam sintered webs, at 1000ºC,
this metal alloy was liquid and was supplying - wait for it - hydrogen
anions directly to the surface of the Ni.  Hmmm, sounds like Piantelli's
patent.  Piantelli implicated the H- ion on the surface of the Ni in LENR.

Bob Higgins

Re: [Vo]:Explosion May Be Out of Control LENR

[Bob Higgins]

Yes Bob,   Thanks.

The effect due to thermal expansion has been evaluated by Alan Goldwater to
be a fraction of a percent.  This pales in comparison to the ~40% effect of
the 2-volume 2-temperature calculation, the ~12% effect of van der Walls
vs. ideal gas, and the uncertainties in the actual mass of LiAlH4.  But, it
should be a part of the calculation.

Another effect that could be at least as large is the mechanical expansion
of the alumina tube under the forces of the high pressure.  Thermal
expansion increases the size of both the displacement rod and the tube, but
mechanical strain would only increase the tube diameter, causing a bigger
change in the dead volume.

Bob Higgins

On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:

  Bob and Mark--

 One potential minor correction to the volume should account for the
 increase (or decrease)in volume with temperature due to thermal expansion
 of the alumina tube and the added materials inside the tube.

 Bob

 - Original Message -
 *From:* Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Sent:* Thursday, February 19, 2015 2:08 PM
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Explosion May Be Out of Control LENR

 Mark,

 Alan Goldwater is working on a complete description of this that is being
 reviewed.  One thing I recently added was the 2-volume, 2-temperature
 calculation, which, even with the ideal gas formula cuts the theoretical
 pressure to about 60%.  I think Alan may be planning to discuss with you
 the 2-volume, 2-temperature calculation extended with the van der Walls
 formulation.  So, Alan created a document walking through the volumes and
 mass calculations for the fuel and it is being reviewed at this time - it
 still is not ready with all of the effects.  However, there is no reason
 not to give you what he is starting with to see if you come up with the
 same pressure estimates.  The primary heated volume having the fuel was
 calculated to be 0.844ml, and the cooler dead volume was 0.611ml.  The best
 estimates of the fuel (by Alan) was 0.565g of Vale T255 Ni + 0.105g of
 LiAlH4.  The initial fuel volume displacement estimate was 0.177ml which
 reduces the internal volume of the heated area.

 The alumina tube ID was 3.81mm, and the OD of the rod taking up the dead
 space was 3.17mm.  The OD was slightly under 6.35mm (1/4), leaving a wall
 thickness of about 1.25mm.  The sintered Ni rod that remained was about
 3.15mm diameter.  The Li-Al film on the ID of the tube is estimated to be
 25-100 microns in thickness.  Aside from the dimensions, there is no way to
 estimate the proximity of the OD of the sintered Ni and the ID of the
 alumina.

 Bob

[Vo]:translation of Parkhomov 3rd

[Bob Higgins]

I went into the Powerpoint file and translated the text and figures of
Alexander Parkhomov's latest presentation into English (Thank you Google
Translate).  Here is a link to the translated document.  Please point out
any errors and I will correct them.  I took the liberty of correcting the
numerical mistake at the end.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2WWVmdHRjVmVHMDAauthuser=0

Bob Higgins

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment

[Bob Higgins]

Some features of the Lugano HotCat ash can now be identified based on the
follow-on work of MFMP and Parkhomov.

When trying to decide whether the Lugano team actually sampled the
important part of the HotCat ash, have a look at the TPR2 - Apendix 3 -
Figure 2, the SEM photo of Particle 1.  This image is almost exactly the
same as the SEM photos that Ed Storms took of the MFMP sample of the
sintered Ni core material (molded into a rod matching the ID of the tube)
that started out as Vale T255 carbonyl powder.  Here is the link to the
folder of images:

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2fnRiS3FkLW9md2w1RkZGc0oxYU1pUHgxRmkzS1Znbkx1Wk1UREJOZHduakUusp=sharing


It is highly likely that the Ni cores look the same in all 3 reactors
(HotCat, Parkhomov, MFMP).

I wish the experimenters had been more specific about which samples were
analyzed by TOF-SIMS and ICP-MS.  It would have been valuable to have SEM
analysis of the actual particles used in the MS studies to understand from
where, within the reactor, these particles had come.

However, the Lugano experimenters did not have the benefit of the MFMP
results when they went to identify their samples, so they had no way to
identify what place within the reactor the sample represented.  The MFMP
Bang! was serendipitous because it left the entire Ni charge as a sintered
molded rod of Ni covered in Li-Al alloy metal - like Lugano Figure 2 (see
the Debris photo in the folder linked above).  The Lugano Appendix 3-Figure
2-Particle 1 is representative of the sintered Ni core.

Since Ed's analysis shows that the Ni dissolved only to a small extent in
the Li-Al molten metal, most of the ash analysis of the Ni isotopic ratios
must have been from a sample of the core because that's the only place
where there is a significant amount of Ni.  Note: Ed's EDX analysis of the
solidified Li-Al showed almost 4% Ni, but the percentage did not include
the Li (which EDX does not detect), so the actual percentage of Ni in
solution may have been more like 2%.

Bob Higgins

Re: [Vo]:*GlowStick* GS2 LIVE NOW

[Bob Higgins]

Well, sort of.  Alan has a GM counter near the setup, but it is separately
being logged, not directly tied to the same DAQ as the temperatures and
pressure.  We can't even get live audio from Alan because his computer is
overloaded; so we can't hear the clicks in the audio.  Though, the clicks
are probably being recorded in the audio that is being saved to disk in the
video recording by ManyCam.  We'll see if the data can be patched together.

Bob

On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 4:20 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 Bob,



 Does Alan have any kind of radiation monitor operating ?





 *From:* Bob Higgins



 Also, here is the link to the periodic screen captures:



 http://bit.ly/1DzPIM2



 This will allow you to actually read the temperatures and pressures in the
 graphs.



 On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Alberto De Souza 
 alberto.investi...@gmail.com wrote:

 http://youtu.be/zMs8XwF22Dk

Re: [Vo]:*GlowStick* GS2 LIVE NOW

[Bob Higgins]

I asked if they could do this.  We'll see.  The problem is that Alan does
not have sufficient computer capability to continuously upload to HUGnet.
So the only one that can do this data dump is Alan.  Alan says the CPU is
at the limit and he is afraid of a crash if he tries to do this.  So,
standby.

Bob

On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Alberto De Souza 
alberto.investi...@gmail.com wrote:

 Can anyone in this list that they know ask them to share the spreadsheet
 with the raw data (including voltage so that we can compute the input
 power) from time to time?

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: replication results coming later

[Bob Higgins]

I think you are being unduly unkind in observations of Alan Goldwater's
experiment.

Alan had previously done a dummy run with a thermocouple inserted into the
center of the core and had a calibration curve showing the internal
temperature of the reactor vs. the temperature on the outside of the
reactor tube and the temperature on the outside of the heater assembly
surface.  Alan's arrangement is less insulated than Parkhomov's and there
was a larger gradient from the core of the reactor to the outside of the
reactor tube.  Parkhomov did not have this calibration, so his core
temperature during his experiment is unknown; though his core temperature
was likely much closer to his reactor tube exterior measure of 1200C.  Alan
chose to remove his internal thermocouple for the actual run for fear of
contamination.  Alan chose a temperature to regulate using the reactor tube
outside measure that would result in a core temperature of 1200C.  Had Alan
taken the reactor tube surface temperature to 1200C, he probably would have
melted the Ni, if he could have gotten to that temperature without burnout
of his heater coil.  At most, the criticism should be that Alan could have
insulated his reactor to a greater extent; perhaps with a reflector as did
Parkhomov.

We now have samples of the Ni powder that was used in Parkhomov's
experiment, but do not yet have an analysis of it.  So matching the Ni fuel
Alan used to spec was not possible because we have no real
specification.  Further, we don't know what is important.  Is it the
surface morphology of the powder particles that are important (but
unknown)?  Is it the purity?  LENR history shows that the highest purity is
usually NOT what produces positive LENR results.  We suspect Parkhomov's
LENR powder to have been produced with a carbonyl process, and are sending
a sample for analysis now.  We do know that the Lugano HotCat used a
carbonyl Ni powder.  Parkhomov did not buy a specific powder - he bought
what he could get.  Alan used a similar carbonyl Ni powder.  It was a good
choice based on available information.

Parkhomov is also using alumina tubes of unknown purity - they were what
he could get.  Based on comments MFMP received from Parkhomov, we believe
he may have been using a mullite tube (~70% alumina).  This is a core
difference with what Alan and MFMP used - high purity (99.7%) alumina.  The
high purity alumina will be stronger, conduct less hydrogen, and will be
more immune to chemical erosion (it is the portion which is not alumina
that is subject to chemical erosion).

Alan's seals were good - an improvement over Parkhomov's latest epoxy
seals.  This is borne out by the pressure profile Alan recorded - pressures
about an order of magnitude higher than those of Parkhomov.  So were
Parkhomov's LEAKS important in his LENR?  TBD.

I think a far bigger unknown, as reported by Jones Beene, is the unknown
isotopic composition of the Li in the LiAlH4 that Alan used.  We should see
isotopic analysis of Parkhomov's fuel reported at ICCF19, and then we will
have an idea of what he used.  However, the LiAlH4 that Alan used is a
complete unknown and could easily have been 6Li robbed.  We are currently
investigating where MFMP could have ICP-MS done on its samples (any
suggestions?).

These comments are all without analysis of the experimental data from
yesterday, just observation of the experiment.  We will have to do the data
reduction now against the dummy calibration run to understand what actually
happened.  We know the properties of the Ni used, but we don't know about
the LiAlH4.  We know the properties of Alan's alumina tubes and seals, but
we don't know the properties of Parkhomov's tubes or seals.  We don't know
that the COP never exceeded 1.0, we just suspect it from casual observation
of the raw data.

My opinion is that this was the best documented, reported, and instrumented
Parkhomov replication experiment to date.  There are sure to be better
experiments to come, but lets give Alan his due for putting together a good
experiment.

Bob Higgins


On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 8:17 AM, Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.com
 wrote:


 
  MFMP didn't show COP1, with the dog bone test,  last night


 It was a bit more disappointing than that. They didn't seem to have a
 clear understanding of the protocol. They leveled the temperature at 855
 C, initially; then decided it should be leveled at 875 C. Then they
 decided to raise it more, to an unspecified number. Meanwhile, the
 peanut gallery was saying that the reaction didn't even start until the
 outside core temperature was near 1200 C, and that the only constraint
 was that nickel melted around 1455 C.

 They were also using a nickel powder for fuel which was not to spec, but
 this was understood before the run.

 Learning how to replicate a known phenomenon is a learning process all
 by itself. I can only imagine that several more tests will need to be
 done, and that Parkhomov will need to be consulted, before

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: replication results coming later

[Bob Higgins]

There were a couple of reasons.  First, Alan was at near maximum power when
the reactor tube outside temperature was 900C and the internal core
temperature was over 1200C.  The Kanthal A1 heater wire would have burned
out by the time the reactor tube temperature could have been driven to
1200C, even if Alan could drive it that hard.  Parkhomov had a different
differential between his tube OD and his core temperature than Alan did.
Alan measured his differential curve.  If he had gone to 1200C at the
reactor tube OD, the heater wire would have been at or above its melting
temperature and the core may have been nearly 1400C.  It was just not
practical.

If Alan had the same insulating system as Parkhomov, his reactor tube may
have read nearly 1200C while his core was at 1200C.

Another reason was the cool-down cycle time.  Alan was uncomfortable
leaving the system to run un-monitored, so he had to shut it down in a
controlled cycle before he fell asleep.

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:

 Bob, why didn't you continue with until 1200 outside, I thought you were
 following Hank's advice. But, suddenly, the experiment stopped. Can you
 explain that?

Re: [Vo]:VIDEO: Stan Szpak LENR Co-deposition

[Bob Higgins]

Ed Storms once told me that in Pd-D systems using an LiOD salt for the
electrolyte, the Li did not deposit at all on the Pd - implying that it
remained completely in the electrolyte.  I am not sure in co-dep if any Li
would end up being trapped in the plated layers.

As I mentioned before, Piantelli uses the Li as a nearby nuclear reactant
for the high energy protons produced in the Ni-H reaction to amplify the
excess heat.  Perhaps there are some high energy protons [or other
particles]  produced in Pd-D reaction at the surface that can react with
the Li in the electrolyte in contact with the Pd cathode, amplifying the
overall excess heat.

I agree that the presence of Li in systems producing excess heat is a
noticeable coincidence.  How it is implicated at a Pd cathode is a mystery.

Bob Higgins

On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 3:56 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Sun, 12 Apr 2015 18:20:39 -0700:
 Hi,
 [snip]
 The maddening realization for all of us could be that lithium would have
 plated out on the cathode as well – but this was never mentioned or
 considered.

 Perhaps to some extent, however there is a 3 eV difference in the first
 ionization energy of Pd and Li, with Pd much hungrier for electrons than
 Li,
 so when it comes to plating, Pd would be strongly favoured.

 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

 http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Path to Prove LENR at Hand

[Bob Higgins]

Years ago when I built a sonoluminescence apparatus and was investigating
its properties, I read of some systems that used alpha particles and
neutrons to stimulate bubbles which would migrate to the acoustic field
center.  So, generally, alpha, neutrons, and protons may stimulate a bubble
in water.  Bubble Tech uses this property to stimulate a persistent bubble
in a different fluid for neutron detection. In an electrolytic cell,
whenever a bubble forms it briefly changes the resistance of the cell, but
because bubbles can form so rapidly, it can appear as a step change in
resistance.  Since the bubbles form at random, it creates noise in the cell
resistance.  When LENR occurs, the emitted charged particles cause rapid
bubble formation and hence an increase in the bubble noise in the cell
resistance.  This bubble noise will show up as a broadband spectrum in the
voltage across the cells - becoming a conducted RF.  Local propagating RF
radiation can also occur from the step change in the current flow paths as
the current restructures to flow around the bubble.  This is not surprising.

As Terry asks, what is the spectrum?  If the spectrum is broadband, the
cause is probably this bubble noise.  If there are narrow bandwidth
spectral components, that would be more interesting.

On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 9:27 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 Many experimenters are reporting RF as output of there experiments. Could
 this RF interfere with proper reactor control?


 This is the key to the nature of the reaction.  Do we have a spectral
 analysis of the emissions?

Re: [Vo]:Electron capture as a source of neutrons.

[Bob Higgins]

Axil, your last comment about the energy of the electron/proton having to
be just right and that such precision doesn't happen in the real world,
is probably wrong.  The reason is Compton scattering.  Not all, and in fact
most, collisions are not a direct hit and result in a bounce of the
particle with it giving up a portion of its energy to the atom that
scattered it.  Thus, if a high energy particle enters a region of dense
atoms, it will scatter, losing energy gradually, with the energy being
delivered into kinetic energy of the scattering atoms.  So, there is a
continuous range of energy that is available, as an initial high energy
particle is Compton scattered in a dense atom field.  At some point, it
would seem that the energy of the particle will be just right for
neutrino/anti-neutrino formation.

Bob Higgins

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 12:35 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 If found another explanation about electron capture from an expert as
 follows:

 See below for a borrowed explanation from Jim Swenson at the Argonne
 National Labs (from their Ask A Scientist program):

 If an electron with enough energy collides with a proton, then what
 happens?
 They just form a hydrogen atom?
 Or they form a neutron?
 If both are possible, then which factor controls the process?
 I am asking because I heard that a neutron can decay to a proton and an
 electron and the reverse is possible.
 -
 To form a hydrogen atom, it is required that the electron and proton have
 almost no energy, almost no velocity relative to each other. A hydrogen
 atom ionizes at less than 20 electron-volts of energy, so reverse
 ionization requires energy less than about 20 electron-volts (eV) AND
 freedom and luck to radiate a photon of the right energy to render the
 electron captured. It happens all the time in every electrified gas lamp
 (fluorescents, neons, mercury-arc, etc), and in the surface layers of the
 sun.

 When a neutron decays into a proton, electron, and neutrino, it also
 releases energy, 780,000 eV, as the sum of the kinetic energy of the 3
 particles.It is unreasonably difficult to get 3 separate particles to
 collide simultaneously, so the exact reverse of this never happens to a
 significant extent. It is particularly difficult to get the ghost-like
 neutrino to react on command with an electron and proton. Neutrinos are the
 particles that sail all the way through the earth, almost never bumping
 anything.

 However, it is not so difficult for a balanced neutrino / anti-neutrino
 pair to be accidentally made out of pure excess energy, from the collision
 between an electron and a proton. Then you have the situation of the
 electron and proton and neutrino in the same place, merging to form a
 neutron, and an anti-neutrino flying away free carrying any excess energy
 (beyond the 780 keV that was needed to make up the neutron). I think this
 is one of the processes which together make sun-sized masses of neutrons
 when a neutron star is formed in a supernova explosion. Actually, in that
 situation the electron and proton are steadily squeezed together by
 pressure of others around them. Increasing pressure and temperature can
 smoothly change the energy of repeated collisions until the best energy is
 found, and the conversion becomes quite rapid and energy-efficient.

 If the excess energy of collision is over 1,000 keV, other random
 particles might be made from the energy too. It only takes 1,020 keV to
 make an electron-positron pair, for example. I'm not sure what it takes to
 start emitting excess energy as gamma-ray photons. That might happen too.

 Jim Swenson

 From this answer, we need a neutrino to be around and in the party when
 the electron and the proton combine. That is not likely to happen unless
 the neutrino is made out of energy. The chance of that neutrino production
 from energy is the chance that the reaction will work.


 The energy of a collision between an election and a proton must be real
 close to 780,000 eV to happen. Such precision just don't happen in the real
 world.  The chance of that energy being just right is very low. If the
 energy is not perfect, other particles will form instead or a gamma will
 form. But the point that kills the electron capture idea as the driver of
 the LENR reaction is that electron capture must happen 10^23 times a second
 to make any heat. That is impossible. Not when the electrons are carrying
 the energy of soft x-rays into the collision.

Re: [Vo]:stiring

[Bob Higgins]

By 300C, and in the presence of the released H2, the Ni particles have been
reduced of their oxice and are sintered together into a spongy solid.  It
remains this way until the LiH and Al have melted, and then the web of
SOLID spongy Ni is coated with a liquid film of LiH-Al .  The Ni is solid
and is not going to stir, however, it may be possible to get motion of the
liquid LiH-Al metal.

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe 
stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote:

 Heya Vortexuses,

 Any thoughts about my shallow thoughts about the parghomov/Ecat setup,

 When it comes to steel making, one often has a magnetic stirrer to even
 out the temperature in the mold, hence improving the quality of the final
 product. This works by the magnetic varying field induces current that
 interacts with the magnetic field and induces a force see.

 https://www.sinfo-t.jp/eng/stirrer/principle.htm

 What I'm wondering is if the fuel inside the ECAT at those high
 temperatures might be stirred by the alternating current. If the stirring
 is the key, then the frequencies does not need to be especially high.
 Parkhomov seam to say that the waveform can have high derivatives from time
 to time which might

 translate into a kick of the right magnitude that might be positive for
 getting it to stir properly.

 I'm not sure that the magnitude of this force is in the right ballpark to
 do anything good though.

 Another possibility is the following. Powder is a kind of fluid, but if
 you kick it internally and stir it with a magnetic stirrer with kicks you
 may make it more fluffy and more fluid like, that can be beneficial, this
 will surely reduce conductivity though making the stirring effect less
 prominent, I see lots of options to vary dimensional properties and powder
 properties, frequencies etc to get the most optimal setting.

 Also a good question, can one decouple the heating from the stirring (if
 it indeed can be stirred)?

 Hmm, wind with two wires in a double helix, one with low resistance (low
 heating) thicker, higher conductivity etc, and the usual one to heat. Maybe
 there will be problems with magnetic coupling between the wires, but surely
 the setup is less coupled then using just one wire.

 Another better possibility is to heat with DC and stir with AC. One should
 then try to decrease the resistance in the wire as much as possible in
 order to heat less with the AC and get more stiring/manipulating
 power/freedom out of it if needed.


 Cheers!

Re: [Vo]:mainstream physics paper bout the Hot Cat, co-author Andrea Rossi

[Bob Higgins]

I cannot answer all of these questions.  It would be great if we had a
direct line to Dr. Piantelli to ask him - perhaps we could work that out in
the future.  But, he is a critical resource to his funding company,
Nichenergy, and his health is failing.  Keep in mind that Piantelli has
been working on Ni-H LENR longer than just about anyone, and generally with
high end equipment at his disposal.  Piantelli has seen continuous (years)
of excess heat in Ni-H systems having NO lithium.  He added a Li shell to
expand the heat output yield when he saw the 6 MeV protons being generated
(sounds a little like nuclear bomb technology).  However, he does not have
an in-situ charged particle spectrometer - something that he would dearly
love to have.  He has been examining semiconductor technologies that could
be used to build such a sensor to advance his research.  His measurements
of charged particles have been in a cloud chamber in a reaction operating
in after death mode.

I would say that Piantelli believes that the 6 MeV protons are correlated
with excess heat.

I believe Piantelli would say the protons are correlated with excess heat,
but not commensurate with excess heat.  I.E. the protons are not the source
of all of the excess heat from the reaction, but merely a branch of the
main reaction with the Ni.

Piantelli is a systematic scientist.  He needs to know the answers to these
same questions with greater certainty to advance the science.  But to get
those answers, he needs in-situ measurements of the charged particles.  So
now he is in the position of having to invent, design, construct, and
validate such a sensor before he can quantify these particles.  His lab is
not equipped to make such a sensor - its development probably requires
access to a semiconductor research lab.

On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 9:56 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 8:04 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 This suggests that something nuclear is happening in the branch of the
 reaction that results in the ejection of the 6 MeV proton to supply the
 proton with its 6 MeV of energy.


 The impression I've taken away from what I've read of Piantelli's papers
 is that he's seeing fast protons and wants to explain them on some level.
 The approach he takes is to my mind pretty hand-wavy and reminds me of the
 cartoon of the two scientists looking at a blackboard, with the step then
 a miracle occurs sitting between the initial equations and the
 conclusion.  His explanation seems to go beyond the empirical evidence to
 make assumptions about what's happening in a pretty detailed way.

 Assuming there are fast protons, my questions are these:

- How many are there in the range of 6 MeV?  Are they sporadic and
intermittent?  Or are there a large number?
- Are they correlated with any excess heat?
- Are they commensurate with any excess heat?

 If the answer to the first question is that there are some fast protons
 that are seen in an NiH system, or perhaps quite a few, it might be good to
 work backwards from known and plausible reactions; e.g., a proton being
 stripped off of a deuterium nucleus and hopping over to the lattice site.
 This and perhaps other reactions would generate protons in the MeV range.
 The hard part would be explaining what might be leading to this or a
 similar reaction.

 Eric

Re: [Vo]:mainstream physics paper bout the Hot Cat, co-author Andrea Rossi

[Bob Higgins]

Thanks Robin.  Can you give me the leads you found and/or the search terms
you used so I can be sure to find the ones you saw?  I will follow up with
additional searching.  If I can find some that appear to fit with
Piantelli's experiment, I will forward them to him and offer to make
contact with the researchers (Francesco doesn't speak English).  If a good
fit is found collaboration would be great.

On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 3:09 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 In reply to  Bob Higgins's message of Sat, 11 Apr 2015 08:44:20 -0600:
 Hi,
 [snip]
 I cannot answer all of these questions.  It would be great if we had a
 direct line to Dr. Piantelli to ask him - perhaps we could work that out
 in
 the future.  But, he is a critical resource to his funding company,
 Nichenergy, and his health is failing.  Keep in mind that Piantelli has
 been working on Ni-H LENR longer than just about anyone, and generally
 with
 high end equipment at his disposal.  Piantelli has seen continuous (years)
 of excess heat in Ni-H systems having NO lithium.  He added a Li shell to
 expand the heat output yield when he saw the 6 MeV protons being generated
 (sounds a little like nuclear bomb technology).  However, he does not have
 an in-situ charged particle spectrometer - something that he would dearly
 love to have.

 A quick Google reveals that there are several people designing building and
 testing these. Perhaps if he were to contact one of them, they would agree
 to
 collaborate?

 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

 http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: replication results coming later

[Bob Higgins]

Finlay asked a similar question.  The answer is in the thermal model for
the mounted area of the thermocouple.

The thermal model for Alan's thermocouple, mounted on the reactor tube, is
different than Parkhomov's.  Alan's thermocouple is in a center gap in the
heater coil turns, the turns being wound directly onto the reactor tube.
He has his heater coil portions on each side of center covered with a thick
alumina tube, but the center area where the thermocouple is mounted is not
covered (not insulated).  Thus, there is thermal load to the environment
(radiation, convection) from the area of the thermocouple that causes the
thermocouple to read lower than the core temperature or even the surface
temperature of the reactor tube right under the coils.  Fortunately, Alan
measured this differential in temperature between where he had the
thermocouple on the reactor tube and the core temperature.

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 1:04 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 Bob,

 You appear to be making the assumption that excess power is being
 generated within the core.  Why would you expect the temperature inside the
 core to be above the outside of the core unless some extra power is being
 produced?  Why 1200 C when the outside is at only 900 C?

 Something does not seem to add up in that calibration run, or perhaps I
 just missed a fine point that you can help explain.  Thanks.

 Dave

  -Original Message-
 From: Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Fri, Apr 3, 2015 12:41 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: replication results coming later

  There were a couple of reasons.  First, Alan was at near maximum power
 when the reactor tube outside temperature was 900C and the internal core
 temperature was over 1200C.  The Kanthal A1 heater wire would have burned
 out by the time the reactor tube temperature could have been driven to
 1200C, even if Alan could drive it that hard.  Parkhomov had a different
 differential between his tube OD and his core temperature than Alan did.
 Alan measured his differential curve.  If he had gone to 1200C at the
 reactor tube OD, the heater wire would have been at or above its melting
 temperature and the core may have been nearly 1400C.  It was just not
 practical.

  If Alan had the same insulating system as Parkhomov, his reactor tube
 may have read nearly 1200C while his core was at 1200C.

  Another reason was the cool-down cycle time.  Alan was uncomfortable
 leaving the system to run un-monitored, so he had to shut it down in a
 controlled cycle before he fell asleep.

  On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com
 wrote:

  Bob, why didn't you continue with until 1200 outside, I thought you
 were following Hank's advice. But, suddenly, the experiment stopped. Can
 you explain that?

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: replication results coming later

[Bob Higgins]

Tungsten has a very high melting point, but it suffers badly from oxidation
and will fail at 1000C if exposed to O2.  Kanthal A1 is one of the best
alloys for a heater coil that can survive in the presence of O2 (leakage)
and it is reasonably ductile for forming.  Ductility is important because
if the material is hard, forming into a coil will cause it to crack and it
will fail at the crack.

To get to higher temperatures, non-ductile metals and conductive ceramics
(like SiC) are used.  Bob Greenyer is getting SiC tube heaters quoted from
an company in India - these are good to well over 1500C, but are fragile.

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:

 Can't you use W as a heater?

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: replication results coming later

[Bob Higgins]

Daniel,  I got an email response to you from Dennis Cravens (who reads
Vortex-l):

One easy way is a carbon welding rod. ---Cheap and most have copper
coatings that can be easily pealed off and also be used for easy
connections. They are also useful for current shunts.

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:

 Bob,
 it seems that Parkhomov is low on budget. Isn't there a cheaper way to
 heat that?  Like, removing the graphite from a pencil and using it to heat?
 --
 Daniel Rocha - RJ
 danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:mainstream physics paper bout the Hot Cat, co-author Andrea Rossi

[Bob Higgins]

Jones,  What is your evidence for your statement:

The Lugano isotope data, even if it could be believed, completely negates
the entire scenario since Li-7 is NOT depleted according to the Lugano
report - but instead is converted to Li-6. 


What I drew from the report was the only thing that can be concluded was
that the 7Li is more commensurate to the 6Li in the ash as compared to the
fuel.  There was no mass assay that determined how much total Li was
present in the ash compared to the fuel.  We know that physically, a lot of
the Li will be on the walls of the alumina tube, so we don't have any idea
of the absolute depletion of Li mass in the reaction.

While it is possible that the 7Li is converted to 6Li, it is only one of
the possibilities.  The ICP-MS analysis is a full volume analysis and
showed both Li isotopes near equal in percentage in the ash.  How these
isotopes became nearly equal is just blind speculation at the moment
without further experimental data.  All of the possibilities for the ratio
change from fuel to ash should be laid out and the plausibility of each
examined.

Bob

Re: [Vo]:mainstream physics paper bout the Hot Cat, co-author Andrea Rossi

[Bob Higgins]

Jones, we DO know that there is a large imbalance in the distribution of
7Li in the ash.  Look at the difference between the SIMS results which
provide isotopic analysis of the material near the surface, and the results
of ICP-MS which is a bulk analysis of the particle.  The surface shows
change of 7Li from 92% in fuel to 8% in ash, with the 6Li going from 8% in
fuel to 92% in the ash.  The ICP-MS bulk analysis shows that the overall
fuel particle had 94% 7Li and 6% 6Li in the fuel going to 58% 7Li and 42%
6Li in the ash.  Clearly there is much more change of 7Li / 6Li on the
surface than in the overall bulk.  Whatever is happening to the Li isotopes
is happening at an apparent greater rate at the surface of the particle.

Since the reaction is likely to occurring in a thin liquid LiH-Al alloy
film whetted to the surface of a Ni particle, it is logical to assume the
reaction may be occurring at the liquid interface to the Ni particle.  Yet
it is the solidified composite surface that shows the greatest depletion of
the 7Li.  Could the 6Li stratify to the surface during the high temperature
liquid phase of the film, owing to some physical difference between 6Li and
7Li (for example liquid density of 6LiH vs 7LiH)?

I am not questioning that the isotopic ratio is changing, only that the
change appears bigger at the surface than in the particle as a whole.

Bob

On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 *From:* Bob Higgins



 Jones,  What is your evidence for your statement:



 The Lugano isotope data, even if it could be believed, completely negates
 the entire scenario since Li-7 is NOT depleted according to the Lugano
 report - but instead is converted to Li-6. 



 First of all, there is a crude assay based on the size of the pure sphere
 - and no evidence of large imbalance of Li-7 elsewhere. More importantly,
 85 years of nuclear physics can present no thermal process where the bulk
 isotopic distribution varies more than a few percent per stage, yet the
 Lugano report, if it can be believed shows extremely pure Li-6 appearing in
 what is essentially one stage in one sample – many orders of magnitude
 purer than any know process can deliver.



 There are three possibilities – either the starting material was enriched
 in pure Li-6, which is most likely, or else the process of heat generation
 has converted the missing Li-7 into Li-6, which is endothermic, and
 unlikely to have happened in a process where excess heat is generated. The
 third possibility is that the ash was spiked with pure isotope.



 Neither of these possibilities can in any way support a conclusion of
 lithium-7 plus proton fusion, especially with the lack of the expected
 gamma, and no indication of helium.



 To say that Levi’s crew did not test for helium is a complete cop-out and
 only indicative of further incompetence on the part of this team. With this
 claimed excess heat over 30 days there should have been a large amount of
 helium, actual overpressure: that is - if lithium fusion were taking place.
 A sample of gas should at least have been stored for later testing.



 Most likely conclusion – Rossi understood from the start that lithium-6 is
 the active isotope, and he provided fuel which was highly enriched, and at
 the same time, provided a different fuel for the testing of the “before”
 sample. Only Rossi handled this fuel. He had complete control, and no one
 complained. BTW - The cost of that much lithium-6 (about 50 milligrams)
 available from several suppliers, is about $10.



 Jones





 What I drew from the report was the only thing that can be concluded was
 that the 7Li is more commensurate to the 6Li in the ash as compared to the
 fuel.  There was no mass assay that determined how much total Li was
 present in the ash compared to the fuel.  We know that physically, a lot of
 the Li will be on the walls of the alumina tube, so we don't have any idea
 of the absolute depletion of Li mass in the reaction.



 While it is possible that the 7Li is converted to 6Li, it is only one of
 the possibilities.  The ICP-MS analysis is a full volume analysis and
 showed both Li isotopes near equal in percentage in the ash.  How these
 isotopes became nearly equal is just blind speculation at the moment
 without further experimental data.  All of the possibilities for the ratio
 change from fuel to ash should be laid out and the plausibility of each
 examined.



 Bob

Re: [Vo]:mainstream physics paper bout the Hot Cat, co-author Andrea Rossi

[Bob Higgins]

In follow-up hypothetical analysis of the Lugano measurements, consider
this.  Look at what it means for the ICP-MS assay of the fuel to have 94.1%
7Li and 5.9% 6Li.  With 100mg of LiAlH4 fuel source, the fuel source had
17.2mg of 7Li and 1.08mg of 6Li.  If one *presumes* that 6Li is not being
created and doesn't participate in the reaction; then in the ash there will
still be 1.08mg of 6Li.  The ICP-MS analysis of the ash shows that there is
42.5% of 7Li and 57.5% of 6Li.  Since (by presumption) there is still
1.08mg of 6Li left in the ash, there is only 0.79 mg of 7Li in the ash.
The amount of 7Li has decreased from 17.2mg to 0.79mg from fuel to ash.
Thus, only 0.79mg/17.2mg or only about 1/22 of the original 7Li remains in
the ash - based on the presumption that no 6Li was created.
Because the reaction showed no major output heat decline due to only 1/22
of the original 7Li being present by the end of the reaction, it suggests
to me that the 7Li may not be the primary source of heat in the reaction.
As an aside, if the heat produced over the course of the experiment was due
solely to the burning of 7Li, the consumption of (17.2 - 0.79) = 16.41 mg
of 7Li would require the reaction to produce ~8.4 MeV per atom of burned
7Li (based on the revised heat output of the Lugano experiment).
More likely the hypothesis that 6Li is not created and 7Li burning produces
the heat is not correct.  This hypothetical argument suggests that the 7Li
is participating in the reaction (perhaps producing some excess heat), some
6Li is probably being created in the reaction, and much of the heat is
coming from some other reaction - perhaps the transmutation/isotopic shift
in the Ni which was not depleted by the end of the reaction.

Piantelli's theory supports this.  He uses Li as a booster for his reactors
- using the Li to create excess heat from the 6 MeV protons being produced
(resulting in more than 6 MeV of heat per proton).  However, he does have
excess heat without the Li.

Bob Higgins

On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 1:30 AM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 In reply to  Bob Higgins's message of Wed, 8 Apr 2015 10:12:11 -0600:
 Hi,
 [snip]
 The ICP-MS analysis is a full volume analysis and showed both Li isotopes
 near equal in percentage in the ash.

 Just a thought: If the Li was acting as a nuclear catalyst, shuttling back
 and
 forth between Li6-Li7, then a roughly equal distribution on the whole
 might be
 expected, since a preponderance of one over the other would lead to an
 increase
 in the number of reactions of the predominant isotope, resulting in more
 of them
 being converted to the other.

 i.e. an excess of Li7 would yield more reactions converting Li7 to Li6,
 and an
 excess of Li6 would result in more reactions converting Li6 to Li7.

 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

 http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:mainstream physics paper bout the Hot Cat, co-author Andrea Rossi

[Bob Higgins]

Piantelli's theory says that H- anions are responsible for the Ni-H LENR
reaction.  According to his theory, the H- anion, as a composite fermion,
enters the Ni atom much as would a muon.  Somehow (and Piantelli doesn't
say how) the large H- anion must become a compact negatively charged object
(like a DDL state) and have a tiny orbital around the Ni nucleus.  The
resulting proximity of the H- anion to the Ni nucleus causes a nuclear
reaction with a number of branches.  Piantelli has measured 6 MeV protons
exiting the reaction as one of the branches, and various
transmutation/isotopic shifts of the large Ni nucleus.  Thus, high energy
protons come from one of the branches of this reaction.

Note that LiH is an ionic hydride, and the hydrogen in the liquid hydride
exists as hydrogen anions, H-.

On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 1:02 AM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Tue, 7 Apr 2015 12:24:18 -0700:
 Hi,
 [snip]
  The Li nucleus becomes excited, but it cannot simply convert directly to
 beryllium without an energetic emission to compensate for the kinetic
 energy which caused the fusion.

 All p+Li7 reactions that have been measured are caused by bombarding Li
 with
 fast protons. If I'm not mistaken, it's the energy of the fast proton that
 results in the gamma. However in the case of LENR there is no fast proton,
 since
 the protons are room temperature or a couple of eV at most. The actual
 fusion
 process being mediated purely by tunneling. So perhaps gamma-less p+Li7
 fusion
 is indeed possible?

 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

 http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:mainstream physics paper bout the Hot Cat, co-author Andrea Rossi

[Bob Higgins]

It would not be fair to criticize the Lugano team for not measuring the gas
in their experiment.  Rossi lent them a reactor that was not designed for
sampling the product gas.  After the experiment, the seal had to be broken
open (there are various descriptions of how this happened).  To have
measured the gas left in the reactor at the end, the whole reactor would
have to be placed in a large ulta-high vacuum system with mechanical
feedthru attachments designed to break the seal on the reactor while inside
the UHV.  This would have been a large undertaking.  Having viewed their
setup, it was probably considerably out of their budget and scope.

On the other hand, the Parkhomov-like experiments, particularly with the
way MFMP has modified the seals, is well suited for gas sampling.  It is
highly desirable to sample the gas while the reactor is still hot and
before much of the hydrogen (isotope) gas can be re-absorbed into the metal
as LiH.  This is in my experimental plan.

Historically, credibly measuring He in the electrolytic PdD experiments was
hard - you have to prove it could not have come from atmospheric
contamination.  When the experiment is performed in high alumina reactor
tubes, as Alan Goldwater has shown, the gas pressure can be quite high
-200-600 PSI.  When sampled, the resulting pressure in the sample vessel
will be less than in the reaction tube due to the volume of the sample
container, but the sample pressure could easily be in the 30-100 PSI
range.  Finding a measurable percentage of the sample gas to be He could
confidently be determined to be a reaction product rather than
contamination due to the higher pressure of the sample container which
could not have been produced from atmospheric contamination.

Bob Higgins

On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 8:44 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 Well on second look, at day 32, the internal helium pressure at 1200 C is
 about 2000 psi if indeed the Lugano excess heat calculation was correct (it
 wasn’t) which could arguably have been tolerated by the reactor. About 0.03
 moles of helium would have been produced at 8 MeV per atom to give the 1.5
 MW-hrs of dissipated excess heat, but as we know the Lugano excess heat
 calculation was grossly inflated by the incompetence of the Levi team.



 If the COP was closer to 1.5 as I suspect, then there would have been far
 less internal pressure from the accumulated helium – if lithium fusion was
 responsible. Thus, lithium fusion is not ruled out by pressure
 considerations. (but is ruled out by lack of gammas)



 *From:* Jones Beene



 Blaze- Disregard previous numbers. I’ll try to calculate the internal
 pressure at day 30 another way. The point remains that if lithium fusion is
 responsible for the gain, lots of helium needs to have been produced and
 the reactor probably could not have tolerated the pressure.

Re: [Vo]:mainstream physics paper bout the Hot Cat, co-author Andrea Rossi

[Bob Higgins]

Piantelli said that he has seen ~500 keV gammas (didn't say how many and if
always present) and he tested for beta+/beta- annihilation and did not find
the dual photon signature for that.  I was asking if he had seen a DDL
signature for compaction of the H- anion.

The Bremsstrahlung from heavy particles like protons is not as prominent as
for light particles like electrons.  The Bremsstrahlung has to do with the
deceleration and light particles stop much more quickly.  Heavy particles
of a given MeV are going slower, and they stop more slowly with various
Compton scatterings.  So I don't know if you would readily see
Bremsstrahlung from a 6 MeV proton.

On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:

  Bob--

 Does Piantelli say there are energetic EM photons seen in the reaction?  6
 Mev protons would probably produce observable EM radiation, unless they
 were all consumed in the subsequent LENR reaction.  That seems unlikely to
 me.

 Bob Cook

 - Original Message -
 *From:* Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Sent:* Thursday, April 09, 2015 8:09 AM
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:mainstream physics paper bout the Hot Cat, co-author
 Andrea Rossi

 In follow-up hypothetical analysis of the Lugano measurements, consider
 this.  Look at what it means for the ICP-MS assay of the fuel to have
 94.1% 7Li and 5.9% 6Li.  With 100mg of LiAlH4 fuel source, the fuel source
 had 17.2mg of 7Li and 1.08mg of 6Li.  If one *presumes* that 6Li is not
 being created and doesn't participate in the reaction; then in the ash
 there will still be 1.08mg of 6Li.  The ICP-MS analysis of the ash shows
 that there is 42.5% of 7Li and 57.5% of 6Li.  Since (by presumption) there
 is still 1.08mg of 6Li left in the ash, there is only 0.79 mg of 7Li in the
 ash.  The amount of 7Li has decreased from 17.2mg to 0.79mg from fuel to
 ash.  Thus, only 0.79mg/17.2mg or only about 1/22 of the original 7Li
 remains in the ash - based on the presumption that no 6Li was created.
 Because the reaction showed no major output heat decline due to only 1/22
 of the original 7Li being present by the end of the reaction, it suggests
 to me that the 7Li may not be the primary source of heat in the reaction.
 As an aside, if the heat produced over the course of the experiment was due
 solely to the burning of 7Li, the consumption of (17.2 - 0.79) = 16.41 mg
 of 7Li would require the reaction to produce ~8.4 MeV per atom of burned
 7Li (based on the revised heat output of the Lugano experiment).
  More likely the hypothesis that 6Li is not created and 7Li burning
 produces the heat is not correct.  This hypothetical argument suggests that
 the 7Li is participating in the reaction (perhaps producing some excess
 heat), some 6Li is probably being created in the reaction, and much of the
 heat is coming from some other reaction - perhaps the
 transmutation/isotopic shift in the Ni which was not depleted by the end of
 the reaction.

 Piantelli's theory supports this.  He uses Li as a booster for his
 reactors - using the Li to create excess heat from the 6 MeV protons being
 produced (resulting in more than 6 MeV of heat per proton).  However, he
 does have excess heat without the Li.

 Bob Higgins

 On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 1:30 AM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 In reply to  Bob Higgins's message of Wed, 8 Apr 2015 10:12:11 -0600:
 Hi,
 [snip]
 The ICP-MS analysis is a full volume analysis and showed both Li
 isotopes near equal in percentage in the ash.

 Just a thought: If the Li was acting as a nuclear catalyst, shuttling
 back and
 forth between Li6-Li7, then a roughly equal distribution on the whole
 might be
 expected, since a preponderance of one over the other would lead to an
 increase
 in the number of reactions of the predominant isotope, resulting in more
 of them
 being converted to the other.

 i.e. an excess of Li7 would yield more reactions converting Li7 to Li6,
 and an
 excess of Li6 would result in more reactions converting Li6 to Li7.

 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

 http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:*GlowStick* GS2 LIVE NOW

[Bob Higgins]

Also, here is the link to the periodic screen captures:

http://bit.ly/1DzPIM2

This will allow you to actually read the temperatures and pressures in the
graphs.

On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Alberto De Souza 
alberto.investi...@gmail.com wrote:

 http://youtu.be/zMs8XwF22Dk

Re: [Vo]:Quest to Mine Seawater for Lithium Advances

[Bob Higgins]

Based on previous energy analyses posted, I am sure Jed would be better
suited to comment on the issue of the lithium economy and peak lithium.

Even in lithium batteries, the lithium is not disintegrated when wearing
out the battery.  When a Li battery is no longer capable of operating at an
acceptable capacity (usually due to in-optimum re-crystallization on
recharging), the Li could be recovered the way lead is recovered in lead
acid battery recycling industry today.  By the time a Li based LENR
technology hits the market, there could be a thousand years worth of Li for
LENR that had already been mined for battery use that could just be
extracted from the Li battery recycling.

Of course, LENR will consume some Li, so the Li is not 100% recoverable
from the fuel cartridges, but in practice, even battery recycling is not
100% efficient.  I suspect the percentage of the Li consumed in LENR will
be about the same as the inefficiency in Li recycling for batteries.

Also, when Li is consumed in LENR on a large scale, it will be interesting
to see what harvest-able materials become available as a byproduct of the
reaction.  Will the reaction generate copious 4He, 3He, D2, T2, Be, etc.
that could be sold to pay for more Li?  A new industry will develop to
monetize the recycling.

Bob Higgins

On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 4:12 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 In reply to  Lewan Mats's message of Mon, 8 Jun 2015 07:05:31 +:
 Hi,
 [snip]
 Predicted lithium shortages are leading to novel technologies for
 recovering the element, now found mostly in salt lakes in South America.
 
 http://www.technologyreview.com/news/538036/quest-to-mine-seawater-for-lithium-advances/
 
 How would lithium shortages affect a Li-Ni-H based LENR process? Or the
 contrary?

 I think that Li based LENR produces so much energy that it would support a
 Li
 price that is more than adequate to enable extraction from sea water.

 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

 http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Request: info on very high (2000F) temp sensors

[Bob Higgins]

The real disadvantage of the thermal imagers and spot sensors is that they
cannot reach in and see the temperature of the core or a spot related to
core temperature.  In the Parkhomov experiments, there is a measure of
insulation between the core and the visibly accessible outside of the
experiment.

I earlier made a case that the Parkhomov-like experiments should be run
with insulation on the outside to reduce the required heater power to reach
a high temperature.  Sure, that will up the chance of a run-away reaction,
but that will be a happy circumstance to deal with.  However, this will
even further reduce the ability of an optical sensor to measure a
temperature of value on the reactor.

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:

 I think these thermal bursts that destroys some of the experiments should
 be analyzed with a priority.

Re: [Vo]:Cat stimultion

[Bob Higgins]

Note that in Rossi's HotCat, the fuel chamber is much longer than in the
Parkhomov experiment.  It is possible [speculation] that Rossi simply
divides the heater into 2 or more segments (from left to right in a
horizontal HotCat reactor).  For example, lets say that there are 3
segments to the heater.  Perhaps the outer heater segments are the mouse
and the inner heater segment is the cat.  Initially, all heaters are driven
to bring the HotCat to operating temperature.  Then the center segment is
turned OFF and operates in SSM while the 2 outer segments remain heated.
When the SSM begins to wane in the center, the center heater is turned ON
and the outer heaters are turned OFF so that the outer segments operate in
SSM.  With the H2 and the liquid metal transferring heat, perhaps each
segment helps support the one adjacent to it in such a configuration.  This
seems a little cat and mouse -ish to me.

I think the cat  mouse are probably much less exotic than what has been
proposed in this thread.

Bob Higgins

On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 9:17 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Thu, 18 Jun 2015 16:19:04 -0400:
 Hi,
 [snip]
 The Hot cat reactor has an alumina shell that is transparent to infrared
 light in the LENR reactive range. Could the Mouse be producing light that
 gets through the alumina shell of the Cat to stimulate the Cat?
 
 I was assuming that the cat and mouse were together in the same tube. Is
 this
 assumption wrong?
 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

 http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:The good, the bad and the ugly

[Bob Higgins]

I agree that in the future, it may be valuable to use inductive heating on
LENR devices that could evolve from the Lugano/Parkhomov/glowstick
reactors.  However, at this stage in the game, I don't feel this technology
is necessary or desirable.  It is not desirable because it is difficult
technology to assess how much source heat is being delivered to the reactor
core - in a way that is not equivocal.  We need simple heating that can be
readily be modeled.  In the case of induction heating, the load impedance
will be constantly changing as the core undergoes chemical and phase
changes over temperature.  This will mean that the tuning of the
inductively coupled elements will have to be dynamically adjusted.  You
will constantly be faced with determining at each impedance match how much
power is going into the core or directly into the calorimeter or the
surroundings.  It may prove painful to be able to compare the result to a
dummy run due to different dynamic impedance matches.

The reason people are having trouble with resistive heaters is, quite
simply, because they are not getting assistance from excess heat in the
core.  From looking at the reported successful experiments, excess heat
(XH) should be turning on in the 700-900C range, and if you are getting
this XH, then it won't be that hard to get to a core temperature of 1200C.
OTOH, if there is no excess heat, you will be driving the heater coil very
hard to get to that same temperature (probably by a factor of 2), which
will greatly shorten its life.

Another observation is that the present heater coil designs can be improved
by using a larger diameter heater wire.  The larger the wire, the longer it
will last at temperatures in excess of 1200C.  Generally this will mean
trending to lower resistance coils and lower voltage drive.  Lower voltage
drive is not a problem if you design for it.

Also, I believe these reactors should be better insulated until such time
as XH is observed.  I realize that the insulation will create a potential
for run-away reaction when XH occurs, but that would be the best possible
news if it happened.  When it does happen, just start again with less
insulation.  The insulation will allow you to reach the 1200C range with
less input heater power and will allow you to detect a smaller XH in early
experiments.  You can hope for a home run, but don't count on it.  It is
much more likely that a small XH will be detected before you optimize to
realize a larger COP.

Bob Higgins

On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 7:39 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 Jones,

 I agree with your desire to find an easy to use and inexpensive heating
 method.  I am just pointing out that it may become a very difficult task to
 get efficient heating unless the drive coil is a reasonable match to the
 load.  You can visualize what I am pointing out by taking a normal pot load
 and raising it above the heating coil.  Once you get beyond a certain
 elevation, the amount of heat deposited into the pot reduces rapidly.  This
 is due to the mismatch that occurs in impedance.

 It makes a great deal of sense to try to use one of those inexpensive
 systems but don't be surprised to find that it is difficult to heat the
 load to the desired level unless it is flat and spread out.

 Magnetic flux coupling is the key parameter and it falls rapidly with
 shape mismatch and distance.  Also, the conductive and magnetic
 characteristic of the fuel is a big factor that is going to add confusion
 to the testers.  A simple wire heating system is far easier to meter and
 calibrate in my opinion.

 Dave

Re: [Vo]:Jiang reports successful Lugano replication

[Bob Higgins]

Type B thermocouples are expensive; even for fine wire, short, uninsulated
couples, because they are made from platinum.  They may be 10x more
expensive than type-K and extension wires are just as expensive.
Additionally the signal level is smaller with type-B which means more noise
in the measurement.

On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
wrote:

 a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net wrote:

  Beats me why they don't use type S or type B thermocouples that are
 common in the glass industry.


 That probably would be better. You should suggest it to Jiang. (His e-mail
 in the slides. He is a good guy.)

 The K-type thermocouple maxed out.

 They have to replace the inner thermocouple (T3) in any case.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Fractional Hydrogen without Mills

[Bob Higgins]

However, Maly  Vavra, and Naudts predict the lowest DDL state as giving up
510 keV to be reached, not 3.56 keV.  That is 2 orders of magnitude lower
energy for their DDL solution than what you are describing.  Where has all
the energy gone in this calculation?

On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 5:52 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

  Robin, for the record, can we list the smallest theoretical state of
 hydrogen redundancy for your model, Mills' model, DDL, and Arbab's model …
 in terms of mass-energy.

 We can start with the most literal case, where there are 136 Hydrino
 energy levels below 1/1 (1/2 - 1/137), and the ionization energy required
 is a whole integer multiple of 27.2 eV, where the integer is 2...137. In
 this case, 27.2 eV x 137 = 3726.4 eV.

 1) 27.2 eV x 137 = 3726.4 eV.

 2) DDL observed (as dark matter) 3.56 keV

 3)

 4)

 Etc.

 -Original Message-
 From: mix...@bigpond.com

 In reply to  Jones Beene's message:

 Hi,

 On vortex, many different variations exist on the theme of f/H or

 dense hydrogen clusters (even as being identical to dark matter).

 

 These are different from Mills' theory to varying degrees, despite

 similarities. Miley, Hora, Lawandy and Meulenberg have delved in with

 insight and Robin has another version, closer to Mills.

 

 Here is something that has not been mentioned before - AFAIK. The

 Fractional Hydrogen Atom: A Paradigm for Astrophysical Phenomena Author-
 I.

 Arbab  Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, University of

 Khartoum, Khartoum, Sudan.

 His protonium is actually very close to the smallest state in my model.

 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

 http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Can anyone help?

[Bob Higgins]

Note that there are many optimizations of carbonyl processing designed to
produce, in particular, long strand connected particles with high surface
area optimized for nickel metal hydride battery performance.  I suspect
that Rossi used a standard variant of this process that is available COTS.
It is well known that Rossi has a history of using the Vale T255 grade - a
jar of it was seen in one of his videos.  It appears that in the Lugano
fuel, the T255 was not used, but the Ni was probably another carbonyl
variant.

At high temperature (300C) and in the presence of H2, the oxide readily is
stripped from the Ni particle surface and other metals readily wet to the
clean Ni surface.  As the temperature continues to rise, the liquid Li-Al-H
foams and froths as it releases its hydrogen.  All of the Ni becomes
quickly surface coated with liquid Li-Al-H.  Much of the fine nanoscale Ni
features dissolve in this metal and reach an equilibrium of Ni (~5%)
dissolving into the melt AND condensing out of the melt back onto the
particle surface.  There could be a type of co-deposition of the Ni
taking place with simultaneous deposition of Ni-H or with hydrogen anions.

Also taking place at the same time is the sintering of the Ni.  Wherever
particles touch, they will grow together, and pull together into a more
compact form.

There is a tremendous amount of alumina present in the form of tubes and
cement.  It is hard to ascribe the alumina particle as part of the ash - it
is probably just debris.

The same cannot be readily said about the iron particle.  Why such a large
particle would be useful in the fuel is not clear, nor is it clear what
happens to the iron in the liquid Li-Al (I am not a chemist).  Li and Fe do
form compounds such as LiFePO4.  Perhaps some percentage of the Fe
dissolves into the liquid Li-Al-H and enhances the liquid state reaction in
some way.  Perhaps it participates in the co-deposition on the surface of
the Ni to enhance the liquid-solid metal interface LENR reaction.  It is
probably naive to think the large Fe particles in the fuel are there by
chance, and probably also unreasonable to think they wouldn't dissolve in
the very active liquid metal environment.  Rossi is known to have used Fe
in his low temperature eCat fuel.

Bob Higgins

On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 8:22 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 The nickel particles grains looks like they have moved around under the
 influence of some EMF stimulation and have found each other. Electrostatic
 abreaction can do this. There should be a strong dipole based electrostatic
 attraction at work that takes advantage of the apparent EMF induced
 vibratory particle movement in the fuel mix. It looks like the lithium
 never recombines with the aluminum at 400C and above having found a home on
 the surface of the Nickel particles, covering all the prticles completely
 in a very thin layer.

 The aluminum forms it own particle as shown the formation of a huge
 luminum oxide particle of over a 120 microns in length. I wount’t thing
 this could happen with the aluminum not at its melting temperature.

 The iron particle is truly large being some 300 by 100 microns in size.
 How could this particle be formed if it was not in the fuel to begin with.
 The fuel was observed to be very fine grey particles. 300 microns is not
 fine powder.


 On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 9:54 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 in 8. fuel Analysis it states:

  The fuel contains natural nickel powder with a grain size of a few
 microns.

 so the nickel must move around at tempertures where lithium is liquid.



 On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 I misunderstood the particle analysis in the Lugano report, On page 50
 of the Lugano report, I just realized that the nickel fuel particle had a
 hugh natural abundance of pure lithium content. Its size may not have
 changed between when it was fuel through the time that it became ash. It's
 huge. Consistently, Table 1 also shows a lot of lithium in the fuel. This
 particle configuration is not consistence with the commensally availible
 nickel particles used by replications. That stuff is about 5 microns
 average and contains lots of carbon but no lithium. Rossi has somehow
 processed the commensally available particles to add lots of lithium. Did
 Rossi give his COTS nickel particles some sort of lithium bath in a fuel
 fabrication process.

 In figure 3, there is lots of carbon in particle 1. But in figure 9,
 there was none. How can that be? The fuel should contain lots of carbon.
 Why does fig. 9 not show any? Both types of test should have shown carbon,

 The nickel particles are huge at about 100 microns, There are a number
 of them in the micrograph (a) on page 44. It is unlikely that nickel
 particles can move around much in a particle fuel mixture with lithium
 aluminum hydride powder. So how could they gather together in an
 aggragation of such large numbers unless they came

Re: [Vo]:Can anyone help?

[Bob Higgins]

The Li and Al are going to be present in equal amounts in the fuel, but
only the Al will show in the XRD.  XRD has a pretty small spot and you can
be pretty sure that the measurement diameter will not include much that is
not the Ni particle.  OTOH, SIMS is a much bigger spot size and it would be
easy to pick up stray LiAlH4 in the fuel in the fringes of measurement.

So, in SIMS, why didn't we see the Al on the Ni fuel powder?  It is
somewhat of a mystery, but what is reported are the raw counts.  SIMS is a
micro-sputtering process, and it is possible that the Li atoms sputter like
crazy, maybe orders of magnitude faster than the Al.  IMHO, you would need
to see some kind of equalized measurement by SIMS of LiAlH4 (for example)
to see how it sputters.  In other words, you would like an abundance
equalization of the count based on the sputter rates.  I suspect there is
no Li on the Ni in the fuel, but chance particles of the LiAlH4 in the
vicinity that are sputtered and the Li just sputters orders of magnitude
faster than anything else.  The Li counts are somewhat of a mystery, but
not a compelling one.

There is extremely little C in the system.  The C that shows up is
primarily from contamination by the conductive black tape to which the
powders are adhered to place them in the XRD or SIMS instruments.

Who knows in the story of the Fe?  I can guess that the Fe could have gone
in as nanopowder in the fuel and wouldn't have been noticed as a particle
in the SEMs because of its small size.  The nano Fe may dissolve in the
molten Li-Al, and upon cooling, condense as a larger particle.  If I were
adding Fe to the mix, I would be inclined to add it as a nanopowder to help
insure its dissolution in the molten Li-Al.

On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 The Lugano report said that the nickel particle varient was the same
 particle kind and the fuel was very find grained with a gray color.

 All of the Ni becomes quickly surface coated with liquid Li-Al-H.  

 Not so. The nickel particles are covered by pure lithium from the fuel
 (see below). No aluminum is found in the analysis and the lithium coat is
 very thiin and uniform since the nanowire coat looks crip and sharp.

 The iron particle was not in the fuel to begin with. It must have formed
 by some accretion process. The iron might be a transmutation product of
 carbon, Iron was present in the fuel. There was a large amount of carbon
 found in the fuel but none found in the ash.

 The liquid lithium may carry iron is a desolved form to condense in a
 large particle. But no iron is found on the nickel particle so that speaks
 against ion transport by liquid metal.

 The purity of the lithium on the surface of the nickel particle does not
 support the idea of element transport by lithium metal, the only liquid at
 play at reactor temperatures.

 Figure 9 shows a large amount of lithium on the nickel particles IN THE
 FUEL. Rossi coated the nickel with lithium in the FUEL. Replicators do not
 do this. They use untreated nickel powder. Have you all missed this?

 On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Note that there are many optimizations of carbonyl processing designed to
 produce, in particular, long strand connected particles with high surface
 area optimized for nickel metal hydride battery performance.  I suspect
 that Rossi used a standard variant of this process that is available COTS.
 It is well known that Rossi has a history of using the Vale T255 grade - a
 jar of it was seen in one of his videos.  It appears that in the Lugano
 fuel, the T255 was not used, but the Ni was probably another carbonyl
 variant.

 At high temperature (300C) and in the presence of H2, the oxide readily
 is stripped from the Ni particle surface and other metals readily wet to
 the clean Ni surface.  As the temperature continues to rise, the liquid
 Li-Al-H foams and froths as it releases its hydrogen.  All of the Ni
 becomes quickly surface coated with liquid Li-Al-H.  Much of the fine
 nanoscale Ni features dissolve in this metal and reach an equilibrium of Ni
 (~5%) dissolving into the melt AND condensing out of the melt back onto the
 particle surface.  There could be a type of co-deposition of the Ni
 taking place with simultaneous deposition of Ni-H or with hydrogen anions.

 Also taking place at the same time is the sintering of the Ni.  Wherever
 particles touch, they will grow together, and pull together into a more
 compact form.

 There is a tremendous amount of alumina present in the form of tubes and
 cement.  It is hard to ascribe the alumina particle as part of the ash - it
 is probably just debris.

 The same cannot be readily said about the iron particle.  Why such a
 large particle would be useful in the fuel is not clear, nor is it clear
 what happens to the iron in the liquid Li-Al (I am not a chemist).  Li and
 Fe do form compounds such as LiFePO4.  Perhaps some percentage

Re: [Vo]:Can anyone help?

[Bob Higgins]

I spent some time re-analyzing the results of the Lugano report.  Close
examination of the SEM image of fuel particle 1 (mostly Ni) on page 43
indicates that the particle is unlike a carbonyl Ni starting material - it
looks more like a Vale T255 powder that has been coated and agglomerated
due to sintering.  There is evidence of the filamentary T255 carbonyl
structure in the SEM, but it looks like a composite particle.  Further, the
SEM image shows signs of another material being disposed on the surface
area of the particle, similar to what I have seen when I dry-tumble mixed
nanopowder onto the surface of carbonyl Ni powder.

Examining the EDS analysis of this particle on page 44, there is a clear
peak for Al in the spectrum.  The EDS is a small spot examination, so the
Al peak appears to be on the surface of fuel particle 1, not a halo
contamination from nearby LiAlH4.  Further, the Al does not show in the EDS
spectrum of particles 2 or 3 of the fuel, again indicating that the Al peak
in particle 1 is not due to measurement halo and really is part of the
surface of particle 1.

Al also shows in the EDS of the ash particle 1, the one that is
predominantly Ni.  Li will not show in EDS analysis because its x-ray peak
is too low energy to be captured by the EDS sensor - so, Li could be
present, but would not have been picked up.

In the SIMS analysis of the fuel particle (page 47), both Li and Al (mass
27) show.  The SIMS analysis is for a 100x100 micron patch, so the Li and
Al could have come from nearby LiAlH4; however, supporting evidence for the
Li-Al being present on the fuel particle comes from the EDS which has a
much smaller analysis area (probably less than 5 microns square) which
showed evidence of Al.  The SIMS analysis on page 48 after sputter cleaning
still shows a reduced amount of Al on the surface at M/z=27.  It is not
clear why the Li peak in the SIMS analysis is so strong - it is from
greater Li abundance in the ion analysis stream, but it is not clear
whether that is from a greater propensity for Li to sputter from the
incident Ga beam or if there is more Li on the surface.

My conclusion is that the Ni fuel particles have been thermo-chemically
pre-processed.  It may be that this is a particle that has been ground up
from the ash of a previous reactor run.  It appears to have started out as
a Ni powder like filamentary carbonyl Vale T255 that has been heated to a
temperature in the 300-700C range while mixed with the LiAlH4.

It is also interesting to note that in Alexander Parkhomov's experiments,
he mixes the LiAlH4 powder with his carbonyl Ni powder in a mortar and
grinds the two together with a pestle.  This has not been done in any of
the MFMP replication attempts.  Perhaps Parkhomov's grinding/mixing is a
partial substitute for Rossi's pre-processing of the Ni powder with LiAlH4.

Bob Higgins

On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 The Li and Al are going to be present in equal amounts in the fuel, but
 only the Al will show in the XRD.  XRD has a pretty small spot and you can
 be pretty sure that the measurement diameter will not include much that is
 not the Ni particle.  OTOH, SIMS is a much bigger spot size and it would be
 easy to pick up stray LiAlH4 in the fuel in the fringes of measurement.


 nowhere do you see aluminum in the fuel.



 So, in SIMS, why didn't we see the Al on the Ni fuel powder?  It is
 somewhat of a mystery, but what is reported are the raw counts.  SIMS is a
 micro-sputtering process, and it is possible that the Li atoms sputter like
 crazy, maybe orders of magnitude faster than the Al.  IMHO, you would need
 to see some kind of equalized measurement by SIMS of LiAlH4 (for example)
 to see how it sputters.  In other words, you would like an abundance
 equalization of the count based on the sputter rates.  I suspect there is
 no Li on the Ni in the fuel, but chance particles of the LiAlH4 in the
 vicinity that are sputtered and the Li just sputters orders of magnitude
 faster than anything else.  The Li counts are somewhat of a mystery, but
 not a compelling one.


 table 1 shows a lot of lithium as measured in tha same way as the ash. The
 lithium is 1/3 the amount as the ash. This lithium must have been added by
 a fuel preperation process.


 There is extremely little C in the system.  The C that shows up is
 primarily from contamination by the conductive black tape to which the
 powders are adhered to place them in the XRD or SIMS instruments.


 the last line of the Lugano report said that there ws a large amount of
 carbin in the fuel that when away in the ash.


 Who knows in the story of the Fe?  I can guess that the Fe could have
 gone in as nanopowder in the fuel and wouldn't have been noticed as a
 particle in the SEMs because of its small size.  The nano Fe may dissolve
 in the molten Li-Al, and upon cooling, condense as a larger

Re: [Vo]:New Paper in the American Chemical Society: Oscillatory behavior and anomalous heat evolution in recombination of H2 and O2 on Pd-based catalysts

[Bob Higgins]

This paper also has a great deal of similarity to the claims being made for
HHO systems which use a modified automobile catalytic converter to
re-combine the HHO into water.  These catalytic converters use
nano-catalysts (including Pd) embedded in a ceramic matrix (similar to
catalysts used by B. Ahern) to catalyze the recombination.  The claims made
for HHO systems is that the heat produced by the catalyzed recombination is
greater than the heat of normal 2H2+O2 recombination.  Some claim that the
output heat is greater than the energy supplied to electrolyze the water to
form the HHO gas mix.  Is it LENR?  Is it a cousin of LENR? Is it even
true?  Papers like this one would seem to lend credibility to the HHO
experiments.

On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 5:59 AM, linuxball linuxb...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi Emaka,

 this topic is already in discussion in several vortex threads started
 earlier:
 https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg103422.html
 https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg103439.html

 Best regards,

 Wolfgang

 On 02.07.2015 13:46, Emeka Okafor wrote:

 Abstract:

 Gas flow-through microcalorimetry has been applied to study the Pd/Al2O3
 type catalysts in the exothermic hydrogen recombination process: H2 + O2 
 H2O, in view of the potential application in the passive autocatalytic
 recombination (PAR) technology. The flow mode experiments revealed
 thermokinetic oscillations, i.e., the oscillatory rate of heat evolution
 accompanying the process and the corresponding oscillations in the
 differential heat of process, in sync with oscillatory conversion of
 hydrogen. Mathematical chaos in the rate of heat evolution has been
 confirmed. In the outburst of quasiperiodic oscillations of large
 amplitude, the instances of differential heats as high as 700 kJ/mol H2
 have been detected, exceeding the heat of water formation (242 kJ/mol H2)
 by a factor of nearly three. Another occurrence of anomalously high thermal
 effects has been measured in calorimetric oxygen titration using 0.09 μmol
 pulses of O2 injected onto hydrogen- or deuterium-saturated catalysts,
 including 2%Pd/Al2O3, 5%Pd/Al2O3 and 2%PdAu/Al2O3. Repeatedly, the
 saturation/oxidation cycles showed the heat evolutions in certain
 individual O2 pulses as high as 1100 kJ/mol O2, i.e., 550 kJ/mol H2, again
 twice as much as the heat of water formation. It has been pointed out that
 it seems prudent for the PAR technologists to assume a much larger rate of
 heat evolution than those calculated on the basis of a standard
 thermodynamic value of the heat of water formation, in order to account for
 the possibility of large thermokinetic oscillation occasionally appearing
 in the recombination process of hydrogen. A possible relation of the
 anomalous heat evolution to an inadvertent occurrence of low energy nuclear
 reaction (LENR) phenomena is also briefly considered.

Re: [Vo]:Can anyone help?

[Bob Higgins]

First off, it is Parkhomov who ground his Ni powder and LiAlH4 in a mortar
and pestle in preparation (observed by Bob Greenyer).  We have no evidence
that Rossi uses such a method.

When MFMP ran its first Parkhomov-like experiment the temperature was
increased to over 1000C, and was cooled quickly.  The SEM of the resulting
ash looked a lot like the Lugano ash.  I got a sample of that ash and found
it to be quite crumbly.  So, here was Ni powder heated with LiAlH4 and the
result was a crumbly physical agglomeration.  I suspect that if I just took
a wire screen sieve, I could just brush this bang! ash back and forth a
little and it would crumble and go through the sieve.  I don't think
grinding or ball milling would be needed to get it back to a powder-ish
form.

I will probably try this experimental means of fuel preparation.  I can put
the Ni + some amount of LiAlH4 in a crucible inside a controlled exhaust
container in my furnace and run it up to about 700C.  Then take out the
resulting charge from the crucible and try to crumble it though a sieve.

To the eye, even the 100 micron Ni particles would still have looked like
a gray powder.  There is no guarantee that there was any LiAlH4 added as
part of Rossi't fuel.  In none of the tests would the hydrogen have showed
- only the Li and the Al.  And, from the detected Li and Al it was inferred
that LiAlH4 was part of the fuel.  However, it is possible that all of the
Li and Al in the fuel may have been on the Ni to begin in the Rossi fuel
(from Rossi's pre-processing); and may never have existed in the Lugano
reactor as LiAlH4.

Bob Higgins

On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 The micrograph on page 44 lends substance to the speculation that neither
 the nickel powder nor the old fuel spike was subject to grinding. The
 process of grinding would have disassembled and fragmented the larger
 nickel particles, shown fracture cracks on the aluminum oxide particles,
 and showed some softening on the edges of the iron particle and abrasive
 marks on its surface. There seems to be a wide range of nickel particle
 sizes. This type of particle can be identified by their irregular shape
 being of a fuzzy nature. Most small particles seem to be fuzzy. So where is
 the lithium aluminum hydride particles. The Lugano report notes that the
 fuel was a very fine gray powder. I do see some non fuzzy particle types
 that fit that description but their percentage in numbers seems small
 compared to the fuzzy particle types.

 There seems to be a wide distribution of nickel particles sized from very
 small to 100 microns. Most of the fuel load seems to be made up of nickel
 particles with some garbage, but that garbage might be important. If
 grinding was not used as a method of mixing, how was the fuel mixed to
 produce a uniform fine grained gray powder?

 On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 3:45 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 another addition...

 I looked at the report again. Figure 3 deals with FUEL. The picture in
 figure 3 shows FUEL particles. There is a 100 micron nickel fuel particle
 in the fuel and also a huge iron particle: particle 3. The aggregation of
 the nickel happens in the preprocessing process. The testers would have
 selected like size particles between the fuel and the ash to ensure that
 the resolution of the test processes were the same: 100X100 microns.

 Particle 2 is aluminum oxide and is assumed to be some contamination from
 a high temperature sealer. But that is a fuel particle, so the chances are
 excellent that the fuel came from a previous reactor run where particle 2
 was a part of the sealer that was broken from that previous reactor run.

 The iron particle might well be garbage from the previous preprocessing
 reactor run. Paticle 3 might have been a part of a rusty iron ash removal
 tool.

 Maybe what Rossi learned from the Lugano test is that using old reaction
 ash is great for his new reaction.

 Rossi might have wanted to cover up his fresh(virgin) fuel formulation IP
 by showing the Lugano fuel in the guise of spent fuel .

 This also means that the previous reactor run did not produce Ni62. Rossi
 must have been amazed that Ni62 was produced by the Lugano reactor run. He
 must have been very happy about this serendipity. Mybe the aluminum and
 iron garbage in the new fuel load is wonderful for the reaction. Rossi is
 not one to ignoge the gifts that chance bestows on him.

 On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 Revisws and expended...

 I looked at the report again. Figure 3 deals with FUEL. The picture in
 figure 3 shows FUEL particles. There is a 100 micron fuel particle in the
 fuel and also a huge iron particle: particle 3. The aggregation of the
 nickel happens in the preprocessing process. The testers would have
 selected like size particles between the fuel and the ash to ensure that
 the resolution of the test processes were the same: 100X100 microns

Re: [Vo]:Re: Fractional Hydrogen without Mills

[Bob Higgins]

Well, one thought is that in an H atom in ground state, the electron is
moving slowly (relatively) and is fairly loosely coupled to the proton as a
system.  Once in a DDL state, the electron is immensely coupled to the
proton - this coupling will cause a big effect on the system eigenvalues.

Second, in the DDL state the electron is moving at relativistic speeds and
has a mass increase due to this, so perhaps it could afford to shed mass
energy.

Third, I thought I remember that Hotson said that the true energy of the
electron was more like 16 MeV when its spin energy was considered.  If
true, loss of the 0.51 MeV would still be a small fraction of its total
energy.

On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 Bob,



 If the mass deficit comes from the proton – no problem. But how can the
 two be considered to be a single system with shared mass-energy? The
 electron is known to have fractional charge as a group effect, but not as a
 charge-less particle. There is always a fractional charge, even in FQHE.



 I do not think that the electron can give up 510 keV – almost its entire
 mass-energy, and still retain negative charge or even an identity. The
 mass-to-charge ratio is a physical quantity which is widely used in the
 electrodynamics and charge varies linearly according to mass AFAIK.



 *From:* Bob Higgins



 Jones, you are the first to discuss the variable mass of the proton.  The
 Vavra and Maly solution (which agrees with Naudts) is for the
 proton/electron system. There is nothing that says that all of that energy
 must come from the electron.  Why couldn't it come from the energy of the
 system as a whole, which includes the proton and its spin and fields?.



 Jones Beene wrote:

 What’s left to call an electron?

 Certainly there is no charge, since charge and mass are linear.

 Photons can’t be captured, so what is left over?

 I stand by the “almost certainly incorrect,...”

 *From:* Bob Cook

 Jones and Eric-

   Jones wrote: “The 510 keV of Maly  Vavra is almost certainly
 incorrect,...”

 I  would say Vavra makes a good case for .511 Mev in his paper on dark
 matter at  the following link:


 http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=2ved=0CCQQFjABurl=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1304.0833ei=VHeXVba1CMLGmAX4lLyQCQusg=AFQjCNGeR5fkfAu6tTJInn03b1pOsvgRiwbvm=bv.96952980,d.dGYcad=rja



 He calls it a small hydrogen that is responsible.

 The reaction that creates the small hydrogen is an energetic electron and
 a proton.



 I think Robin identified this paper a few days ago.



 It is worth reading.



 Bob Cook



 *From:* Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net

 *Sent:* Monday, July 06, 2015 7:12 AM

 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com

 *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:Fractional Hydrogen without Mills



 Eric,



 An electron giving up its rest mass and becoming a photon is NOT part of
 Mills theory.



 Half the rest mass - 255 keV is in play for Mills, spread out in steps.
 Robin has a theory with a similar value. The DDL is different, depending on
 a number of assumptions, and it need not proceed in steps – ala Mills.



 This thread started out with another theory where there was an attempt to
 tie this reduced mass value to the FQHE, but ½ is not an acceptable whole
 fraction for that (it must be an odd fraction). However, FQHE is a 2
 dimensional phenomenon – as is Mills Orbitsphere, so there is natural
 crossover (except Mills avoids QM).



 And any fractional charge relates to mass, since there is a linear ratio.
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-to-charge_ratio



 I suppose Mills 255 keV value makes a good case for the lowest level
 favoring the 2 electron configuration (hydrino hydride or f/H-) since it
 returns the atomic unit to an uncharged condition.





 *From:* Eric Walker



 Jones Beene wrote:

 The 510 keV of Maly  Vavra is almost certainly incorrect, but there are a
 number of values in the range of several hundred keV which represent the
 total energy which can be released in 136 steps.



 With regard to Mills's theory specifically (not those of Maly or Vavra),
 in some promotional literature for BLP that was promulgated over the list a
 year or two ago, I recall seeing some slideware to the effect that as the
 electron reaches the innermost level, it becomes a photon.  If this
 understanding is an accurate reflection of Mills's theory, it suggests that
 the electron will have given up all of its rest mass.  There would no doubt
 be some energy left over for the residual photon, I suppose; perhaps part
 of the rest mass of the electron, or its kinetic energy?



 Eric

Re: [Vo]:Re: Fractional Hydrogen without Mills

[Bob Higgins]

Jones, you are the first to discuss the variable mass of the proton.  The
Vavra and Maly solution (which agrees with Naudts) is for the
proton/electron system. There is nothing that says that all of that energy
must come from the electron.  Why couldn't it come from the energy of the
system as a whole, which includes the proton and its spin and fields?.

On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 What’s left to call an electron?



 Certainly there is no charge, since charge and mass are linear.



 Photons can’t be captured, so what is left over?



 I stand by the “almost certainly incorrect,...”


 *From:* Bob Cook



 Jones and Eric--



   Jones wrote: “The 510 keV of Maly  Vavra is almost certainly
 incorrect,...”



 I  would say Vavra makes a good case for .511 Mev in his paper on dark
 matter at  the following link:




 http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=2ved=0CCQQFjABurl=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1304.0833ei=VHeXVba1CMLGmAX4lLyQCQusg=AFQjCNGeR5fkfAu6tTJInn03b1pOsvgRiwbvm=bv.96952980,d.dGYcad=rja



 He calls it a small hydrogen that is responsible.

 The reaction that creates the small hydrogen is an energetic electron and
 a proton.



 I think Robin identified this paper a few days ago.



 It is worth reading.



 Bob Cook



 *From:* Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net

 *Sent:* Monday, July 06, 2015 7:12 AM

 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com

 *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:Fractional Hydrogen without Mills



 Eric,



 An electron giving up its rest mass and becoming a photon is NOT part of
 Mills theory.



 Half the rest mass - 255 keV is in play for Mills, spread out in steps.
 Robin has a theory with a similar value. The DDL is different, depending on
 a number of assumptions, and it need not proceed in steps – ala Mills.



 This thread started out with another theory where there was an attempt to
 tie this reduced mass value to the FQHE, but ½ is not an acceptable whole
 fraction for that (it must be an odd fraction). However, FQHE is a 2
 dimensional phenomenon – as is Mills Orbitsphere, so there is natural
 crossover (except Mills avoids QM).



 And any fractional charge relates to mass, since there is a linear ratio.
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-to-charge_ratio



 I suppose Mills 255 keV value makes a good case for the lowest level
 favoring the 2 electron configuration (hydrino hydride or f/H-) since it
 returns the atomic unit to an uncharged condition.





 *From:* Eric Walker



 Jones Beene wrote:

 The 510 keV of Maly  Vavra is almost certainly incorrect, but there are a
 number of values in the range of several hundred keV which represent the
 total energy which can be released in 136 steps.



 With regard to Mills's theory specifically (not those of Maly or Vavra),
 in some promotional literature for BLP that was promulgated over the list a
 year or two ago, I recall seeing some slideware to the effect that as the
 electron reaches the innermost level, it becomes a photon.  If this
 understanding is an accurate reflection of Mills's theory, it suggests that
 the electron will have given up all of its rest mass.  There would no doubt
 be some energy left over for the residual photon, I suppose; perhaps part
 of the rest mass of the electron, or its kinetic energy?



 Eric

Re: [Vo]:Re: Fractional Hydrogen without Mills

[Bob Higgins]

I am just going from memory, but I believe the difference is that
positronium is the state of an electron and positron orbiting each other
BEFORE the 1.2 MeV is emitted.  Once the 1.2 MeV is emitted, the orbiting
pair shrink (like a hydrino) and drop out of detectability.

On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 4:45 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 In reply to  Bob Higgins's message of Mon, 6 Jul 2015 16:31:49 -0600:
 Hi,
 [snip]
 According to Hotson, the positrons and electrons are never created nor
 destroyed.  Because they are both fermions, they can never occupy the same
 space at the same time and so can never annihilate each other.  Instead,
 upon combination, the electron and positron become an epo atom with each
 orbiting the other and become essentially invisible.  Hotson envisions that
 we exist in a sea of epos and that the epo sea is the ether.

 I thought an electron and positron orbiting one another was positronium
 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positronium), and was most definitely
 visible.

 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

 http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Re: Fractional Hydrogen without Mills

[Bob Higgins]

According to Hotson, the positrons and electrons are never created nor
destroyed.  Because they are both fermions, they can never occupy the same
space at the same time and so can never annihilate each other.  Instead,
upon combination, the electron and positron become an epo atom with each
orbiting the other and become essentially invisible.  Hotson envisions that
we exist in a sea of epos and that the epo sea is the ether.

The 1.2 MeV doesn't create an electron positron pair, it simply liberates
(splits) them from an orbiting epo pair.  So, an epo would have 32 MeV (I
think) of total energy including its spin.  When split, each of the
positron and the electron have 16 MeV of energy including the mass energy
and spin energy.

On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 4:25 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 In reply to  Bob Higgins's message of Mon, 6 Jul 2015 14:49:42 -0600:
 Hi,
 [snip]
 Third, I thought I remember that Hotson said that the true energy of the
 electron was more like 16 MeV when its spin energy was considered.  If
 true, loss of the 0.51 MeV would still be a small fraction of its total
 energy.

 You can't have conservation of mass-energy and create both a positron and
 an
 electron from a 1.2 MeV gamma ray if both particles also need 16 MeV of
 spin
 energy.

 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

 http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Matter to energy, and back

[Bob Higgins]

According to Hotson, pair production is not matter creation, it is only
ionizing an epo (electron - positron pair in a DDL-like orbit).  To me,
this is far more plausible than matter creation.

On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 Steven,

 It’s called “pair production” and is well-known but requires high energy

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

 …photons converted to matter and vice-versa.

 …kinda like, you know … dilithium crystals… J

 *From:* Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson



 Does there exist any kind of natural phenomenon we currently know of that
 might be capable of (under specific conditions) transforming from matter
 into energy and then back into matter in a cyclically controlled fashion -
 presumably with the aid of an advanced form of 21st Century technology?
 Please, no 23rd century Star Trek transporter speculation need apply
 here... too many extrapolations.



 For example, I give the following crude scenario: Convert a magnetically
 contained plasma toroid of spinning sub-atomic particles protons (fermions)
 into photons (bosons) – and then convert the photons back into protons. Do
 this cyclically and very quickly with the aid of some kind of super-duper
 21 century technology.



 I can’t immediately think of such a methodology using 21st century
 technology. But then... there might be few on this list who'd care to shine
 some light on the matter... no pun intended.



 Comments?



 Regards,

 Steven Vincent Johnson

 OrionWorks.com

 zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction

[Bob Higgins]

The problem I have with this analysis is that in the Lugano reaction, whose
fuel/ash analyses are the basis of the hypothesis, the Ni seemed to have
been largely converted to 62Ni and the Li converted almost completely to
6Li; yet in the experiment, the excess heat showed no signs of abatement.
The reaction gave no indication of running low on fuel.  It appeared that
the reaction heat continued even though the fuel had been converted to 6Li
and 62Ni.  How is this explained in your theory?

On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 5:05 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 17 Jul 2015 01:17:15 -0400:
 Hi,
 How does your wonder particle stop at neutron formation just at Ni62?
 [snip]

 I previously posted the following to Vortex on Oct. 9 2014, but can't get
 the
 archive to show me posts for 2014.

 _

 In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Wed, 8 Oct 2014 09:22:13 -0700:
 Hi,
 [snip]

 Li7 + Ni58 = Ni59 + Li6 + 1.75 MeV
 Li7 + Ni59 = Ni60 + Li6 + 4.14 MeV
 Li7 + Ni60 = Ni61 + Li6 + 0.57 MeV
 Li7 + Ni61 = Ni62 + Li6 + 3.34 MeV
 Li7 + Ni62 = Ni63 + Li6 - 0.41 MeV (Endothermic!)

 This series stops at Ni62, hence all isotopes of Ni less than 62 are
 depleted
 and Ni62 is strongly enriched.

 I have only briefly skimmed the report, but the basic reaction appears to
 be a
 neutron transfer reaction where a neutron tunnels from Li7 to a Nickel
 isotope.
 The excess energy of the reaction appears as kinetic energy of the two
 resultant
 nuclei (i.e. Li6  the new Ni isotope), rather than as gamma rays. Because
 there
 are two daughter nuclei, momentum can be conserved while dumping the
 energy as
 kinetic energy in a reaction that is much faster then gamma ray emission.
 Because both nuclei are heavy and slow moving, very little to no
 bremsstrahlung is produced. There is effectively no secondary gamma from
 Li6
 because the first excited state is too high. (I haven't checked Li7).
 There is
 unlikely to be anything significant from Ni because the high charge on the
 nucleus combined with the 3 from Lithium tend to keep them apart (minimum
 distance 31 fm).

 It would be nice to know if the total amounts of each of Li  Ni in the
 sample
 were conserved (I'll have to study the report more closely).
 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

 http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

[Vo]:Lugano iron oxide fuel particles

[Bob Higgins]

In thinking about the large iron oxide particles in the Lugano fuel and
what role they may have played, it struck me that they could possibly have
created a small thermite reaction (see Wikipedia).  The thermite reaction
is between the Fe2O3 particle and the liquid aluminum.  In this thermite
reaction, oxygen exchange between the Fe2O3 and Al form Al2O3 and reduced
Fe metal.  The reaction is highly exothermic and can reach temperatures of
2500°C.  An ignition of this reaction could easily fool someone into
believing that LENR had occurred and could cause melting of the ceramic
tubes, though the reaction could not produce the claimed amounts of total
excess heat by a large margin.

Could Rossi have used the large iron oxide fuel particles as a thermite
igniter to add heat to the hotCat on startup?  Could such a thermite
reaction be used to remove some of the aluminum from the system so as to
leave an enriched mix of liquid LiH?

Bob Higgins

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction - LiHy4-.pdf

[Bob Higgins]

If a lithium atom were to replace 1-3 electrons with hydrinohydrides as a
stable molecule, this surely would show up in the SIMS of the fuel in the
Lugano report.  SIMS measures mass and you would see a spectrum of
6Li+(1,2,3) and 7Li+(1,2,3), or m/z=8,9,10 should show up and they don't.
A possible counter argument would be that the fully populated Lithium
tri-hydrinohydride would not be ionizable and hence not detectable in
SIMS.  However, a Lithium + 1 or 2 hydrinohydrides should be ionizable and
should populate m/z = 8,9 and these are not seen.

Bob Higgins

On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 6:13 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 17 Jul 2015 19:21:04 -0400:
 Hi,
 [snip]
 But how did the lithium get inside and at the center of the nickel
 particle. A few post ago you invented a new type of neutral particle do do
 that.

 The neutral particle is a triangle of Hydrinohydride ions (each with a
 charge of
 -1), with a Lithium nucleus (+3) at the center of the triangle.

 The negative particle is a tetrahedron of Hydrinohydride ions with Li+++
 at the
 core, IOW = the neutral triangle with an extra Hydrinohydride added.

 Both particles are created through one by one addition of Hydrinohydride
 to a
 Lithium atom. Each time a Hydrinohydride ion is added it displaces an
 existing
 electron from the atom, until there are no electrons left. Because
 electrons are
 displaced, the particle is neutral overall until the fourth Hydrinohydride
 is
 added.
 The calculation of energy released as the particle is built up is in the
 attached pdf document.

 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

 http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:OT: Patent question

[Bob Higgins]

When I worked for a large corporation, I spent a lot of time with their
internal patent system.  A core criteria for deciding which invention
disclosures to pursue as a patent had to do with the detect-ability of an
infringement.  Basically, if you couldn't detect that a competitor was
using your patent, it was not worthwhile to patent it.

Enforce-ability comes down to civil lawsuit.  Courts award 1x damages for
unknowing/accidental infringement and 3x damages for knowing/intentional
infringement.  But, it is an expensive process to litigate and the rewards
of a positive outcome of the litigation must exceed the high cost of
litigation by 1/risk.  Most patent infringements don't get pursued for lack
of sufficient return on the high cost of litigation.  Those infringements
that do get pursued usually end in settling out of court in a licensing
arrangement.

In Rossi's case, he hasn't delivered a product that could be evaluated for
patent violation yet.  So, Piantelli would not be able to build a case
against Rossi until he releases a publicly available product that could be
tested for violation.  Normally, in important industries, you build patent
portfolios to protect yourself against other company's portfolios - trading
cross-licensing to keep yourself from being litigated.  Rossi needs his own
patent portfolio.

Bob Higgins

On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 8:45 AM, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. hoyt-stea...@cox.net
wrote:

 Question about trade secrets and patent enforcement:



 How does a patent holder enforce his patents when a device with trade
 secrets is by definition unavailable for examination,

 especially if the device is leased and reverse engineering is forbidden?



 As an example, Piantelli has a nickel-hydrogen patent.  How could he
 enforce that against Rossi if what's inside a Rossi device

 is a secret?



 Does a court have the power to force disclosure?



 Just curious.



 Hoyt Stearns

 Scottsdale Arizona US


 --
   [image: Avast logo] http://www.avast.com/

 This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
 www.avast.com

Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:NEW LIVE Steorn Webinars Announced - Product Demonstrations

[Bob Higgins]

That may be true, but they are only guaranteeing that it will work for 1
year.  And, it is not clear that they are guaranteeing that it will still
produce 10WH / day at the end of one year.  The internal lithium battery
will probably only last about 2 years.  That is a total of about 3.6kWH of
electricity, or about $3.60 worth for $1300 for the device.  It may be
worth the price as an experiment demonstrating the novel physics involved,
but for nothing else.  If it really does involve new physics, the cost
would have to decline by a factor of >100 before it would have an impact on
society.  Keep in mind that you could provide the same daily energy from a
couple of solar cells and a voltage boosting inverter for less than $10 in
parts if you are looking or an emergency phone charger.  And the solar
charger would weigh less and last longer.

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 7:02 AM, Craig Haynie 
wrote:

> "Energy is roughly 10Wh"
>
> They're saying it will self-recharge indefinitely.
>
> Craig
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 1:54 AM, Teslaalset 
> wrote:
>
>> Price is 1200 Euro
>> Power generation is 0.4W
>> Energy is roughly 10Wh
>> Weight is 300 grams, most of it is due to the aluminum casing.
>> Even in a Feraday cage the device works.
>> It’s not sensitive to geographic orientation.
>> They have a granted patent on this.
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 10:09 PM, Esa Ruoho  wrote:
>>
>>> Well, I'm watching the replay of the webinar, at
>>>  https://www.facebook.com/217496297671/videos/10153326632242672/
>>>
>>> when I tuned in to the actual broadcast, they said, 2.1amps, two full
>>> recharges of a smartphone, then 24 hours to recharge in case the battery
>>> ran out.
>>>
>>> Did I get it right, Craig? I stand corrected if I got it wrong.
>>>
>>> Oh, and the price? 1200€.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:NEW LIVE Steorn Webinars Announced - Product Demonstrations

[Bob Higgins]

It is absurd then for Steorn to have invested in the marketing and
engineering to bring it out as a marketized/productized "cube" format with
its own brand as they have done.  These are tactics to sell a consumer
product.  If they want licencees, then they must have a patent portfolio
locking up the technology, publish journal papers on the technology, and
then sell demonstration systems that allow the potential investors to SEE
how the technology works - not have to tear it open to SEE it in action.

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Teslaalset <robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Bob, this is not targeted at end-consumers, but potential licensees, to
> allow evaluation of their granted patent and potential trade secrets
> included in the license deal. These prototypes also will allow those who
> want to understand the physics, e.g. universities. What they currently show
> is far from matured applications and integration. The first home VCR also
> weighted 15Kg. I'd like my mobile phone having this technology embedded.
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> That may be true, but they are only guaranteeing that it will work for 1
>> year.  And, it is not clear that they are guaranteeing that it will still
>> produce 10WH / day at the end of one year.  The internal lithium battery
>> will probably only last about 2 years.  That is a total of about 3.6kWH of
>> electricity, or about $3.60 worth for $1300 for the device.  It may be
>> worth the price as an experiment demonstrating the novel physics involved,
>> but for nothing else.  If it really does involve new physics, the cost
>> would have to decline by a factor of >100 before it would have an impact on
>> society.  Keep in mind that you could provide the same daily energy from a
>> couple of solar cells and a voltage boosting inverter for less than $10 in
>> parts if you are looking or an emergency phone charger.  And the solar
>> charger would weigh less and last longer.
>>
>

[Vo]:[Vo] STAIF II Conference

[Bob Higgins]

Ron Kita has alerted me to a conference with a session on LENR in 2016.  It
is the STAIF 2, the "Space Technology & Applications International Forum"
in Albuquerque, NM USA on April 21-23, 2016.  Here is the link to their
site:

http://staif2.org/

They have a session G on LENR that will be chaired by George Miley.

Re: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid

[Bob Higgins]

You ask a very good and hard question.  As an EE, I find much of Hotson's
description much more satisfying that what I was taught in school.
However, I wish Hotson was still around (now deceased) so that I could
visit him to come to a greater understanding of his theory.  He describes
that the negative energy sea a is mass-less condensate of epos.  When the
epos form their DDL-like tiny orbits around each other, the Dirac solution
for the orbit represents a "spinor field" that I find hard to grasp.  In
the spinor field, the particles have to orbit 720 degrees to get back to
where they start.  As the electron orbits the positron, the two switch
roles part way around.  Married together with his concept of discretezed
time, the result is an orbit that looks more like two particles on the end
of a string that just blink back and forth between being electrons and
positrons.  As part of this all, he has a description of the origin of
inertial mass that I cannot entirely understand yet.

The net effect is that, yes, the inertial mass is used up in the dual
photons of 511keV in transition to become epos, but that is not the total
energy of the particles - they just gave up their inertial mass into energy.

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 7:01 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:

> Bob
>
> Why does the electron charge to mass ratio come out in support of it
> having 511 keV of energy if it really has much more?  That seems
> contradictory.  The way I understand it, all of the energy has a mass
> equivalent.
>
> Dave
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>
> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
> Sent: Sun, Oct 25, 2015 3:05 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid
>
> That is the energy given off to send the normal space positronium atom
> into a DDL-like minimum energy orbit.  When the electron-positron orbiting
> pair becomes in the DDL orbit (orbital radius about the diameter of a
> proton), it becomes undetectable and it is part of the negative energy
> sea.  It is still polarizable and it is the displacement of the epo sea
> that provides electromagnetic "displacement".  According to Hotson, the epo
> (in the DDL orbit) has no inertial mass - for explanation of the origin of
> mass you will have to read Hotson's papers.  The epo sea IS the inertial
> mass-less ether.
>
> Note that the 511keV is NOT the total energy of the electron.  When the
> spin energy of the electron is included, the total energy is over 16MeV.
> The 1022keV (two photons of 511keV each) is the energy given up to
> transition to the DDL state epo from the positronium atom.
>
> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 12:19 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Regarding electrons and positrons in particular, Hotson rightly points
>>> out that these two particles are fermions.  As fermions, they are forbidden
>>> to be in the same place at the same time, and so cannot annihilate. Instead
>>> of annihilation, they fall into orbit around each other.  When (if) they
>>> reach a DDL orbit, the become a part of Dirac's negative energy sea.
>>>
>>
>> If positrons and electrons do not annihilate, where do the two
>> oppositely-travelling 511 keV photons come from as a result of the activity
>> of beta plus emitters?  (Note that 511 keV is the mass of an electron or
>> positron.)
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Taking Holmlid towards a useful device

[Bob Higgins]

Having retired from 37 years in the portable electronics world, I hate
these scenarios where LENR are suggested for application to cellphones.
They all suffer from the same problem as the fuel cell powered cellphone -
waste heat.  When a Li battery discharges in powering a phone it produces
very little heat because the stored chemical to electrical conversion
efficiency is very high.  In a fuel cell, the theoretical conversion
efficiency is about 50% which means that you will have 50% waste heat.
Phones are limited in their design by their internally generated waste
heat.  In fact, charging rate is managed by the host processor, not on the
basis of how fast the battery can charge or how much power the charger can
supply, but by the heat being generated in the phone.  No one is going to
use a heat engine in the phone even at perfect Carnot efficiency for
conversion due to inability of the phone to rid itself of the waste heat.
People don't even like to talk too long today with the phone to their ear
because the phone heats up during talking (in particular if you are in a
fringe area where the phone is using max transmit power) - and this heat is
not from the battery conversion to electricity, it is only the heat from
the DC-modulated RF conversion.

There are also issues of battery failures causing dangerous fires and
explosions even with the energy in today's Li battery.  Nobody is going to
want a phone that can fail with the energy of a stick of dynamite.

This doesn't mean that there is no room for LENR in portable products.
Sometimes heat is needed.  I had this conversation with Mitchell Swartz at
ICCF-18 regarding the Nanor.  One of the problems that Li batteries have is
that they don't have much capacity below 0C.  This is because the
electrolyte basically is beginning to freeze.  You could use a LENR Nanor
device as an efficient means to heat the battery in cold temperatures.

Until LENR produces devices with >90% of their energy going straight to
electricity (less than 10% waste heat), the application is not for powering
portable electronics.  Think elsewhere.

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Here is a video which is pregnant with real world ideas about where to go
> with the Holmlid technique and SPR (surface plasmon resonance). I think
> the “future will be small” for dense hydrogen - in the sense of merging
> with microlithography for high value products.
>
> *https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3J9aUQSK_QE=1*
> 
>
> Since Holmlid has found that green laser light works to densify hydrogen
> on a catalyst, we can assume that SPR for iron oxide is in resonance with
> this light 532 nm. Sometimes 266 nm (UV) harmonics are seen from YAG
> lasers – so the precise stimulant for making dense deuterium could be in
> this range and supplied by a semiconductor diode. If the dense material is
> applied to a chip and diode array, and the shelf life is adequate, it
> could be arguably possible to make a battery or heat source which will
> last a very long time. Heck, one microgram of dense deuterium represents about
> 30 kWhrs of thermal energy. If converted to electricity via TEG at low 10%
> efficiency, that could power an iphone or laptop into the next decade J
>
> There is probably (hopefully) a safer but less efficient way to use dense
> hydrogen than nucleon disintegration.
>

Re: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid

[Bob Higgins]

Jones,

Once again you slapped your glove on Hotson's face.  Your comment, "No one
needs to be convinced that matter and antimatter can be made to annihilate"
is just such a slap.  Regarding electrons and positrons in particular,
Hotson rightly points out that these two particles are fermions.  As
fermions, they are forbidden to be in the same place at the same time, and
so cannot annihilate. Instead of annihilation, they fall into orbit around
each other.  When (if) they reach a DDL orbit, the become a part of Dirac's
negative energy sea.

If supposed quark and anti-quark pairs could annihilate, we should be
seeing the effects of that in the half life of the proton, reputed to
contain quark-anti-quark pairs.  Quarks are also believed to be fermions.
Of course, Hotson says that the sub-nucleon constituents are
electron-positron epos.

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> There are a number of LENR observers who are skeptical of the past finding
> s that with Pd-D electrolysis, helium has been detected which is
> commensurate with excess heat.
>
> Notably, this stance has been taken and staunchly defended by Steve Krivit
> - and has a certain amount of (wait-and-see) support from those who otherwise
> believe in excess heat. The rationale of this argument is that in subwatt
> electrolysis, the helium produced is necessarily well below background
> levels and must enriched before it can be detected in any device – and
> even after enrichment, it can be confused with molecular deuterium (less
> of a problem). It is the enrichment step which is the problem.
>
> This is not the place to continue that argument, which has been hashed
> and rehashed ad nauseum, but it is the place to suggest something more
> important - a way in which excess heat – as a general rule - can be
> observed without nuclear fusion of any kind.
>
> That way is Holmlid’s finding of nucleon disintegration following laser
> irradiation of dense deuterium clusters. Ironically, it provides far more
> net energy than does nuclear fusion.
>
> The most cogent argument for nucleon disintegration is that in the
> standard model, every nucleon contains matter and antimatter in close
> proximity. No one needs to be convinced that matter and antimatter can be
> made to annihilate.
>
> An external stimulus, especially an intense coherent stimulus of photons,
> forming plasmon polaritons (SPP), need only find a coupling window where any
> of the matter/antimatter component of the nucleus is annihilated. This
> disruption will trigger a further instability resulting in complete
> disintegration.  The evidence is somewhat compelling. Replication is
> demanded.
>
> _
> Deuteron disintegration which supplies about 1 GeV per nucleon is about
> 167 times more energy dense than nuclear fusion of deuterium to helium.
> Assumption: 1 GeV per nucleon vs 24 MeV per 4 nucleons (in the He-4
> nucleus).
>
> However, a sizeable percentage of that disintegration energy will
> disappear as neutrinos, and thus the usable energy is still a mystery. The
> bad news for LENR: If the muon pathway is favored, as seems to be the case
> from Holmlid’s studies, then most of the excess energy will indeed
> disappear as neutrinos.
>
> The good news for LENR is that even if 90% of the energy disappears, the
> fraction which remains is about 16.7 times more energetic than fusion of
> deuterium to helium. And if 99% disappears as neutrinos – the reaction is
> still more energetic than what is expected in palladium D+D fusion to
> helium, and yet could be easily confused with that reaction… EXCEPT there
> would be little helium detected (the occasional alpha particle).
>
>

Re: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid

[Bob Higgins]

To Jones' point regarding annihilation and disintegration ... These are not
the same.  Annihilation is the total conversion of entities having mass
into energy.  Disintegration is the breakup of a composite particle into
its constituents.

To Eric's question ... A proton is a composite particle. The sub-nucleonic
structure of a proton or neutron (or muon) is arguable.  Bohr believed we
would never understand the structure of a nucleus due to the uncertainty
principle.  We have had to infer a lot from indirect experimental results.
Understanding the sub-nucleonic world will be even harder.  Hotson believed
that electrons are positrons were one and the same; simply out of phase in
multi-dimensional space.  He believed that protons and neutrons were
constituted of epos that were orthogonal in 10 dimensional space.
Interestingly the size of an epo is the size of a proton or a neutron.
Another coincidence is that charge only comes in +/- the charge of the
electron.  Why would the all charged nuclear particles only have the charge
of an electron?  If the proton were composed of epos less one electron, it
would have a net positive charge of the electron.  The quark descriptions
having +2/3e or -1/3 e charge seems contrived.  Hotson argues using Occam's
razor that it makes more sense that there is only one particle (the
electron) and all other particles are made from the electron and its
dimensionally out of phase image, the positron.

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> *From:* Eric Walker
>
> Protons are fermions. At the LHC, they routinely collide protons. These
> protons are said to disintegrate.
>
>
> > Note as well that the Pauli exclusion principle applies to fermions of
> the same kind and quantum numbers.  If Hotson argues that an electron and a
> positron would normally obey the Pauli exclusion principle, he is not
> applying a principle of mainstream physics that had prior to that been
> overlooked.
>
> Yes. And beyond that - we can integrate Hotson to some degree within the
> standard model by assigning his theory to applicability in a more
> fundamental dimension, instead of 3-space. His BEC is next to impossible
> to fully reconcile as a physical reality in 3-space, but it fits into a
> context of a foundation-dimension (first dimension ?).
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[Bob Higgins]

not catch (San Jose State ?) has been trying
> to replicate LH but has not been successful. Holmlid recently told him that
> the dense hydrogen takes several weeks to accumulate, and has an extended
> shelf life thereafter. That seems to me to be the main takeaway lesson  ** 
> weeks
> to accumulate **.
>
> As I recall, a few years back, there was a message where Rossi mentioned
> that his supplier in Italy required months to make a batch of active
> reactant. Could it be that Rossi has been inadvertently getting dense
> hydrogen all along?
>
> The presentation of Alan Goldwater was very impressive. I am confident
> that if and when Alan announces thermal gain in a Rossi style reactor –
> we can believe it. That has not happened yet but he is very methodical and
> dedicated. Like many others including myself, he accepts Bob Higgins
> downgraded assessment of the Lugano report (slight gain – perhaps COP~1.2
> see Bob’s white paper).
>
> I encouraged Alan – in light of Olafsson’s presentation - to consider a 
> 2-stage
> or compound system where he would manufacture the dense deuterium
> separately from the reactor where it is to be converted to heat. At first
> he seemed dubious that two steps would be required – in order to merge
> Holmlid’s results with Rossi. But this strategy would allow a very low
> powered continuous laser to accumulate the dense material over time. The
> ideal situation, if one wishes to avoid radiation toxicitym seems to be:
> do NOT to use a fast pulse intense laser to convert dense deuterium into
> heat (this assumes there does exist the radiation-free route to convert
> it to heat).
>
> IMO - It will be very difficult to continuously resupply the dense
> Rydberg matter in situ (in the same reactor it is being burnt in) and not
> see harmful radiation. It can be done at the subwatt level, but those two 
> processes
> are fundamentally in conflict – especially when you get to high power.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid

[Bob Higgins]

That is the energy given off to send the normal space positronium atom into
a DDL-like minimum energy orbit.  When the electron-positron orbiting pair
becomes in the DDL orbit (orbital radius about the diameter of a proton),
it becomes undetectable and it is part of the negative energy sea.  It is
still polarizable and it is the displacement of the epo sea that provides
electromagnetic "displacement".  According to Hotson, the epo (in the DDL
orbit) has no inertial mass - for explanation of the origin of mass you
will have to read Hotson's papers.  The epo sea IS the inertial mass-less
ether.

Note that the 511keV is NOT the total energy of the electron.  When the
spin energy of the electron is included, the total energy is over 16MeV.
The 1022keV (two photons of 511keV each) is the energy given up to
transition to the DDL state epo from the positronium atom.

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 12:19 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Regarding electrons and positrons in particular, Hotson rightly points out
>> that these two particles are fermions.  As fermions, they are forbidden to
>> be in the same place at the same time, and so cannot annihilate. Instead of
>> annihilation, they fall into orbit around each other.  When (if) they reach
>> a DDL orbit, the become a part of Dirac's negative energy sea.
>>
>
> If positrons and electrons do not annihilate, where do the two
> oppositely-travelling 511 keV photons come from as a result of the activity
> of beta plus emitters?  (Note that 511 keV is the mass of an electron or
> positron.)
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

[Bob Higgins]

Ordinary Rydberg matter is NOT a "nanowire", the Rydberg atomic clusters
comprising X(1) are flat hexagonal pico-snoflakes.  In this X(1)
pico-snowflake, the matter is not dense - the atomic spacing is nearly
twice what it is in an ordinary molecule.  Winterberg proposes that the
snowflakes can stack into columns but I have not seen evidence of this
reported.  Holmlid proposes that the ultra-dense form of deuterium
D(-1)=D(0) is sort of a two atom tube, but there is no evidence of this
form either.  As far as I can tell, the pico-snowflake form of X(1) RM is
well reproduced, modeled and confirmed.  The ultra-dense form is just
speculation, and even the existence of the ultra-dense RM itself is on
extremely shaky, un-reproduced ground.

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Rydberg matter is a nanowire. This is a nanoparticle. The shape of Rydberg
> matter is important. It acts as an antenna that transmits magnetic power
> with each flack of the nanowire sending magnetic power to the tip of the
> particle. If there are 10,000 levels, then these 10,000 flacks produce
> magnetic power sent to the nanowire tip. This mechanism is an EMF
> amplification mechanism. This mechanism has been experimentally verified
> and I have shown fluorescent micrograph pictures of this process here
> multiple times.
>
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Jones, your description below about metallic hydrogen stimulates me to
>> wonder about atoms, molecules, particles, and condensed matter.  Obviously
>> a single atom of H is not metallic hydrogen.  A single molecule of hydrogen
>> is more "dense" than the H/D(1) species of Rydberg matter.  I don't think
>> anyone would categorize an ordinary H2 molecule as metallic or condensed
>> matter. The X(1) species of Rydberg matter is shown to exist in particular
>> for H/D and the alkali metals having commonly 7 or more atoms.  Are these
>> Rydberg clusters better described as large molecules?  A small particle of
>> metal? Generalized condensed matter?  How do you ascribe mass density to
>> something only one atomic layer thick?  It is interesting to consider.
>>
>> The Rydberg matter "snowflakes" called X(1), where X is usually an alkali
>> metal, are called Rydberg because the electron orbitals are highly excited
>> Rydberg states in high order flattened (nearly planar) orbitals.  The
>> nuclear separation of H(1) is bigger than that for the H2 molecule.
>> Existence for X(1) Rydberg matter particles (clusters, molecules) is well
>> reproduced, modeled, measured, and is utilized by many based on the well
>> described characteristics of the snowflakes obtained, in a large part, from
>> rotational spectroscopy.
>>
>> The existence of Holmlid's ultra-dense form is not reproduced, and what
>> form it might take is completely speculative.  The evidence for it appears
>> to be solely from the accelerated species found in supposed Coulomb
>> Explosion (CE).  Why is this species not be examined by conventional
>> rotational spectroscopy, as has been used to verify the existence of the
>> X(1) Rydberg matter?  I would think that the comprising atoms could NOT be
>> in a DDL state, because if they were, they would not be susceptible to
>> photonic ionization (DDL states are supposed to have too little angular
>> momentum to form a photon), which Holmlid claims causes CE and is his basis
>> for the existence of the D(-1) / D(0) state of matter in the first place.
>> Since the D(-1)=D(0) matter is supposedly susceptible to photo-ionization
>> and CE, it seems like it should also be detectable in a rotational spectrum.
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 7:25 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Fran - The only way Holmlid’s claims make sense is that the dense
>>> hydrogen he describes is a more stable phase of hydrogen than metallic
>>> hydrogen. This means it is a phase or isomer which does not require extreme
>>> containment.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For instance, we know that alloys with alkali metals will lower the
>>> pressure requirements for metallic hydrogen by 400%. In the case of the
>>> Holmlid phase, which I still call DDL until it is shown to be different,
>>> the species could be stable without any pressure or with slight containment.
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:The vacuum is the glue that keeps the universe together.

[Bob Higgins]

Axil, if you want to be informed about electrons and
radiation/non-radiation, you should read G. H. Goedecke's paper,
"Classically Radiationless Motions and Possible Implications for Quantum
Theory", Physical Review, Volume 135, Number 1B, July 13, 1964.  It tells
of the criteria for electron motion to exist without radiation.

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> The vacuum is the glue that keeps the universe together.
>
> It has also been shown that the atomic building blocks of matter are
> dependent upon the Zero Point Energy (ZPE) for their very existence. This
> was clearly demonstrated by Dr. Hal Puthoff of the Institute for Advanced
> Studies in Austin, Texas. In Physical Review D, vol. 35:10, and later in
> New Scientist (28 July 1990), Puthoff started by pointing out an anomaly.
> According to classical concepts, an electron in orbit around a proton
> should be radiating energy. As a consequence, as it loses energy, it should
> spiral into the atomic nucleus, causing the whole structure to disappear in
> a flash of light. But that does not happen. When you ask a physicist why it
> does not happen, you will be told it is because of Bohr's quantum
> condition. This quantum condition states that electrons in specific orbits
> around the nucleus do not radiate energy. But if you ask why not, or
> alternatively, if you ask why the classical laws of electromagnetics are
> violated in this way, the reply may give the impression of being less than
> satisfactory.
>
> See:Harold E. Puthoff, "Everything for nothing", New Scientist, pp.36-39,
> 28 July 1990.
>
> http://www.ldolphin.org/everything.html
>
> Instead of ignoring the known laws of physics, Puthoff approached this
> problem with the assumption that the classical laws of electro-magnetics
> were valid, and that the electron is therefore losing energy as it speeds
> in its orbit around the nucleus. He also accepted the experimental evidence
> for the existence of the ZPE in the form of randomly fluctuating
> electromagnetic fields or waves. He calculated the power the electron lost
> as it moved in its orbit, and then calculated the power that the electron
> gained from the ZPF. The two turned out to be identical; the loss was
> exactly made up for by the gain. It was like a child on a swing: just as
> the swing started to slow, it was given another push to keep it going.
> Puthoff then concluded that without the ZPF inherent within the vacuum,
> every atom in the universe would undergo instantaneous collapse. In other
> words, the ZPE is maintaining all atomic structures throughout the entire
> cosmos.
>
> When a magnetic beam of sufficient strength falls on the vacuum that
> contain atoms, that vacuum is distorted when electromagnetic properties of
> the vacuum are changed. This disrupts those atoms in many ways including
> how pions are formed from the vacuum between protons and neutron; how the
> strong force behaves inside the proton and neutron and how electrons obit
> the nucleus.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The vacuum is the glue that keeps the universe together.

[Bob Higgins]

It actually took me a while to get a readable copy of this paper and I have
cleaned up the better copy.  Here is where I keep it on my Google drive:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2TllPckVraXNmLTg/view?usp=sharing


On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Do you have a link address?
>
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Axil, if you want to be informed about electrons and
>> radiation/non-radiation, you should read G. H. Goedecke's paper,
>> "Classically Radiationless Motions and Possible Implications for Quantum
>> Theory", Physical Review, Volume 135, Number 1B, July 13, 1964.  It tells
>> of the criteria for electron motion to exist without radiation.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The vacuum is the glue that keeps the universe together.
>>>
>>> It has also been shown that the atomic building blocks of matter are
>>> dependent upon the Zero Point Energy (ZPE) for their very existence. This
>>> was clearly demonstrated by Dr. Hal Puthoff of the Institute for Advanced
>>> Studies in Austin, Texas. In Physical Review D, vol. 35:10, and later in
>>> New Scientist (28 July 1990), Puthoff started by pointing out an anomaly.
>>> According to classical concepts, an electron in orbit around a proton
>>> should be radiating energy. As a consequence, as it loses energy, it should
>>> spiral into the atomic nucleus, causing the whole structure to disappear in
>>> a flash of light. But that does not happen. When you ask a physicist why it
>>> does not happen, you will be told it is because of Bohr's quantum
>>> condition. This quantum condition states that electrons in specific orbits
>>> around the nucleus do not radiate energy. But if you ask why not, or
>>> alternatively, if you ask why the classical laws of electromagnetics are
>>> violated in this way, the reply may give the impression of being less than
>>> satisfactory.
>>>
>>> See:Harold E. Puthoff, "Everything for nothing", New Scientist,
>>> pp.36-39, 28 July 1990.
>>>
>>> http://www.ldolphin.org/everything.html
>>>
>>> Instead of ignoring the known laws of physics, Puthoff approached this
>>> problem with the assumption that the classical laws of electro-magnetics
>>> were valid, and that the electron is therefore losing energy as it speeds
>>> in its orbit around the nucleus. He also accepted the experimental evidence
>>> for the existence of the ZPE in the form of randomly fluctuating
>>> electromagnetic fields or waves. He calculated the power the electron lost
>>> as it moved in its orbit, and then calculated the power that the electron
>>> gained from the ZPF. The two turned out to be identical; the loss was
>>> exactly made up for by the gain. It was like a child on a swing: just as
>>> the swing started to slow, it was given another push to keep it going.
>>> Puthoff then concluded that without the ZPF inherent within the vacuum,
>>> every atom in the universe would undergo instantaneous collapse. In other
>>> words, the ZPE is maintaining all atomic structures throughout the entire
>>> cosmos.
>>>
>>> When a magnetic beam of sufficient strength falls on the vacuum that
>>> contain atoms, that vacuum is distorted when electromagnetic properties of
>>> the vacuum are changed. This disrupts those atoms in many ways including
>>> how pions are formed from the vacuum between protons and neutron; how the
>>> strong force behaves inside the proton and neutron and how electrons obit
>>> the nucleus.
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

[Bob Higgins]

I think you are asking the correct questions.  As I have come to read more
about the RM and think about their behavior, I have come to respect
Winterberg's concept to a greater degree.

The RM snowflakes have a high magnetic moment due to their large flat
orbitals, and apparently the atoms in the RM snowflake align with all of
their spins parallel to create a giant magnetic moment for the flake.  It
made me think of the neodymium iron disk magnets I have.  These magnets
really want to stack in a column.  And, in a column, the magnetic moments
add such that the column has a greater magnetic field running along its
axis.

In a previous comment I posited the possibility that if you had such a
stack of atoms, could the ultra-dense state switch between D(1) and the
D(-1)=D(0) state once the columns of flakes had formed?  This is still a
pretty big leap of faith because the atomic spacing of the D(1) flake is
150pm and the proposed D(-1)=D(0) state is 2.3pm (soley based upon Coulomb
Explosion particle velocity measurements).

Yes, it seems that Winterberg's columns of flakes could be detectable in
rotational spectra - but at a much lower frequency than the already low
frequency (50 MHz) for the individual RM flakes.  This may show as a 1-30
MHz resonance in a shielded cavity containing such stacked flakes, with a
resonance frequency dependent on the number of stacked flakes.  However,
while the individual RM flakes may remain scattered like a gas in a
container (they are very low density), the same may not be true for the
stacks of flakes.  With their high magnetic moment and much higher mass /
surface area, these stacks may want to collect on the walls - particularly
if the walls are a magnetic material (like Ni or iron).  Note that my stack
of disk magnets really wants to stay stuck together and attached to my tool
box.

It is interesting to consider that inside a container with Ni particles
that these stacks of RM flakes may want to attach themselves to the Ni
surface.  I think there is less chance of this being a factor in a Rossi
hotCat/Parkhomov style reactor because the Ni particles are completely
coated with LiH.  However, in Rossi's original eCat, H2 gas was admitted to
Ni particles mixed with some type of Fe catalyst.  Could that catalyst have
been an Fischer-Tropsch Fe2O3 based catalyst that caused formation of RM
flakes that stacked and attached to the surface of his Ni powder particles
like my disk magnet stack on my toolbox?

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 5:30 AM, Stephen Cooke 
wrote:

> Its very hard to see how a single flake can transform between a planar
> atomic crystal state and ultra dense linear paired vortex. But perhaps
> there is a mechanism based on energetic and state conservation effects.
>
> Assuming the effect is more classical and simple however could the switch
> between planar and UDD form be explained by first having a stack of flakes
> in the form of a nano wire?:
>
> Do we know how the Winterberg stack of Rydberg matter flakes forms. Does
> he have a theory for this? Is it just a consequence of the planar nature of
> the Rydberg matter it self or is there a kind of dipole magnetic effect
> between the flakes that can cause the flakes to align and stack in this way
> to form a Rydberg nanowire?
>
> I know I'm being very speculative here, but I wonder if a stack of Rydberg
> matter flakes (h(1) or (d1)) each made up with of magnetically aligned
> atoms, between the flakes, could under the right stimulation (such as a
> strong magnetic field or SPP) switch to a bunch of columns of Ultra dense
> matter (h(0) or (d0)) with each pair of atoms in the column coming from
> adjacent flakes. For example if each flake had 50 or so atoms could a stack
> of them switch to form 50 or maybe 25 Ultra dense vortexes.
>
> Perhaps this is too speculative I'm sure its possible to come up with any
> number of ideas. I suppose we would first need evidence of the Winterberg
> stack occurring before speculating on these lines.
>
> Would a Winterberg type stack have any observable signature such as
> emission spectra etc?
>
>

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

[Bob Higgins]

It is an interesting speculation.  Nature is a truly immense experiment,
particularly when considering the number of atoms present.  Immense nuclear
trials are constantly happening all around us.  If this type of sub-nuclear
shuffle were happening with the "less difficulty" that you describe, it
seems that the effects of that would be far more evident in what we see
around us.  Can you say what evidence the natural state should exhibit if
such a sub-nuclear shuffle were as "less difficult" as you describe?  Are
there natural occurrences that can be looked for that could validate such a
proposition?

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 8:07 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Side note for the aestheticists amongst us: Isn’t it likely that a
> hexagonal geometry of pico-snowflakes is a generic form which is reflected
> in structures all the way down to dense hydrogen?  It’s no coincidence
> that iron oxide as catalyst, takes on the classic hexagonal
> nanostructure, and this geometry becomes reflected in a most stable form
> of dense hydrogen (LiH6 and others)... and then reflected the other way,
> in snowflakes or gems and rocks.
>
> *http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269304006860*
> 
>
> Of further interest is a hint at how LENR could be explained… if, that is
> … it is found (via Holmlid) that nucleons are actually less difficult to
> disintegrate than they are to fuse (via UDD symmetry-breaking where the
> baryon octet resists becoming a nucleon sextet):
>
>
> *http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/nobel-prize-in-physics-for-beautiful-symmetry-breaking-discoveries.html*
> 
>
> We’ve talked about D'Arcy Thompson here before. He was the Scottish
> biologist and mathematician remembered for “On Growth and Form” (1917)
> possibly the most timeless book of science since “Principia”. Peter
> Medawar, Nobel Laureate, calls it “the finest work of literature in all
> the annals of science that have been recorded in the English tongue.”
>
> Even without the full picture (or the necessary proof) there can be a
> hidden realization which almost jumps out at you, when enough pieces of
> the jigsaw puzzle are fitted together …
>
>

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

[Bob Higgins]

I think the answer to your question about gradual decoherence of the
magnetic domains might actually be the opposite.  Remember your old
horseshoe magnets?  They were always stored with a "keeper" so as to keep
the magnetic field strong.  I think what would happen over time is that the
magnet will align itself for minimum energy (due to thermal dither), and
minimum energy when there is a magnetic material (reluctor) on the magnet
means gradual alignment of the domains to include the reluctor as part of
the minimum energy solution.

In the case of a superconductor, don't forget that a superconductor is only
zero resistance for DC (F=0).  True DC has been held constant from -inf to
+inf for all time.  At some point in a superconducting magnet, current must
be added once the superconducting state is achieved.  This may typically be
a ramp in current, but it boggles me somewhat to understand how a true 0
frequency component is introduced into the superconductor.  While the
storage of that current does not require work, it requires a great deal of
work to load that current into the superconductor.

I think something similar can be said about the magnet and the ring in the
photo.  Just like the weight on the table is not doing work even though it
has potential energy, something put that potential energy into the system
by doing work in the first place.

On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 12:25 AM, David Roberson 
> wrote:
>
> I consider electrons in orbits as being equivalent to a superconductor
>> current since the orbits do not collapse with time.  No power is radiated
>> by an electron orbital and hence no work is required to keep it in the
>> proper location.
>>
>
> Another way to come at the question I just raised is this -- even though
> the electrons may be superconducting in their orbits, is there something
> the force of a weight that is held up might do to gradually decohere the
> magnetic domains?
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: The vacuum is the glue that keeps the universe together.

[Bob Higgins]

The concept of the fractional charge quarks as constituents of matter is a
completely made-up story/hypothesis.  Has anyone ever measured an
elementary particle with a charge other than an integer multiple of e?
Hotson proposes that because of this the electron IS the one and only
fundamental particle.  All other particles are comprised of electrons and
the electron's out-of-phase alias, the positron (still an electron).  This
is very similar to Hatt's theory (still being read).

Personally, I think they got charge numbering correct.  There are no 1/3
and 2/3 charge quarks - their existence is a mathematical artifice to try
to explain behavior.  Just like the vector magnetic potential - it is an
artificial mathematical derivation that is useful for equation solving.

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 4:28 AM, Stephen Cooke 
wrote:

> Interesting ideas and points about the numbering system. I wonder what
> would be the best most meaningful fundamental numbering system to use.
>
> With spin at least I suppose the current numbering system has the
> advantage of easily distinguishing fermions and Bosons. And gives insights
> for fermion behavior such as couper pairs and atomic nucleus structure and
> stability.
>
> I suppose maybe the current numbering system is quite appropriate at
> simple for normal sub atomic and simple nuclear structure considerations,
> but when going deeper into sub nucleon behavior and perhaps more subtle sub
> nucleon and inter nucleon effects then maybe applying this way of thinking
> is limiting our understanding of the more dynamic and transient behaviors
> occurring and another numbering system is more appropriate?
>
> Getting back to the current Numbering view point. Regarding the charge
> fractions I can't help wondering (as I suppose many have before) if the
> value of 3 in the fractional charge and also the quark pairs and lepton
> flavors comes from or is related to orientation in the local space
> dimension in their frame of reference in someway. It seems a strange
> coincidence that we have 3 aspects in these fermion characteristics and
> also 3 dimensions. But I suppose with spin considerations and flavor
> oscillations etc it is not so simple. Are there any theoretical approaches
> that look at fundamental particles in local space dimensions in this way?
>
> On 15 Nov 2015, at 23:56, Eric Walker  wrote:
>
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:
>
> The question is whether the fractional charge that is associated with some
>> quarks actually exists as a separate entity in nature?
>>
>
> Instead of fractional charge, it's possible the "1/3," "2/3," etc., are an
> artifact of our numbering system.  That is to say, it might make more sense
> to think of the charges of quarks as being "1" or "2," and the charges of
> electrons and protons as being "3".
>
> There is a similar question about the amount of spin: we say that an
> electron has a spin of 1/2 and a photon of spin 1, but is that just a
> result of the starting point for a numbering system, which would make it
> too hard at this point to reindex the spins so that an electron is said
> instead to have a spin of 1 and a photon a spin of 2?
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: The vacuum is the glue that keeps the universe together.

[Bob Higgins]

Hotson's theory does go on to hypothesize on the sub-nucleonic structure of
the proton and neutron based upon arrangements of epos (shrunken
positronium), explains the nature of the strong force, is extended to
explain gravity and electromagnetic propagation.  It explains the
experiment that is the basis of quantum mechanics in a more plausible way.
But, I don't remember about the neutrino - will have to go back and read
again.  Unfortuately, Don Hotson passed away last year.  His writings will
live on.

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Stephen Cooke <stephen_coo...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> I have to say I like the idea. I have seen Hotson and Hatt mentioned here
> a few times but must admit I don't know much about their theories. If they
> say all fundemental particles are some form of electron in some kind of
> phase or state do they also have an explanation for neutrinos? Sounds
> like I need to do some reading.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 16 nov. 2015, at 17:18, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The concept of the fractional charge quarks as constituents of matter is a
> completely made-up story/hypothesis.  Has anyone ever measured an
> elementary particle with a charge other than an integer multiple of e?
> Hotson proposes that because of this the electron IS the one and only
> fundamental particle.  All other particles are comprised of electrons and
> the electron's out-of-phase alias, the positron (still an electron).  This
> is very similar to Hatt's theory (still being read).
>
> Personally, I think they got charge numbering correct.  There are no 1/3
> and 2/3 charge quarks - their existence is a mathematical artifice to try
> to explain behavior.  Just like the vector magnetic potential - it is an
> artificial mathematical derivation that is useful for equation solving.
>
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 4:28 AM, Stephen Cooke <stephen_coo...@hotmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> Interesting ideas and points about the numbering system. I wonder what
>> would be the best most meaningful fundamental numbering system to use.
>>
>> With spin at least I suppose the current numbering system has the
>> advantage of easily distinguishing fermions and Bosons. And gives insights
>> for fermion behavior such as couper pairs and atomic nucleus structure and
>> stability.
>>
>> I suppose maybe the current numbering system is quite appropriate at
>> simple for normal sub atomic and simple nuclear structure considerations,
>> but when going deeper into sub nucleon behavior and perhaps more subtle sub
>> nucleon and inter nucleon effects then maybe applying this way of thinking
>> is limiting our understanding of the more dynamic and transient behaviors
>> occurring and another numbering system is more appropriate?
>>
>> Getting back to the current Numbering view point. Regarding the charge
>> fractions I can't help wondering (as I suppose many have before) if the
>> value of 3 in the fractional charge and also the quark pairs and lepton
>> flavors comes from or is related to orientation in the local space
>> dimension in their frame of reference in someway. It seems a strange
>> coincidence that we have 3 aspects in these fermion characteristics and
>> also 3 dimensions. But I suppose with spin considerations and flavor
>> oscillations etc it is not so simple. Are there any theoretical approaches
>> that look at fundamental particles in local space dimensions in this way?
>>
>> On 15 Nov 2015, at 23:56, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> The question is whether the fractional charge that is associated with
>>> some quarks actually exists as a separate entity in nature?
>>>
>>
>> Instead of fractional charge, it's possible the "1/3," "2/3," etc., are
>> an artifact of our numbering system.  That is to say, it might make more
>> sense to think of the charges of quarks as being "1" or "2," and the
>> charges of electrons and protons as being "3".
>>
>> There is a similar question about the amount of spin: we say that an
>> electron has a spin of 1/2 and a photon of spin 1, but is that just a
>> result of the starting point for a numbering system, which would make it
>> too hard at this point to reindex the spins so that an electron is said
>> instead to have a spin of 1 and a photon a spin of 2?
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: The vacuum is the glue that keeps the universe together.

[Bob Higgins]

The Fractional Quantum Hall Effect is presently a measurement in need of an
explanation.  To my knowledge, no one is attributing fractional charge to
an individual elementary particle in attempted explanation of the data.
The theories seem to revolve around collective phenomena.

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Has anyone ever measured an elementary particle with a charge other than
> an integer multiple of e?
>
> The Fractional Quantum Hall Effect
>

[Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

[Bob Higgins]

Jones, your description below about metallic hydrogen stimulates me to
wonder about atoms, molecules, particles, and condensed matter.  Obviously
a single atom of H is not metallic hydrogen.  A single molecule of hydrogen
is more "dense" than the H/D(1) species of Rydberg matter.  I don't think
anyone would categorize an ordinary H2 molecule as metallic or condensed
matter. The X(1) species of Rydberg matter is shown to exist in particular
for H/D and the alkali metals having commonly 7 or more atoms.  Are these
Rydberg clusters better described as large molecules?  A small particle of
metal? Generalized condensed matter?  How do you ascribe mass density to
something only one atomic layer thick?  It is interesting to consider.

The Rydberg matter "snowflakes" called X(1), where X is usually an alkali
metal, are called Rydberg because the electron orbitals are highly excited
Rydberg states in high order flattened (nearly planar) orbitals.  The
nuclear separation of H(1) is bigger than that for the H2 molecule.
Existence for X(1) Rydberg matter particles (clusters, molecules) is well
reproduced, modeled, measured, and is utilized by many based on the well
described characteristics of the snowflakes obtained, in a large part, from
rotational spectroscopy.

The existence of Holmlid's ultra-dense form is not reproduced, and what
form it might take is completely speculative.  The evidence for it appears
to be solely from the accelerated species found in supposed Coulomb
Explosion (CE).  Why is this species not be examined by conventional
rotational spectroscopy, as has been used to verify the existence of the
X(1) Rydberg matter?  I would think that the comprising atoms could NOT be
in a DDL state, because if they were, they would not be susceptible to
photonic ionization (DDL states are supposed to have too little angular
momentum to form a photon), which Holmlid claims causes CE and is his basis
for the existence of the D(-1) / D(0) state of matter in the first place.
Since the D(-1)=D(0) matter is supposedly susceptible to photo-ionization
and CE, it seems like it should also be detectable in a rotational spectrum.

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 7:25 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Fran - The only way Holmlid’s claims make sense is that the dense hydrogen
> he describes is a more stable phase of hydrogen than metallic hydrogen.
> This means it is a phase or isomer which does not require extreme
> containment.
>
>
>
> For instance, we know that alloys with alkali metals will lower the
> pressure requirements for metallic hydrogen by 400%. In the case of the
> Holmlid phase, which I still call DDL until it is shown to be different,
> the species could be stable without any pressure or with slight containment.
>

Re: [Vo]:Casimir, ZPE and Holmlid

[Bob Higgins]

Jones, I hate to stick my neck out here, but, I will say that the Holmlid
Rydberg matter is the opposite of DDL.  DDL has the electron in an
ultra-tight orbit around the nucleus, making it appear like a tiny
composite neutral particle.  In Rydberg matter the electron is in a very
large circular orbit (and by circular, I mean that the orbital is planar).
Here is a little of my understanding of Holmlid's Rydberg matter that I
recently posted to an MFMP discussion site:

I am still reading about Rydberg clusters and Holmlid technology.  What
wasn't clear to me earlier was that the Rydberg matter that is created in
the catalyst is a 6-fold symmetric *planar* cluster - sort of like a
snowflake of atoms.  It is somewhere between a solid and a gas.  How many
atoms does it take to leave the domain of molecule and become a solid
powder particle dispersed to move like a gas?  It is said that once formed,
these snowflake Rydberg clusters of atoms are quite robust and long-lived.
So, Holmlid's accumulation of D(0) on a surface probably comes from a
self-assembling monolayer of the snowflakes over time.  I don't think the
bonding for snowflake-on-top-of-snowflake is nearly as strong as a
monolayer surface assemblage of snowflakes at the edges - they just become
bigger snowflakes (all still hypothetical) like a puzzle with all hexagonal
pieces.  I thought Winterberg's paper was wrong - he proposed it would only
assemble in columns of snowflakes.
It appears that the evidence for the Rydberg clusters is detection of
rotational spectra matching predictions from the modeled structure of the
Rydberg cluster.  This is sort of funny (just to me) because I was doing
microwave spectroscopy in my university physics lab at age 18 in 1973.  I
was a lab assistant for my physics professor who was doing just what
Holmlid describes - modeling molecular geometry, computing their rotational
spectra, and then optimizing the model to match the real measured spectra.
Only, he was doing it for much smaller molecules and the spectrum is in the
microwave bands, not around 100 MHz as Holmlid describes for the H(1) and
D(1).  The frequency is lower because the rotational moments are huge
compared to a small molecule.
So, as I am beginning to understand it, the hexagonal Rydberg clusters form
on the catalyst, and they like to form on an oxide surface with magnetic
properties (on an Fe2O3 surface for example).  Then they are sort of blown
off into the rarefied gas/vacuum, and randomly self-assemble on the surface
of a metal oxide to form a monolayer film whose lateral dimensions grow
with time.  Note that creation of the Rydberg clusters should be exothermic
because the reason the monatomic H/D form into a cluster is that it is a
lower energy state for the group of atoms as a whole to form the cluster -
as compared to remaining monatomic.  The catalyst provides H2 splitting and
an environment where the planar cluster favorably forms around it.  The
catalyst must also be able to remove the heat of formation of the cluster.

It is strange to talk about "density" of atoms with something that I
believe will only form a monolayer.  What I am describing is the H(1) and
D(1) state.  In this state, the atoms are drawn together by the strong
magnetic moments of the Rydberg electrons.  The switch to the ultra-dense
form is not clear to me.  I have a hypothesis that the H(1) cannot form the
ultra-dense H(-1) [or H(0) depending on who is naming it] - only the D(1)
can form the ultra-dense state.  The reason is that because the D nucleus
has a neutron, its nucleus has a strong magnetic moment (think of it like a
bar magnet).  How do two bar magnets attract each other?  They do so by
aligning in anti-parallel.  At close distances the pull from the
anti-parallel magnetic moments is very strong.  The Coulomb repulsion falls
off much more slowly with distance.  So, there could be a short distance
where the anti-parallel magnetic nuclear moments of the D atoms become so
strong that it draws the atoms closer together than normal.  This is just a
hypothesis.  It could be that this could only occur on a surface and not in
free space, because it might so distort the planar cluster that it would
destroy itself.

Like a molecule, the Rydberg matter behaves with one quantum state.  So, is
it a very large molecule or a room temperature BEC?  I am not sure of the
distinction.

Bob Higgins

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 7:34 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> -Original Message-
> From: mix...@bigpond.com
>
> The binding energy of the H2 molecule is 4.519 eV. Divide this by the fine
> structure constant and you get 619.236 eV. Add some due to the increased
> binding energy of magnetic attraction between the nuclei at close quarters.
>
> Hi Robin,
>
> It's not clear whether the hydrogen molecule would shrink as a unit, which
> seems to be your premise - with both electrons acting together ... or
> alternativ

[Vo]: Evidence for ultra-dense deuterium

[Bob Higgins]

I would like to see more discussion of Holmlid's evidence for existence of
the ultra-dense deuterium D(0).

>From my reading, I understand the evidence for Rydberg Matter (RM)
particles, and it is strong.  This evidence is based on rotational
spectroscopy of clouds of RM particles - the "snowflakes" I previously
mentioned.  Because these RM particles have such large electron orbitals
(the Rydberg states), the RM particle spectra is highly susceptible to
electric fields (well known Stark effect) and magnetic fields (Zeeman
effect).  In fact, the Stark effect is so large, it can be used with RM to
make tunable RM lasers.  RM forms from many atomic species, not just
hydrogen isotopes.  This RM is NOT dense, and even sodium RM particles are
detected in the Earth's upper atmosphere, some 80 km high.  Obviously, to
float in such a thin atmosphere, the mass density of the particles must be
relatively low.

Now we come to Holmlid's propositions.  The first proposition is that RM
can form in monolayers on a metal oxide surface.  This is not too far
fetched.  One could easily visualize a self-assembling effect of the
hexagons under the right conditions.  Has Holmlid proved a continuous
film?  I haven't seen that evidence.  In other words, the Holmlid surface
condensed H(1) / D(1) as a continuous film could simply be isolated RM
particles that have attached to the metal oxide surface.

Holmlid's next proposition is the spontaneous switching on the surface of
the purported D(1) film with 150 pm atomic spacing to the ultra-dense form,
D(0) having 2.3 pm spacing.  First, is Holmlid expecting us to believe that
the entire surface film shrinks in lateral dimensions by a factor of 65?
Even if such a state switch could occur, it would be unlikely to occur in
the entire film simultaneously - I think it would rip itself into small
islands.

What is Holmlid's evidence for the 2.3 pm ultra-dense D(0) state?  As near
as I can tell, the evidence comes from the energy calculated from a
supposed Coulomb explosion - I.E. sudden failure of the mechanism holding
the atoms at such a small inter-atomic spacing caused by an incident
laser.  If such potential energy existed for Coulomb explosion, then there
would be no natural means for even individual RM particles to switch to
this state - I.E. how can D(1) RM particles spontaneously jump to a
configuration having so much higher potential energy as D(0) is purported
to have?

So, how can Holmlid say that the cause of the measured ejecta atoms is
Coulomb explosion?  Could it not be that some form of energetic reaction
occurred between the substrate, the D(1) particles on the surface, and the
laser?  Perhaps a LENR reaction?

Somewhere, Miley and Holmlid parted theoretical company.  I think that
Miley may believe that the RM particles could be complicit in LENR, but
perhaps he didn't buy into the ultra-dense hypothesis.

Bob Higgins

Re: [Vo]: Evidence for ultra-dense deuterium

[Bob Higgins]

>From my side of a recent private discussion of Holmlid ... I thought some
of it would add to this topic:

>From what I have seen of Miley's work, Miley does not believe the
ultra-dense form of hydrogen is something that forms on a surface or can
exist in the air. He thinks it is a form that exists interstitially inside
a metal or metal nanoparticle.  Holmlid cites backward to Winterberg about
theory for ultra-dense hydrogen.  Winterberg believes the ultra-dense form
is a vertical column of deuterium atoms - completely different from known
RM which is planar monatomic flake-like molecules.  Miley believes the
ultra-dense form can exist with either H or D.  Winterberg says the
ultra-dense state can only form with D.  Miley and Holmlid/Winterberg
appear to be describing completely different animals.

Interestingly, Winterberg's description sounds more like Ed Storms' linear
hydroton of atoms.

It is not clear how Winterberg's column-of-atoms matter is something that
forms from RM.  If I had to speculate, I would say that the columns form as
an aligned stack of RM flakes.  Then the matter switches from being a
planar array of columns to being a columnar stack of flakes.

Anderson/Holmlid describe D(-1) as being the lowest energy form of RM.
This would imply that the snowflake form of RM, D(1) is higher energy.
Wouldn't this mean that there is more potential Coulomb explosion energy
from the D(1) than there is from the D(-1)?  The authors keep referring to
there being only a small energy barrier between D(1) and D(-1) and indicate
the possibility of spontaneous change between the states.  Yet they also
seem to be ascribing tremendous potential energy to D(-1) [the lowest
energy state] compared to D(1) [a supposed higher energy state].

I guess I don't understand the idea of Coulomb Explosion (CE).  The authors
describe how easy it is to remove an electron from RM (true only for a
Rydberg excited atom) and then the resulting exposed ions just blow apart
from Coulomb repulsion.  To me this sounds pretty ridiculous.  Otherwise,
how could the D(1) RM be as stable as it appears to be?

Re: [Vo]: Evidence for ultra-dense deuterium

[Bob Higgins]

Jones,

Even if true that H(-1) exists as a superfluid/RTSC (and Winterberg says
that the ultra-dense form only occurs with deuterium), then it is highly
likely that it would be a type II superconductor, like all of the
superconductors above about 40K.  The type II superconductors pin a
magnetic field inside it if the field was there when the superconducting
state formed.  So, you wouldn't get the instant repulsion.

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Of interest…
>
>
>
> In a 2014 paper, Holmlid says: “Ultra-dense hydrogen H(-1) is a quantum
> material and the first material which is superfluid and superconductive at
> room temperature. This has been shown in detail for the deuterium form
> D(-1).”
>
>
>
> Comment:
>
> As a RTSC, the dense material H(-1) will be subject to the Meissner
> effect. If it is created on a ferromagnetic catalyst which has permanent or
> applied magnetic field, which is possible to accomplish with iron oxide as
> the fill, then H(-1) should be repelled as soon as it is made.
>
>
>
> The H(-1) can made within a translucent alumina tube filled with Shell 105
> and hydrogen, using photons shining into the tube, so as to create SPP on
> the interfacial ID surface of the tube. The H(-1) should slowly migrate
> into the walls of the alumina. This should happen as soon as it is formed
> due to Meissner repulsion. Laser light should be avoided in favor of
> diffuse monochromatic light during the fuel build-up stage. It would be
> beneficial to cool the tube as much as possible at this stage, possibly
> using a cold plate. The alumina matrix would be effectively porous to H(-1)
> at only a few picometers in diameter.
>
>
>
> This is concievably an effective way to make and store the H(-1) for later
> use.
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

[Bob Higgins]

I think it is appropriate for forums such as Vortex-L to debate the value
of new papers.  We should be fair, honest, and not defamatory.  We should
not impugn the integrity of the authors.  I tried to be fair and explicit
in what I said.  I would love for the authors to respond on Vortex - lets
get at the truth.

Bob Higgins

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> In short (at the risk of being repetitive) ... this theory is an
>> embarrassment to the two guys who proposed it since they did not recognize
>> the insurmountable problems.
>
>
> I don't know.  I think it's kind of an interesting time to watch this
> field -- it feels a little like what it might have been like during the
> dawn of the scientific method.  We need to encourage a learning attitude,
> and people should be allowed to make mistakes in public without incurring a
> stigma.  As the authors become better acquainted with nuclear physics, this
> understanding will either modify the approach they take, or at least
> they'll know which concerns to address up front, knowing there will be
> certain types of complaint (e.g., free neutrons, gammas, etc.).
>
> The super-harsh critics who watch this kind of attempt and draw scathing
> conclusions about people looking into LENR are not a big concern, in my
> opinion.
>
> We should be encouraging and not take too critical an eye to attempts such
> as the one by Lunden and Lidgren.  In addition, we should be open to
> fragments of insight that might be hidden in such attempts.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Electron-mediated alpha decay in quasi-stable isotopes

[Bob Higgins]

Note that Holmlid is reporting particles with ">10 MeV/u", or 10 MeV per
atomic unit.  This is a measure of velocity.  Holmlid measured particles
that traversed 0.64 meters in 13 ns.  This corresponds to a velocity of
4.9E7 m/c or 0.16c.

This is NOT a measured ENERGY.  If he also measured the energy, then he
could have solved for the particle mass and would have had a much easier
time identifying the particle.  IF - you PRESUME that the particle is a
muon, then the energy of the muon would have been 1.4 MeV.

In Holmlid's papers, I don't see where the measured
beta-decay-causing-particles he measured in his scintillator (that he
concluded were muons), were correlated to the particles that he measured as
having a transit time of 13ns.  I think Holmlid's LEAP was that the
particles measured in his muon detection setup were the same as the
particles he measured with the 13ns transit delay.  He admitted that there
were lots of particles and he tried experimentally to sort them out.
Suppose there were just a few muons...

What if, instead, the particles detected in his scintillator were particles
uncorrelated to the 13ns transit, for example, low velocity (thermal)
neutrons.  These could also produce a beta signature in his scintillator,
but the velocity would not correlate to the measured 13ns particles.

Bob Higgins

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:23 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> http://www.google.com/patents/US3977191
>>
>> The AIROPS engine is a noble gas engine like the Papp engine.
>>
>
> I noticed that Robert Gordon Britt, the author of the patent, did not
> refer to Papp's patents as prior art.  I was unable to determine where the
> energy for the electrical arc was coming from; I assume he's just plugging
> the engine into an external power source, and that any locomotive power-out
> will be less than or equal to the electrical power-in of the external
> source.
>
> At a minimum, assuming Britt's patent was for a working device, it shows
> that the basic idea of an engine that uses noble gases is sound, if we were
> in doubt that Papp's engine was a real engine.
>
> This uses UV to produce plasma expansion just like Holmlid does.
>>
>
> Note that Holmlid is seeing a current of 1e13 particles per laser shot,
> with peaks at ~ 4, 10 and 14 MeV [1].  That has "nuclear reaction" of some
> written kind all over it, in addition to the question of what is going on
> with the UV.
>
> Eric
>
>
> [1] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.2781.pdf
>
>