Re: [Vo]:Re: Cross section reduction at lower energies

[Stefan Israelsson Tampe]

> thought I had is that the 0 spin (if it exists) is really a superposition
of the + and – intrinsic spin states—an epo like particle held in place by
gravity of the nucleus, circulating at a close radius consistent with the
respective
> masses of the “epo” and the rest the of coherent system mass.   It would
be a neutral boson making its way through the quark soup.   Its orbital
angular momentum would keep it going.  If its orbit was an orthogonal path
to > the other orbits or at a different radius,  interactions to allow
modification of orbital momentum may be rare.  The total mass of the system
would be somewhat greater than one without the neutral “epo” and account
for the
> ambiguous spin-mass parameter Mills is potentially suggesting.

Aha now I understand you

Yes, a +1 and a -1 take out each other but it takes two electrons to do
this not a single one and I think they are orbitpheres at slightly different
radii. If this is the case Mills is modelling the atom differently than QM
where the electrons of different spin occupy the same shell.

Regards
Stefan

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 11:41 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:

> Stefan--
>
> Thanks for those answers.
>
> A thought I had is that the 0 spin (if it exists) is really a
> superposition of the + and – intrinsic spin states—an epo like particle
> held in place by gravity of the nucleus, circulating at a close radius
> consistent with the respective masses of the “epo” and the rest the of
> coherent system mass.   It would be a neutral boson making its way through
> the quark soup.   Its orbital angular momentum would keep it going.  If its
> orbit was an orthogonal path to the other orbits or at a different radius,
> interactions to allow modification of orbital momentum may be rare.  The
> total mass of the system would be somewhat greater than one without the
> neutral “epo” and account for the ambiguous spin-mass parameter Mills is
> potentially suggesting.
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
> *From:* Stefan Israelsson Tampe 
> *Sent:* Sunday, October 18, 2015 11:51 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Re: Cross section reduction at lower energies
>
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 4:46 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:
>
>> Stefan--
>>
>> Thanks for reporting on your study of GUTUP.
>>
>> That’s a nice explanation of Mill’s theory.
>>
>> Do you see a magnetic field couple between the nuclear spin and the
>> electronic spin (angular momentum of the orbitshperes), and, if so,  does
>> it change with the size of the nucleus?
>>
>
> Mills uses this path of argument from the spin of the nucleus and magnetic
> force on the electron to deduce the corrected mass. But this depends on a
> change of reference system
> which I can't follow and also there is a good fit to data with the atomic
> mass, which he uses, in stead of the nucleus spin + mass as a parameter so
> I can't really see how the magnetic force
> come to play as Mills is suggesting. Maybe I'm all wrong here, but A
> direct application of a loop producing the right spin and mass and taking
> the limit of zero radius, gives a B-field. Using that
> field onto the moving electron leads to a correction close to the 6th
> decimal in the ionization energy. Mills goes between the light reference
> frame and the laboratory frame with the same
> B field and due to this get a 1000 times higher force that yields the
> reduced mass in the end. Actually I'm trying to get some answers from Mills
> because I view these objections as valid objections.
>
>
>
>>
>> If the electron has 3  different intrinsic spin states—+, –, and 0---it
>> may explain the so call degeneracy of the 3 orthogonal electronic orbits.
>>
> As far as I know there is only a + and - spin state. The spin comes from
> the layout of the current loop network and it only contains two topological
> variants as far as I understand for the same z direction. The network has
> crossings.
>
>
>> How does Mills address intrinsic spin, if at all?
>>
> Intrinsic spin comes from the current loops and the same can be said about
> the nucleus which Mills claim is a variant of the orbitsphere constructed by
> three quarks. I don't really know the details of the nuclear physics
> according to Mills. I have not gotten there yet. I'm stuck with
> understanding what the heck the light
> reference frame is and why the correction moving between them are what
> they are. I think that if Mills could explain that concept in much more
> detail much of his work could
> be followed.
>
>
>>
>> Bob Cook
>>
>
>>
>
> /Stefan
>
>
>
>> *From:* Stefan Israelsson Tampe 
>> *Sent:* Sunday, October 18, 2015 5:14 AM
>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Cross section reduction at lower energies
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 5:52 PM, Eric Walker 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 3:12 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <
>>> stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> 

[Vo]:China Details Next-Gen Nuclear Reactor Program

[Mats Lewan]

No big news but interesting perspectives on China's interest in and funding of 
advanced nuclear power production. 

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/542526/china-details-next-gen-nuclear-reactor-program/

Mats
www.animpossibleinvention.com

RE: [Vo]:Ni+LAH systems not performing

[Jones Beene]

From: Jack Cole 
*   I wrote a short post about two papers that are of interest, but are 
negative regarding Ni+LAH. Jean-Paul Biberian has conducted a series of 
experiments with the Parkhomov formula … after some 20 experiments utilizing 
mass flow calorimetry revealed no excess heat.  Additionally, Budko and 
Korshunov report a series of 17 experiments generating no excess heat…. My 
conclusion at this point is that nickel and LiAlH4 does not reliably produce 
excess heat, and if it does at all, it is rare.
Yes that seems to be the painful lesson; and given many other failures not 
reported - it is very obvious that Rossi may have forfeited any chance of a 
valid patent, since he held back on details which have prohibited those 
“skilled in the art” from replicating the effect. 
Many observers seem to have an opinion about what was left out, but fortunately 
Leif Holmlid may have come to the rescue with a catalyst known to produce dense 
hydrogen. A population of dense hydrogen may be required.
BTW Jack – if memory serves, you used iron oxide and potassium in an early 
experiment which melted the heating wire. Looking back at that incident - what 
is the possibility that large gain from dense hydrogen reacted at once to cause 
the runaway?

Re: [Vo]:Ni+LAH systems not performing

[Jed Rothwell]

David French pointed out that Biberian "apparently did not test the formula
described in the Rossi August 25th US patent. He omitted to include free
lithium." So his experiment is not a replication attempt according to the
patent, and it has no bearing on whether the patent is valid.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Ni+LAH systems not performing

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:
>
> Yes that seems to be the painful lesson; and given many other failures
> not reported - it is very obvious that Rossi may have forfeited any
> chance of a valid patent, since he held back on details which have
> prohibited those “skilled in the art” from replicating the effect.
>
Maybe not, for two reasons:

1. The art may be better defined than most people realize. The patent does
not have to include details that are known to experts. For example, the
Wright brothers patent for the airplane did not mention that the wings are
chambered. There were some attempts by Ferber to replicate in France with
flat wings. (See the photo on p. 6 of my paper.)

2. There are reports of successful replications, first by Parkhomov and
today by a group in Kazakhstan:

http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2178-Kazakhstan-held-a-successful-replication-with-nickel-hydrogen-systems/

Imagine this scenario:

In the coming months several more groups attempt to replicate. Most fail
but three succeed. Experts evaluating these three determine that the
calorimetry is good. A year from now many others have replicated using the
methods of these three successful groups. In this case, the patent office
will conclude that the three groups were PHOSITA and the others were not.
In that case the patent will be valid. There is no requirement that a
patent be easy to replicate. It is not always clear ahead of time who is a
PHOSITA.

As long as some group, somewhere, can replicate and that replication is
considered valid by most experts, even if the experts themselves cannot
replicate, the patent will be judged valid.

- Jed

[Vo]:The Kazakhstan excess heat results

[Peter Gluck]

excellent results however clearlya Piantelli replication not a Parkhomov
one. 21 watts excess at 1200C. LENR not LENR+.See  references.

Publishing  a raw translation however I was focused on Geneste's Reverting
the burden paper

Re Parkhomov replication the situation is still bad and fuzzy.Two Moscow
replications that is all really good.
COP>2 T >1100C.miniml conditions

-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:MMDD .... Muon Mediated Deuteron Disintegration

[Stephen Cooke]

This is definitely a crazy train of thought on my part but it's got me 
wondering: Bearing in mind Holmlids detection of muons and possibility they 
come from decay of positive or negative pions along with the fact that they are 
generated in ultra dense  deuterium. Is It possible that the nuclei are 
sufficiently close that those pions or virtual ones get generated in 
association with one nucleus and absorbed by another either directly or by 
tunneling at lower energy? If this occurs would this then change neutrons to 
protons and visa versa in the different nuclei? Could energy be exchanged 
between nuclei with transfer of neutral pions. I appreciate this would be very 
strange if this could occur. So I suppose the very short half life and extent 
of the pion wave function is not sufficient even in ultra dense material to 
allow this before the pion converts to a muon? 


> On 12 Oct 2015, at 17:25, Jones Beene  wrote:
> 
> MMPD  Muon Mediated Deuteron Disintegration
> 
> 
> The work of Leif Holmlid and others has opened up the possibility of 
> understanding what appears to be a new kind of nuclear reaction – a limited 
> type of chain reaction which is not fusion nor fission. The result of this 
> reaction is the complete disintegration of deuteron into quarks -- and then 
> into muons. The continuing reaction is propagated and catalyzed by muons 
> before they decay. Most of the net energy of the reaction is lost in the form 
> of neutrinos, but the fraction which is thermalized is still significant.
> 
> This nuclear reaction is dependent on the prior formation of a population of 
> “ultra-dense deuterium” which is an isomer of hydrogen which forms as a 2D 
> (two dimensional) layer on selected surfaces. The densification process has 
> been recognized for many years and rigorously described in the important 
> paper from 2009 of Nabil Lawandy entitled “Interactions of Charged Particles 
> on Surfaces.”
> 
> www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LawandyNMinteractio.pdf
> 
> 
> Individual deuterons are bosons which can occupy the same quantum state, so 
> long as their electrons are delocalized. This delocalization of electrons is 
> the key feature of ultra-dense deuterium, which becomes a condensate at 
> elevated temperature, thus allowing this novel reaction.
> 
> Upon application of a laser pulse which irradiates the condensate, a few 
> muons will be emitted which then proceed as a limited chain-reaction to 
> catalyze further reactions. In this reaction of relatively cold deuterons, 
> gamma emission cannot proceed, and fusion to deuterium is suppressed in favor 
> of complete disintegration of protons and neutrons into quarks.
> 
> The excess energy which would normally be expressed as very energetic gammas 
> is internalized to dislocate quarks from the bound state. Almost immediately, 
> quarks decay into muons – which have a greatly increased lifetime (but still 
> short) and muons are capable of catalyzing and  propagating the further 
> continuity of the reaction in a way reminiscent of nuclear fission of uranium 
> (in which neutrons are the mediator). Most of the net energy of this reaction 
> is lost to neutrino formation - but thermal gain is still possible.
> 
> More details to follow…
> 
> Jones

Re: [Vo]:China Details Next-Gen Nuclear Reactor Program

[a.ashfield]

Mats,
Although the LFTR has fundamental advantages, the moving pebble bed 
reactor is much further along and will be cheaper to build.  That you 
can have lots of small units scattered around much eases the power 
distribution problem too.


"A proposal to construct two 600 MWe high-temperature gas-cooled 
reactors (HTRs) 
 
at Ruijin city in China's Jiangxi province has passed a preliminary 
feasibility review, China Nuclear Engineering Corporation (CNEC) 
recently announced.


The Jiangxi provincial development and reform commission has already 
given the go-ahead to begin preliminary work at Ruijin and construction 
of the reactors is expected to start in 2017, with grid connection in 2021


The design of the Ruijin HTRs is based on the smaller demonstration 
HTR-PM under construction at Shidaowan near Weihai city in Shandong 
province. That plant will initially comprise twin HTR-PM reactor modules 
driving a single 210 MWe steam turbine. Construction started in late 
2012. CNEC said civil construction work on the HTR-PM is nearing 
completion and equipment installation would soon begin. The 
demonstration unit is scheduled to start commercial operation in late 2017."


http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/04/china-moving-towards-approving-dozen.html

RE: [Vo]:MMDD .... Muon Mediated Deuteron Disintegration

[Jones Beene]

The lifetime of pions is a factor of 100 times shorter than the muon, which is 
itself short. 

 

How pions can be detected at all, with so short a lifetime is a question worth 
asking. 

 

There is a good possibility that they are inferred – from finding muons, which 
can be detected. Hopefully, Ólafsson will address this issue of detection on 
Thursday.

 

 

From: Stephen Cooke 

 

… Is It possible that the nuclei are sufficiently close that those pions or 
virtual ones get generated in association with one nucleus and absorbed by 
another either directly or by tunneling at lower energy? 

 

Re: [Vo]:Ni+LAH systems not performing

[Jack Cole]

Jed,

Brian Albiston

and me356 / MFMP

have included free lithium so far to no effect.  The Kazakstan replication
reported 2KWh excess, which I think would be well within the possibility of
chemical effects (assuming the Google translation can be trusted).  In
fact, that would be downright tiny over the course of an hour (~.5 watts).
There have been other occasional positives (as I have seen myself, MFMP on
one occasion, and Brian Albiston on one or two occasions).  I do agree Jed,
that there have not yet been enough replication attempts (although there
have been quite a few and the vast majority are negative).  Also, it seems
like the higher the quality of the replication attempt, the less likely it
is to be positive.  There is a large "file drawer effect" with most of the
negative replication attempts not being reported.  As far as I know, a
replication by Parkhomov has never been witnessed while producing excess
heat by anyone other than Parkhomov.  Parkhomov also seems to have gone
silent in terms of reporting any new experiments after the silly
photoshopping incident, which is unfortunate as he does seem to be very
skilled in many ways.

Of course one could argue that you must have the multi-layered sandwich
design from the patent (with it all sealed in and welded together).  I hold
out some hope yet.  I wish the current trend of results was not so negative.

Jack

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 8:47 AM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> David French pointed out that Biberian "apparently did not test the
> formula described in the Rossi August 25th US patent. He omitted to include
> free lithium." So his experiment is not a replication attempt according to
> the patent, and it has no bearing on whether the patent is valid.
>
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Ni+LAH systems not performing

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

Nevertheless, most of the data of LENR indicate that it is an thermal
> anomaly which is mostly non-nuclear – no gammas or neutrons -- unless
> incidental. That is why the results of Holmlid are so alluring.


Consider that three-body electron-related decays involve a broadband
spectrum, and that the primary decay products will carry most of the energy
(I think) and any deexcitation gammas will have to make due with the small
portion of remaining Q that is left over.  So a 1 MeV decay will lead to a
prompt electron with ~ 500 keV (on average, I think) and will not
necessarily lead to gammas that are too energetic, even if the decay
populates an excited state in the daughter nuclide.  Many beta decays are
of the order of 100-500 keV, in which case the numbers are even lower for
all products.

Here is why I think accelerated beta and alpha decay are a thing:

http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/212660/6713

BTW, your messages are arriving quite late.

Eric

[Vo]: Translation of Russian paper on Ni-H experiment

[Bob Higgins]

This morning I translated the recent Russian paper, "The Question of Excess
Heat in Nickel-Hydrogen".  If you are interested, you can get a copy of the
English version from LENR Forum or from my Google drive at:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2ZzVib0JtOWtyaXc

Bob Higgins

Re: [Vo]:Ni+LAH systems not performing

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

It is well known that the hydrides of group 14 elements produce Rydberg
> matter because of their covalent bond structure(4 bonds). These element
> includes include silicon and carbon.
>

Another interesting tidbit -- both silicon and carbon have trace amounts of
beta emitters:

e- + 32Si => 2*e- + 2*neutrino + 32S + 1938 keV
e- + 32Si => e- + neutrino + 32P + 227 keV
e- + 14C => e- + neutrino + 14N + 156 keV

A covalent bond could change the amount of time that the orbital electrons
spend in the nuclear volume, potentially altering the beta decay rate.
Because there are only trace amounts of these isotopes, I am pessimistic
much heat could be derived from them.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:MMDD .... Muon Mediated Deuteron Disintegration

[Stephen Cooke]

I guess there is a chance that they saw X-ray spectra from Pionic Deuterium as 
well as inferring from muons of specific energy. It will be interesting to see 
what he says on Thursday, I hope someone can ask these kind of questions. 

Sent from my iPad

> On 19 okt. 2015, at 18:18, Jones Beene  wrote:
> 
> The lifetime of pions is a factor of 100 times shorter than the muon, which 
> is itself short.
>  
> How pions can be detected at all, with so short a lifetime is a question 
> worth asking.
>  
> There is a good possibility that they are inferred – from finding muons, 
> which can be detected. Hopefully, Ólafsson will address this issue of 
> detection on Thursday.
>  
>  
> From: Stephen Cooke
>  
> … Is It possible that the nuclei are sufficiently close that those pions or 
> virtual ones get generated in association with one nucleus and absorbed by 
> another either directly or by tunneling at lower energy?
> 
>  

Re: [Vo]: Translation of Russian paper on Ni-H experiment

[Jed Rothwell]

Note that this work was done in the 1990s, so it was not affected by Rossi.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Ni+LAH systems not performing

[Axil Axil]

According to Holmlid, Hydrogen Rydberg matter is formed when there is no
reactive elements available to form covalent bonds. Hydrogen must interact
with itself. The hydrogen must desorb from a material that does not combine
with hydrogen. Carbon at elevated temperatures does not interact with
hydrogen.

When Rossi preprocesses his fuel, he sets up a condition were lithium and
hydrogen desorb from the surface of his nickel particles at high
temperatures. The same is true for Holmlid, who uses iridium as a substrate
to store Hydrogen Rydberg matter produced by the iron catalyst until
Holmlid hits the iridium with a laser shot.

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
> It is well known that the hydrides of group 14 elements produce Rydberg
>> matter because of their covalent bond structure(4 bonds). These element
>> includes include silicon and carbon.
>>
>
> Another interesting tidbit -- both silicon and carbon have trace amounts
> of beta emitters:
>
> e- + 32Si => 2*e- + 2*neutrino + 32S + 1938 keV
> e- + 32Si => e- + neutrino + 32P + 227 keV
> e- + 14C => e- + neutrino + 14N + 156 keV
>
> A covalent bond could change the amount of time that the orbital electrons
> spend in the nuclear volume, potentially altering the beta decay rate.
> Because there are only trace amounts of these isotopes, I am pessimistic
> much heat could be derived from them.
>
> Eric
>

Re: [Vo]:Ni+LAH systems not performing

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:

> Both Parkhomov and the other group claimed success, but neither followed
> Rossi’s patent closely.
>
They couldn't have, come to think of it. The patent wasn't issued until
August 25, 2015. Maybe you mean an earlier patent? Anyway, if the
replication does not follow the patent exactly it has no bearing on it.
Even if the experiment works it cannot be used as evidence in support of
the patent. That is my understanding, based on discussions with David
French.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Ni+LAH systems not performing

[Axil Axil]

Free lithium was applied in the fuel preparation phase. Was fuel
preparation done where a 100 micron fuel particle was formed containing a
large amount of carbon?

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> David French pointed out that Biberian "apparently did not test the
> formula described in the Rossi August 25th US patent. He omitted to include
> free lithium." So his experiment is not a replication attempt according to
> the patent, and it has no bearing on whether the patent is valid.
>
> - Jed
>
>

[Vo]:DAILY LENR INFO FOR OCT 19, 2015

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/10/oct-19-2015-daily-lenr-info.html
 Peter
-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Ni+LAH systems not performing

[Axil Axil]

It is well known that the hydrides of group 14 elements produce Rydberg
matter because of their covalent bond structure(4 bonds). These element
includes include silicon and carbon. In the Lugano report, after fuel
preprocessing, the 100 micron fuel particle contained a large amount of
carbon. Also parkhomov Russian manufactured tube contained 20% silicon
oxide. It is possible that silicon monoxide might also be an unstable
rydberg matter catalyst that forms at high temperatures.

Also, Holmlid paints his catalyst with a mix of graphite and water in a
preprocessing step to amplify the production of rydberg hydrogen matter.

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Free lithium was applied in the fuel preparation phase. Was fuel
> preparation done where a 100 micron fuel particle was formed containing a
> large amount of carbon?
>
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> David French pointed out that Biberian "apparently did not test the
>> formula described in the Rossi August 25th US patent. He omitted to include
>> free lithium." So his experiment is not a replication attempt according to
>> the patent, and it has no bearing on whether the patent is valid.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

RE: [Vo]:Ni+LAH systems not performing

[Jones Beene]

From: Eric Walker … Jones Beene wrote: 

 

BTW Jack – if memory serves, you used iron oxide and potassium in an early 
experiment which melted the heating wire ... (a special spillover catalyst 
called “Shell 105”, used by Holmlid, contains iron oxide and potassium)

 

Earlier I asked if any of the replicators had tried potassium or vanadium.  The 
reason I asked this was because 40K and 50V are natural beta emitters.  It is 
possible that UV radiation or electric arcing accelerate the decay of beta 
emitters…

 

Eric,

 

Perhaps it is more subtle than that. Nickel has the highest propensity of all 
elements to form beta emitters on isotopic shifts. This is because it is 
neutron-heavy while still being tightly bound. In a way, one can say that beta 
decay is nature’s way of rectifying “neutron heaviness” but without emitting 
neutrons. A tightly bound nucleus does not emit neutrons.

 

In Ni-64, the 6 extra neutrons (over the most abundant isotope Ni-58) make the 
nucleus of stable Ni-64 more than 10% more massive. This is  a singularity of 
sorts - the largest percentage excess of neutrons by mass in the periodic table 
for metals.

 

Nevertheless, most of the data of LENR indicate that it is an thermal anomaly 
which is mostly non-nuclear – no gammas or neutrons -- unless incidental. That 
is why the results of Holmlid are so alluring.

 

Re: [Vo]: Translation of Russian paper on Ni-H experiment

[Jed Rothwell]

What I would like to emphasize is that the first study described here was
an independent, stand-alone observation of excess heat from the Ni-H
system. There are not many studies like that. All the ones I know of were
inspired by or linked to Mills, Piantelli or Rossi. Such results might be
colored by wishful thinking. Or at least by the knowledge that someone else
claimed heat from Ni-H, and the hope that the claim can be replicated. In
contrast, this result apparently came as a surprise to the researchers.
That is a good thing! It is promising.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]: Translation of Russian paper on Ni-H experiment

[Craig Haynie]

On Mon, 2015-10-19 at 17:26 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Note that this work was done in the 1990s, so it was not affected by
> Rossi.

The paper references work in the 90s, but the paper and the latest work,
is current.

Craig

> 
> 

Re: [Vo]: Translation of Russian paper on Ni-H experiment

[Bob Higgins]

I believe that the work in this paper is new, but the authors remembered
their own previous work with Ni and hydrogen where they saw unexplain-able
heat in the 1990s.  What distinguishes the new work is the use of LAH in a
sealed container.

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Note that this work was done in the 1990s, so it was not affected by Rossi.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Ni+LAH systems not performing

[Bob Higgins]

You have to be very careful of your formulations and observations when
using Fe2O3 in this chemical system.  Both the unoxidized Al and Li will
form a thermite reaction with the Fe2O3 which is very energetic.  The Li
thermite reaction will probably ignite first when the LiAlH4 decomposes to
LiH and liquifies.  If the Fe2O3 is finely divided, the reaction can
proceed very quickly and can melt even the alumina at over 2000C.  If you
have electrical coils inside with the fuel, as the system heats up, a hot
spot in the wire (maybe from corrosion) can ignite the thermite reaction.

I think this is why Rossi used such large particles of Fe2O3 in his
reactor.  Apparently he wanted this as a catalyst, but if the particles
were just too small it made a rapid thermite reaction and burned up his
reactor.

Bob

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 6:09 PM, Jack Cole  wrote:

> Jones,
> Yes, good memory on the potassium and iron oxide.  Specifically, I used
> KOH, aluminum, nickel, Fe2O3, and LAH.  There were a few experiments with
> quick thermal accelerations followed by melting wires.  My instrumentation
> at the time was not good enough to determine if it was a power spike or if
> it was likely internally generated.  I would have to try again with my
> better instrumentation.  I might as well set up the cell phone muon
> detector app while I'm at it.  Good find for Blaze.
>
> Thanks for the ideas.
> Jack
>
> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 5:48 PM Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> *(resend – is anyone else having troub**l**e posting?)*
>>
>> *From:* Jack Cole
>>
>> Ø   I wrote a short post about two papers that are of interest, but
>> are negative regarding Ni+LAH. Jean-Paul Biberian has conducted a series of
>> experiments with the Parkhomov formula … after some 20 experiments
>> utilizing mass flow calorimetry revealed no excess heat.  Additionally,
>> Budko and Korshunov report a series of 17 experiments generating no excess
>> heat…. My conclusion at this point is that nickel and LiAlH4 does not
>> reliably produce excess heat, and if it does at all, it is rare.
>>
>> Regrettably that seems to be the agonizing situation which we are facing;
>> plus, given many other failures not reported - it is recognizable that
>> Rossi may have forfeited the chance for a valid patent -- by holding back
>> on details which have prohibited those “skilled in the art” from
>> replicating the effect.
>>
>> Many observers seem to have their own opinions about what was left out,
>> but fortunately Leif Holmlid has come to the rescue with a catalyst
>> known to produce dense hydrogen. A population of dense hydrogen may be
>> required for success. There probably is more than one way to get it, and
>> that detail is what Rossi has left out. If so, then it would be wise to
>> read Holmlid.
>>
>> BTW Jack – if memory serves, you used iron oxide and potassium in an
>> early experiment which melted the heating wire. Looking back at that
>> incident - what is the possibility that a large sudden gain from dense
>> hydrogen which reacted too fast and caused the runaway?
>>
>> (a special spillover catalyst called “Shell 105”, used by Holmlid,
>> contains iron oxide and potassium)
>>
>>

RE: [Vo]:Ni+LAH systems not performing

[Jones Beene]

Jed’s comment brings up several interesting points. 

Both Parkhomov and the other group claimed success, but neither followed 
Rossi’s patent closely. The Kazak group did not use resistance wire at all. And 
both apparently used LAH and nickel, but the nickel was not the same 
composition as Rossi’s. Anyone can “claim” success - and we should give them 
benefit of the doubt, but a US Court will not. If they do not get their work 
published in a peer reviewed journal, then it could be an issue. It is not 
required, but evidence of replication could be needed (by Rossi’s legal team). 
Parkhomov has apparently filed for his own patent, indicating he has found 
something unique. He could be uncooperative to Rossi. And of course the 800 
pound gorilla in the corner is BLP. 

In the end, it is very likely that the main thing Rossi can protect is using 
LAH as a catalyst with nickel. Nickel-hydrogen with potassium catalyst was 
patented by Thermacore twenty years ago, and is in the public domain. Same with 
lithium. BLP has wide patent coverage on many details of using alkali salts 
with transition metals. It seems that the only thing which can secure Rossi’s 
success without competition from many others is whatever detail that he has 
hidden away, as a trade secret, plus the use of LAH. 

Holmlid’s patent applications for ICF appear to be more valuable than does 
Rossi’s but that is a minority opinion. 

This unfolding IP situation presents shaky ground for any investment in IH or 
Leonardo– especially since Mills has claimed publicly to have LAH covered -- 
and BLP has that formidable patent portfolio - and the funds to defend it.

From: Jed Rothwell 
Jones Beene wrote: 
Yes that seems to be the painful lesson; and given many other failures not 
reported - it is very obvious that Rossi may have forfeited any chance of a 
valid patent, since he held back on details which have prohibited those 
“skilled in the art” from replicating the effect.
Maybe not, for two reasons:

1. The art may be better defined than most people realize. The patent does not 
have to include details that are known to experts. For example, the Wright 
brothers patent for the airplane did not mention that the wings are chambered. 
There were some attempts by Ferber to replicate in France with flat wings. (See 
the photo on p. 6 of my paper.)
2. There are reports of successful replications, first by Parkhomov and today 
by a group in Kazakhstan:

http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2178-Kazakhstan-held-a-successful-replication-with-nickel-hydrogen-systems/

Imagine this scenario:

In the coming months several more groups attempt to replicate. Most fail but 
three succeed. Experts evaluating these three determine that the calorimetry is 
good. A year from now many others have replicated using the methods of these 
three successful groups. In this case, the patent office will conclude that the 
three groups were PHOSITA and the others were not. In that case the patent will 
be valid. There is no requirement that a patent be easy to replicate. It is not 
always clear ahead of time who is a PHOSITA.

As long as some group, somewhere, can replicate and that replication is 
considered valid by most experts, even if the experts themselves cannot 
replicate, the patent will be judged valid.

- Jed