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. 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. > >
