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. >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> 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 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. >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> Maybe what Rossi learned from the Lugano test is that using old >>>> reaction ash is great for his new reaction. >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 10:20 AM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> There was not eveidence that Li-Al formed. >>>>>> The purity of the lithium on the surface of the nickel particle does >>>>>> not support the idea of element transport by lithium metal: iton or >>>>>> aluminum. Lithium was the only liquid at play at reactor temperatures. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 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 into the fuel >>>>>>>>>>>> mix as 100 >>>>>>>>>>>> Micron particles to begin with. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If anybody has an explanation I am willing and able to be >>>>>>>>>>>> educated. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
