Stephen--
I am a little more positive about the significance of AP's results. I would
say that the recent results confirm much of the Lugano test.
I think that AP's test did not have the same control Rossi has developed, and
, hence the significant over-heating event. Rossi has indicated that in his
R&D history there were many "over heating" events. Hence, Rossi's control
mechanism was not confirmed.
Although not stated in the recent AP report, I assumed that AP did not intend
to destroy the reactor. The event probably had a short duration--shorter than
was necessary to quench the reaction. This has an earmark of a nuclear
process which can happen so fast that energy is released before the materials
deform, changing the geometry supporting the reaction.
As Bob H has suggested, there is plenty of science to discover, including the
time constants of the destruction process. AP might achieve good monitoring of
penetrating EM radiation via a window to the reactor internals, akin to what
Rossi described regarding his recent Quark-X test.
Experimenters should be careful! The time constants are of utmost importance
for safety concers.
Bob Cook
Subject: Re: [Vo]: English translation of Parkhomov's latest presentation
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: sa...@pobox.com
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:23:37 -0400
Ah. Thank you. I didn't realize this is based on Rossi's work,
though I certainly should have, given the way it's set up.
So, if we assume all of Rossi's results were bogus (and I
know of no reason not to assume that), then it would be
remarkable indeed if this actually was a real, robust, replicable
result, as it would indicate that Rossi accidentally made
something up that was real, correct, and new while faking his
experiments. Somewhat as though the word salad generated by a spam
bot accidentally contained some deep philosophical truth which
nobody had thought of before. Not impossible, but certainly
surprising.
"Thermal runaway" might better be described as "Destructive
overheating" as that describes what happened, without specifying a
mechanism. "Runaway" implies we know this is a non-standard
exothermic reaction of some sort and that it can take place with
great vigor if the temperature exceeds some threshold; but in fact
we don't know that.
Similarly, the fact that attempts to goose the reactors harder
destroyed them doesn't indicate runaway, it just indicates
overheating, and it's anyone's guess how that happened. When
there's a joule heater running through the thing, and it's turned on
during the experiment, and something overheats, the hot wire is an
obvious candidate for the cause.
On 06/24/2016 12:59 PM, Bob Higgins
wrote:
I will look for the older references. Certainly Jed has
most of them in the lenr-canr.org database.
Parkhomov's work stemmed from the Lugano report on Rossi's
hotCat - where Parkhomov, a retired Russian physicist,
deduced the fuel as primarily Ni + LAH, and tried it. He
saw credible excess heat. You should start by reading the
Lugano report's analysis of the fuel and ash.
The LENR details of this system are unknown, but here is a
guess in a nutshell. The LiAlH4 breaks down to LiH and Al +
nH2 as it is heated. At about 680C, both the LiH and the Al
are molten and they wet to the Ni, which is now reduced of
oxides by the H2. The liquid Al also partly acts as a
getter for the the oxygen in the system - taking it out of
chemical play. LiH is an ionic hydride, consisting of Li+
and H- in the molten metal. Wetted to the Ni, the Li-H-Al
supplies H- (anions) directly to the surface of the Ni,
wherein a LENR reaction of unknown detail happens. The
reaction between Ni and H- could well be as Piantelli
describes in his patents. There are unsubstantiated shifts
in the 6Li/7Li isotopic ratio as well as unsubstantiated
isotopic shifts in the Ni and transmutation in the Ni.
Excess heat seems to have an onset above 900C and Parkhomov's
latest experiments were run at 1200C. Experiments can exhibit
thermal runaway and burn out the apparatus.
Chemical energy is typically calculated as though the reactants
were supplied with an unknown and unlimited source of free O2
and burned. The primary energy is the burning of H2 with O2,
then the burning of the Li, and almost negligible is the
chemical energy from burning (oxidizing) the Ni. For the 2g of
Ni and 0.2g of LAH, I have seen that energy calculated in the
range of 20kJ (but my memory could be off +100%/-50%).
Parkhomov measured about 100MJ output, about 5000x the chemical
energy.
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 8:48
AM, Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>
wrote:
Can someone
post a link to something in the way of earlier
work, which might give an overview of this
experiment and this approach?
I came in late to the show, and I'm confused as to
what the reaction is even believed to be here.
It's also apparent that some major chemical stuff
was going on (from the state of the reactors at
the end of the experiment) but, while LiAlH4 is
presumably pretty seriously reactive, I wouldn't
have expected it to do much with nothing but Ni as
a partner, since Li and Al are surely much happier
to donate electrons than Ni (didn't check the half
reaction potentials, tho, maybe nickel's more
reactive than I think).
On 06/24/2016 10:19 AM, Bob Higgins wrote:
Good morning Vorts,
Here is a link to my Google drive
folder having the English
translation of A. Parkhomov's latest
(6/23) presentation. The link is to
the folder containing the
translation, and if updates are
needed, I will put them in this same
folder.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2YnpFakRobUE1clE
Bob Higgins
