Re: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor
Dave-- I agree with your logic and that some of that mass will be associated with spin energy and its conversion to heat. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014 7:55 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor But what about the conservation of energy? What mass is being depleted in order to release the energy? No one has ever shown proof that energy can appear out of nowhere and continue to exist. I suggest that the true source will be uncovered one day and it will be associated with a depletion of fuel mass. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Oct 18, 2014 10:48 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor One thing worth adding – Rossi is said to use a sintered instead of a fused alumina tube. This could be an important detail in superradiance, since the particle size of the alumina before sintering would influence emissivity. For instance, if the tube was made from 10-11 micron alumina powder, then that could favor NASA mentioning a parameter of 27 THz… however, that could be merely one of many coherency ranges which work for SPP… and not a favored range. The SPP “independent gain hypothesis” would work with no nuclear tie-in – a Dirac sea explanation for at least that part of the gain. This is radical but it fits the facts of no gamma, no radioactive ash, need for constant and large electrical input, need for mostly ceramics and little metal, etc. and even the alumina tubes. The most important thing of interest is that - since the MFMP is going to build a “dummy” reactor – they could see the evidence of SPP gain, without added nickel, hydrogen, lithium or any other “fuel”- if they know what to look for. Unfortunately, this would mean that meaningful calibration cannot be accomplished with the dummy, as it is now seen to be active above a trigger temperature, which is the active photon going into superradiance. The $64 is what is the value of this photon. NASA has seen the photon at 27 THz (wavelength 10.5 microns) which corresponds to 1050 C, but that could be because of different conditions in their experiment. Perhaps there are varying factors of superradiance which make a broad range of photons candidates for SPP interaction. First, MFMP would need to chart a comparison of IR radiation at the camera wavelength along with a real temperature profile, done with a platinum thermocouple, which confirms the calculated gain. Then they would need to look for a large jump in the IR profile which coincides with the incandescence of the SPP light at superradiance. It is safe to surmise that this semi-coherence happens about 1050 C. If they see a big jump there, then we have explained a major part of the conundrum. If they find even slight gain (COP 1.2 or so) then that will indicate a non-nuclear modality which could affect nuclear reactions later. If the gain is large enough, a nuclear secondary reaction is superfluous. It is only if the heat is conveyed away from the NAE that in a short term high output burst that the NAE could heat its environment hotter than itself and cause a meltdown. The previous hot cats which were all in stainless jackets were subject to meltdown, but I can find reference to the ceramic one being in a meltdown. It seems to be in better control or Rossi would not have left it there. Perhaps the breakthrough of Rossi, if there is one, is to get away from a nuclear pathway altogether, and this one is not nuclear at all. (but he wants you to think it is). Another remote possibility should be mentioned, if real gain is found in this device… and that would be this: the basis of gain could be only SPP – surface plasmon polaritons. This species may be gainful in itself as it condenses. Electrons would be lost to the Dirac sea via SPP, for instance - but with a relic such as spin retained in 3-space. Again that may seem remote to you now, but to someone who has studied SPP it is more probable than magic gamma ray absorbers, the infamous gram of magic fuel for 30 days, magic internal cooling to protect the fuel, magic fuel rejuvenation of surface features, and the dozen or so other miracles necessary for this device to be related to nuclear fusion. What are the main objections to a SPP modality? Jones From: Bob Higgins … Think about it like a microwave oven (only x-rays instead
Re: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor
I understand why Jones thinks his latest idea is radical. But, it fits many of the observations--what about the observed nuclear transmutations in LENR? Bob Cook - Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014 8:08 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor From: David Roberson Ø But what about the conservation of energy? What mass is being depleted in order to release the energy? Electron mass – 511 keV. The Dirac sea of negative energy is the repository in this suggestion - that intense field of the SPP is analogous to being a “wormhole” for depleting electrons via this field http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_sea
Re: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 8:25 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: I understand why Jones thinks his latest idea is radical. But, it fits many of the observations--what about the observed nuclear transmutations in LENR? Suppose the mass of the electron is absorbed by a proton in the nucleus while the spin momentum creates heat via the SPP?
RE: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor
-Original Message- From: Terry Blanton Bob Cook wrote: I understand why Jones thinks his latest idea is radical. But, it fits many of the observations--what about the observed nuclear transmutations in LENR? Suppose the mass of the electron is absorbed by a proton in the nucleus while the spin momentum creates heat via the SPP? There could be two different things going on, one is SPP and the other is LENR This is a clue from the old hot cat: https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQrx3oCHm1erPduOU_DeO4_unHd2dAbFoifVWGrsAhQ3BMwGh4N Match this image against the chart here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescence#mediaviewer/File:Incandescence_Color.jpg That looks like a good match for something between 1000 and 1100 C, no? I keep going back to the SPP and to NASA, etc.
Re: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: I keep going back to the SPP and to NASA, etc. It's not like they are doing a lot these days, eg no rocket science.
Re: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor
Terry-- That's a good supplement to Jone's idea, that he may not think is too radical:) Bob - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2014 9:14 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 8:25 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: I understand why Jones thinks his latest idea is radical. But, it fits many of the observations--what about the observed nuclear transmutations in LENR? Suppose the mass of the electron is absorbed by a proton in the nucleus while the spin momentum creates heat via the SPP?
Re: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor
Jones-- I thought you might like Terry's idea. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2014 9:20 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton Bob Cook wrote: I understand why Jones thinks his latest idea is radical. But, it fits many of the observations--what about the observed nuclear transmutations in LENR? Suppose the mass of the electron is absorbed by a proton in the nucleus while the spin momentum creates heat via the SPP? There could be two different things going on, one is SPP and the other is LENR This is a clue from the old hot cat: https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQrx3oCHm1erPduOU_DeO4_unHd2dAbFoifVWGrsAhQ3BMwGh4N Match this image against the chart here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescence#mediaviewer/File:Incandescence_Color.jpg That looks like a good match for something between 1000 and 1100 C, no? I keep going back to the SPP and to NASA, etc.
RE: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor
-Original Message- From: Bob Cook I thought you might like Terry's idea. Awkshully, Bob... it could work, but is the proton then neutralized as a neutron? Having a free neutron creates problems. What I had been thinking is a bit different- that the electron itself goes into the Dirac sea as the SPP decays, leaving behind only its spin (or a component of spin if the electron is nothing but 2 kinds of spin plus charge) ... which spin is transferred to the magnon, as the electron is lost - charge and all. The electron's 511 keV is a combination angular momentum, intrinsic spin, charge and possibly something else, but part of that could transfer to magnons, if an electron disappears in the SPP aftermath. Does the reactor become positively charged, or negatively charged or is it neutral ? You would think this would be reported. If 40 amps of alternating current is flowing into a device which becomes positively charged, then we can possibly calculate how much mass is lost via electron depletion with spin energy transferred and retained. Or if negatively charged, then perhaps only charge is retained and spin is lost. Not enough information. It could be that each lost electron gives a decent fraction of its mass-energy as intrinsic spin, say 100 keV, and then we can model the reaction. Who knows? Anyway, unless the MFMP finds gain via SPP, we will likely never know. From: Terry Blanton Suppose the mass of the electron is absorbed by a proton in the nucleus while the spin momentum creates heat via the SPP? There could be two different things going on, one is SPP and the other is LENR This is a clue from the old hot cat: https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQrx3oCHm1erPduOU_DeO4_unHd2dAbFoifVWGrsAhQ3BMwGh4N Match this image against the chart here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescence#mediaviewer/File:Incandescence_Color.jpg That looks like a good match for something between 1000 and 1100 C, no? I keep going back to the SPP and to NASA, etc.
Re: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor
One of the things I noted about the new hotCat is that it seemed to not be affected by the air that would have been present after the powder was loaded. There was no means to pull a vacuum to clean out the air. In thinking about the use and effects of the LiAlH4, it occurred to me that this compound could also supply a gettering action for the oxygen and nitrogen present in the closed reactor. At first when LiALH4 decomposes, the hydrogen will evolve into the air, and at that temperature, and in the presence of these metals, the oxygen in the air would form water vapor with the hydrogen (burning to release some heat). But as the aluminum melted, it would begin to oxidize in the presence of the water vapor. The oxidation of aluminum is extremely stable (and exothermic), and creates Al2O3 (alumina) that will bind to the material on the side walls of the reactor. Because the oxygen bond with aluminum is so stable (and oxygen is not released to a temperature of over 2000C), the aluminum will getter out all of the oxygen from the system. Further at the higher temperatures (900C), the aluminum may also bind with the nitrogen creating a very stable aluminum nitride, hence gettering the nitrogen as well. This will then leave the interior gas to be hydrogen, argon, and lithium vapor (at some temperature). If there is Ni present on the interior, the lithium vapor may alloy from gas phase with the Ni as a surface alloy. Lithium nickel surface alloy may have a higher hydrogen uptake than the Ni by itself. Once the Li is a thin alloy film on the Ni particle surfaces which are catalyzed to produce a LENR reaction, the Li may then be a participant in the LENR in condensed matter form as opposed to being a participant in vapor phase form. Bob Higgins
Re: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 7:45 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: Once the Li is a thin alloy film on the Ni particle surfaces which are catalyzed to produce a LENR reaction, the Li may then be a participant in the LENR in condensed matter form as opposed to being a participant in vapor phase form. I think you've hit upon an important question that has come up recently -- is a condensed matter phase needed in some form to get LENR to work? If not, there will have been a lot of theorizing over the years for naught. My working assumption now is that there is no such need, and LENR will work in pure gas phase systems as well, although I do think that an explanation should also account for LENR working in a solid state system. Eric
Re: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor
Bob-- I assumed that Rossi included a getter for O. However you may be correct about the use of the alumina substance to act as a getter. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: Bob Higgins To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014 7:45 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor One of the things I noted about the new hotCat is that it seemed to not be affected by the air that would have been present after the powder was loaded. There was no means to pull a vacuum to clean out the air. In thinking about the use and effects of the LiAlH4, it occurred to me that this compound could also supply a gettering action for the oxygen and nitrogen present in the closed reactor. At first when LiALH4 decomposes, the hydrogen will evolve into the air, and at that temperature, and in the presence of these metals, the oxygen in the air would form water vapor with the hydrogen (burning to release some heat). But as the aluminum melted, it would begin to oxidize in the presence of the water vapor. The oxidation of aluminum is extremely stable (and exothermic), and creates Al2O3 (alumina) that will bind to the material on the side walls of the reactor. Because the oxygen bond with aluminum is so stable (and oxygen is not released to a temperature of over 2000C), the aluminum will getter out all of the oxygen from the system. Further at the higher temperatures (900C), the aluminum may also bind with the nitrogen creating a very stable aluminum nitride, hence gettering the nitrogen as well. This will then leave the interior gas to be hydrogen, argon, and lithium vapor (at some temperature). If there is Ni present on the interior, the lithium vapor may alloy from gas phase with the Ni as a surface alloy. Lithium nickel surface alloy may have a higher hydrogen uptake than the Ni by itself. Once the Li is a thin alloy film on the Ni particle surfaces which are catalyzed to produce a LENR reaction, the Li may then be a participant in the LENR in condensed matter form as opposed to being a participant in vapor phase form. Bob Higgins
Re: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor
Eric The Li may still be in a vapor form and the Ni in a nano size solid state form, both nano particles and Li atoms circulating as a hot mixed substance in the reactor. The Li reacts one atom at a time with the Ni lattice to form new species. The temperature is practically uniform because the nano particles quickly take on the temperature of the Li vapor or individual atoms. As has been suggested the Li evaporates from the alumina to feed the reactor and provide the necessary nuclear reactant with the Ni isotopes--with the exception of Ni-62 which does not react. I suggest that the Ni is in a particulate configuration since I do not believe the temperatures are sufficient to cause vaporization or degradation of the Ni nano particles. H may also circulate, but is of no consequence--or maybe it is if the alumina is really a hydrate to begin with by design. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014 8:23 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 7:45 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: Once the Li is a thin alloy film on the Ni particle surfaces which are catalyzed to produce a LENR reaction, the Li may then be a participant in the LENR in condensed matter form as opposed to being a participant in vapor phase form. I think you've hit upon an important question that has come up recently -- is a condensed matter phase needed in some form to get LENR to work? If not, there will have been a lot of theorizing over the years for naught. My working assumption now is that there is no such need, and LENR will work in pure gas phase systems as well, although I do think that an explanation should also account for LENR working in a solid state system. Eric
Re: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor
As someone who has first hand experience working with micro-scale carbonyl Ni powder, and treating these powders in a thermochemical reactor, I can tell you that what you are saying about the nickel particles is 100% wrong. Even these 4-10 micron scale nickel particles will sinter into a porous mass by heating at 500-700C. Ni melts at 1455C and the nano-scale features will all melt at about half of this temperature - the nanoscale features will ball-up onto the micro-scale nickel particle to which the feature may be attached. Any nanopowder of Ni present is melted before 800C and becomes a larger particle - and then condenses. And Rossi specifically says he does not use nickel nanopowder anyway. The same is true for other free nanoparticles. By the time the IH reactor is operating above 1000C, there are no nickel nanoparticles or nano-features of any kind left - they are all melted into larger agglomerations. I don't know what your experience is with, but it is not with nickel powder. Alumina does not store hydrogen in any significant measure. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Eric The Li may still be in a vapor form and the Ni in a nano size solid state form, both nano particles and Li atoms circulating as a hot mixed substance in the reactor. The Li reacts one atom at a time with the Ni lattice to form new species. The temperature is practically uniform because the nano particles quickly take on the temperature of the Li vapor or individual atoms. As has been suggested the Li evaporates from the alumina to feed the reactor and provide the necessary nuclear reactant with the Ni isotopes--with the exception of Ni-62 which does not react. I suggest that the Ni is in a particulate configuration since I do not believe the temperatures are sufficient to cause vaporization or degradation of the Ni nano particles. H may also circulate, but is of no consequence--or maybe it is if the alumina is really a hydrate to begin with by design. Bob Cook - Original Message - *From:* Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Saturday, October 18, 2014 8:23 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 7:45 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: Once the Li is a thin alloy film on the Ni particle surfaces which are catalyzed to produce a LENR reaction, the Li may then be a participant in the LENR in condensed matter form as opposed to being a participant in vapor phase form. I think you've hit upon an important question that has come up recently -- is a condensed matter phase needed in some form to get LENR to work? If not, there will have been a lot of theorizing over the years for naught. My working assumption now is that there is no such need, and LENR will work in pure gas phase systems as well, although I do think that an explanation should also account for LENR working in a solid state system. Eric
Re: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor
And yet, particle 1 which showed Ni62 transmutation also shower that the tubercle nano-surface was still in place after days of 1400C operation. Any ideas? On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: As someone who has first hand experience working with micro-scale carbonyl Ni powder, and treating these powders in a thermochemical reactor, I can tell you that what you are saying about the nickel particles is 100% wrong. Even these 4-10 micron scale nickel particles will sinter into a porous mass by heating at 500-700C. Ni melts at 1455C and the nano-scale features will all melt at about half of this temperature - the nanoscale features will ball-up onto the micro-scale nickel particle to which the feature may be attached. Any nanopowder of Ni present is melted before 800C and becomes a larger particle - and then condenses. And Rossi specifically says he does not use nickel nanopowder anyway. The same is true for other free nanoparticles. By the time the IH reactor is operating above 1000C, there are no nickel nanoparticles or nano-features of any kind left - they are all melted into larger agglomerations. I don't know what your experience is with, but it is not with nickel powder. Alumina does not store hydrogen in any significant measure. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Eric The Li may still be in a vapor form and the Ni in a nano size solid state form, both nano particles and Li atoms circulating as a hot mixed substance in the reactor. The Li reacts one atom at a time with the Ni lattice to form new species. The temperature is practically uniform because the nano particles quickly take on the temperature of the Li vapor or individual atoms. As has been suggested the Li evaporates from the alumina to feed the reactor and provide the necessary nuclear reactant with the Ni isotopes--with the exception of Ni-62 which does not react. I suggest that the Ni is in a particulate configuration since I do not believe the temperatures are sufficient to cause vaporization or degradation of the Ni nano particles. H may also circulate, but is of no consequence--or maybe it is if the alumina is really a hydrate to begin with by design. Bob Cook - Original Message - *From:* Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Saturday, October 18, 2014 8:23 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 7:45 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: Once the Li is a thin alloy film on the Ni particle surfaces which are catalyzed to produce a LENR reaction, the Li may then be a participant in the LENR in condensed matter form as opposed to being a participant in vapor phase form. I think you've hit upon an important question that has come up recently -- is a condensed matter phase needed in some form to get LENR to work? If not, there will have been a lot of theorizing over the years for naught. My working assumption now is that there is no such need, and LENR will work in pure gas phase systems as well, although I do think that an explanation should also account for LENR working in a solid state system. Eric
Re: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor
The left side (in Figure 1) 45-50mm of the reactor are much cooler than the heated core between the insulated supports. This end near the thermocouple plug probably never exceeded 700C. Particles that ended up there did not undergo as much sintering. As I recall the Lugano test particle was nearly 500 microns across and probably was that size due to substantial sintering with smaller particles. Sintering of Ni would still occur in the colder part. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: And yet, particle 1 which showed Ni62 transmutation also shower that the tubercle nano-surface was still in place after days of 1400C operation. Any ideas? On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: As someone who has first hand experience working with micro-scale carbonyl Ni powder, and treating these powders in a thermochemical reactor, I can tell you that what you are saying about the nickel particles is 100% wrong. Even these 4-10 micron scale nickel particles will sinter into a porous mass by heating at 500-700C. Ni melts at 1455C and the nano-scale features will all melt at about half of this temperature - the nanoscale features will ball-up onto the micro-scale nickel particle to which the feature may be attached. Any nanopowder of Ni present is melted before 800C and becomes a larger particle - and then condenses. And Rossi specifically says he does not use nickel nanopowder anyway. The same is true for other free nanoparticles. By the time the IH reactor is operating above 1000C, there are no nickel nanoparticles or nano-features of any kind left - they are all melted into larger agglomerations. I don't know what your experience is with, but it is not with nickel powder. Alumina does not store hydrogen in any significant measure.
Re: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor
This idea contributes the belief that the nickel particles are the source of heat production. What you are saying is that the particles caused heat to be generated somewhere else in the reactor, not in or near the nickel particles. How can the surface of the reactor sustain a temperature of 1420C if the nickel particles are cooler that that temperature. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: The left side (in Figure 1) 45-50mm of the reactor are much cooler than the heated core between the insulated supports. This end near the thermocouple plug probably never exceeded 700C. Particles that ended up there did not undergo as much sintering. As I recall the Lugano test particle was nearly 500 microns across and probably was that size due to substantial sintering with smaller particles. Sintering of Ni would still occur in the colder part. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: And yet, particle 1 which showed Ni62 transmutation also shower that the tubercle nano-surface was still in place after days of 1400C operation. Any ideas? On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: As someone who has first hand experience working with micro-scale carbonyl Ni powder, and treating these powders in a thermochemical reactor, I can tell you that what you are saying about the nickel particles is 100% wrong. Even these 4-10 micron scale nickel particles will sinter into a porous mass by heating at 500-700C. Ni melts at 1455C and the nano-scale features will all melt at about half of this temperature - the nanoscale features will ball-up onto the micro-scale nickel particle to which the feature may be attached. Any nanopowder of Ni present is melted before 800C and becomes a larger particle - and then condenses. And Rossi specifically says he does not use nickel nanopowder anyway. The same is true for other free nanoparticles. By the time the IH reactor is operating above 1000C, there are no nickel nanoparticles or nano-features of any kind left - they are all melted into larger agglomerations. I don't know what your experience is with, but it is not with nickel powder. Alumina does not store hydrogen in any significant measure.
Re: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor
Bob-- Thanks for that clarification about the melting of small Ni particles. Are there any compounds or alloys of Ni that would not melt or sinter below say 1100 C? Since Rossi says he does not use Ni nano particles the fuel may be something else containing Ni that could be exposed to the Li at 1000 C in some reliable configuration. For example the following abstract suggests some possible substrates that would hold the Ni at temperature. Composite nano particles of Ni-TiC and Ni-TiN were prepared by an active plasma-metal reaction method. The structure and morphology were evaluated by X-ray diffraction and transmission electron microscopy observations. The morphology of the composite particles is dice-like or dumbbell-like, where the outer sides are metallic and the inner part of the rod (or dice)-like structure is TiC or TiN. The formation mechanism of the composite particles is considered by analogy to the VSL mechanism. The thermal stability of the nanocomposite particles is vastly superior to that of the metal particle. The excellent catalytic property of the Ni-TiN composite particle was confirmed when compared to the well-known Raney Ni particle and mixed particles of Ni and TiC. Note the increased thermal stability. Bob --- Original Message - From: Bob Higgins To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014 10:13 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor As someone who has first hand experience working with micro-scale carbonyl Ni powder, and treating these powders in a thermochemical reactor, I can tell you that what you are saying about the nickel particles is 100% wrong. Even these 4-10 micron scale nickel particles will sinter into a porous mass by heating at 500-700C. Ni melts at 1455C and the nano-scale features will all melt at about half of this temperature - the nanoscale features will ball-up onto the micro-scale nickel particle to which the feature may be attached. Any nanopowder of Ni present is melted before 800C and becomes a larger particle - and then condenses. And Rossi specifically says he does not use nickel nanopowder anyway. The same is true for other free nanoparticles. By the time the IH reactor is operating above 1000C, there are no nickel nanoparticles or nano-features of any kind left - they are all melted into larger agglomerations. I don't know what your experience is with, but it is not with nickel powder. Alumina does not store hydrogen in any significant measure. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Eric The Li may still be in a vapor form and the Ni in a nano size solid state form, both nano particles and Li atoms circulating as a hot mixed substance in the reactor. The Li reacts one atom at a time with the Ni lattice to form new species. The temperature is practically uniform because the nano particles quickly take on the temperature of the Li vapor or individual atoms. As has been suggested the Li evaporates from the alumina to feed the reactor and provide the necessary nuclear reactant with the Ni isotopes--with the exception of Ni-62 which does not react. I suggest that the Ni is in a particulate configuration since I do not believe the temperatures are sufficient to cause vaporization or degradation of the Ni nano particles. H may also circulate, but is of no consequence--or maybe it is if the alumina is really a hydrate to begin with by design. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014 8:23 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 7:45 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: Once the Li is a thin alloy film on the Ni particle surfaces which are catalyzed to produce a LENR reaction, the Li may then be a participant in the LENR in condensed matter form as opposed to being a participant in vapor phase form. I think you've hit upon an important question that has come up recently -- is a condensed matter phase needed in some form to get LENR to work? If not, there will have been a lot of theorizing over the years for naught. My working assumption now is that there is no such need, and LENR will work in pure gas phase systems as well, although I do think that an explanation should also account for LENR working in a solid state system. Eric
Re: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: By the time the IH reactor is operating above 1000C, there are no nickel nanoparticles or nano-features of any kind left - they are all melted into larger agglomerations. Is it possible that the micro-scale features in the Ni might reappear upon recrystallization? Eric
Re: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor
Bob Higgins: Even these 4-10 micron scale nickel particles will sinter into a porous mass by heating at 500-700C. Rossi uses micro particles in the 2 to 10 micron range. The nano structured surface tubercles coating will melt at lower temperatures that the sintering of the entire particle. This coat was seen to be intact in photos of these micro-particles from the TPT. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Bob-- Thanks for that clarification about the melting of small Ni particles. Are there any compounds or alloys of Ni that would not melt or sinter below say 1100 C? Since Rossi says he does not use Ni nano particles the fuel may be something else containing Ni that could be exposed to the Li at 1000 C in some reliable configuration. For example the following abstract suggests some possible substrates that would hold the Ni at temperature. Composite nano particles of Ni-TiC and Ni-TiN were prepared by an active plasma-metal reaction method. The structure and morphology were evaluated by X-ray diffraction and transmission electron microscopy observations. The morphology of the composite particles is dice-like or dumbbell-like, where the outer sides are metallic and the inner part of the rod (or dice)-like structure is TiC or TiN. The formation mechanism of the composite particles is considered by analogy to the VSL mechanism. *The thermal stability of the nanocomposite particles is vastly superior to that of the metal particle.* The excellent catalytic property of the Ni-TiN composite particle was confirmed when compared to the well-known Raney Ni particle and mixed particles of Ni and TiC. Note the increased thermal stability. Bob --- Original Message - *From:* Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Saturday, October 18, 2014 10:13 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor As someone who has first hand experience working with micro-scale carbonyl Ni powder, and treating these powders in a thermochemical reactor, I can tell you that what you are saying about the nickel particles is 100% wrong. Even these 4-10 micron scale nickel particles will sinter into a porous mass by heating at 500-700C. Ni melts at 1455C and the nano-scale features will all melt at about half of this temperature - the nanoscale features will ball-up onto the micro-scale nickel particle to which the feature may be attached. Any nanopowder of Ni present is melted before 800C and becomes a larger particle - and then condenses. And Rossi specifically says he does not use nickel nanopowder anyway. The same is true for other free nanoparticles. By the time the IH reactor is operating above 1000C, there are no nickel nanoparticles or nano-features of any kind left - they are all melted into larger agglomerations. I don't know what your experience is with, but it is not with nickel powder. Alumina does not store hydrogen in any significant measure. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Eric The Li may still be in a vapor form and the Ni in a nano size solid state form, both nano particles and Li atoms circulating as a hot mixed substance in the reactor. The Li reacts one atom at a time with the Ni lattice to form new species. The temperature is practically uniform because the nano particles quickly take on the temperature of the Li vapor or individual atoms. As has been suggested the Li evaporates from the alumina to feed the reactor and provide the necessary nuclear reactant with the Ni isotopes--with the exception of Ni-62 which does not react. I suggest that the Ni is in a particulate configuration since I do not believe the temperatures are sufficient to cause vaporization or degradation of the Ni nano particles. H may also circulate, but is of no consequence--or maybe it is if the alumina is really a hydrate to begin with by design. Bob Cook - Original Message - *From:* Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Saturday, October 18, 2014 8:23 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 7:45 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: Once the Li is a thin alloy film on the Ni particle surfaces which are catalyzed to produce a LENR reaction, the Li may then be a participant in the LENR in condensed matter form as opposed to being a participant in vapor phase form. I think you've hit upon an important question that has come up recently -- is a condensed matter phase needed in some form to get LENR to work? If not, there will have been a lot of theorizing over the years for naught. My working assumption now is that there is no such need, and LENR will work in pure gas phase systems as well, although I do think that an explanation should also account for LENR working in a solid state system. Eric
Re: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor
No...This surface nanostructure is a result of the processing of the carbonyl Ni powder precursor which is long gone in the resultant pure nickel particle uses by Rossi. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: By the time the IH reactor is operating above 1000C, there are no nickel nanoparticles or nano-features of any kind left - they are all melted into larger agglomerations. Is it possible that the micro-scale features in the Ni might reappear upon recrystallization? Eric
Re: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor
Axil-- Your question: How can the surface of the reactor sustain a temperature of 1420C if the nickel particles are cooler that that temperature. Answer---The energy is generated by the particles is radiant energy and all is absorbed by the alumina near the inner surface with none being absorbed by the Ni particles. This seems unlikely to me. Bob - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014 11:38 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor This idea contributes the belief that the nickel particles are the source of heat production. What you are saying is that the particles caused heat to be generated somewhere else in the reactor, not in or near the nickel particles. How can the surface of the reactor sustain a temperature of 1420C if the nickel particles are cooler that that temperature. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: The left side (in Figure 1) 45-50mm of the reactor are much cooler than the heated core between the insulated supports. This end near the thermocouple plug probably never exceeded 700C. Particles that ended up there did not undergo as much sintering. As I recall the Lugano test particle was nearly 500 microns across and probably was that size due to substantial sintering with smaller particles. Sintering of Ni would still occur in the colder part. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: And yet, particle 1 which showed Ni62 transmutation also shower that the tubercle nano-surface was still in place after days of 1400C operation. Any ideas? On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: As someone who has first hand experience working with micro-scale carbonyl Ni powder, and treating these powders in a thermochemical reactor, I can tell you that what you are saying about the nickel particles is 100% wrong. Even these 4-10 micron scale nickel particles will sinter into a porous mass by heating at 500-700C. Ni melts at 1455C and the nano-scale features will all melt at about half of this temperature - the nanoscale features will ball-up onto the micro-scale nickel particle to which the feature may be attached. Any nanopowder of Ni present is melted before 800C and becomes a larger particle - and then condenses. And Rossi specifically says he does not use nickel nanopowder anyway. The same is true for other free nanoparticles. By the time the IH reactor is operating above 1000C, there are no nickel nanoparticles or nano-features of any kind left - they are all melted into larger agglomerations. I don't know what your experience is with, but it is not with nickel powder. Alumina does not store hydrogen in any significant measure.
Re: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor
this seems a mystery but maybe it is the key. as far as I understand your discussion, it seems impossible Ni particles surface structure stay stable even at 1000C... it won't be liquid, but will be aggregated too easily... when something works and there is something like a problem, maybe it is what make it work. the reaction came from a local abnormal structure in Ni or Pd , Ti, NiCu, ... I remember of codeposition experiments by spawar... now imagine an equivalent with Ni vapor? Ni is gaseous, at least evaporated, and forms particles with the NAE... the particle we see are regenerated. maybe is it why they are so strangely enriched. think about the Iwamura experiment... Pd on CaO works ? maybe Ni on Alumina works? ... people who say that it cannot be 1400C/1250C, have to admit that it would be incredibly lucky for IH to deliver a reactor that don't work and then have the testers measure abnormal temperature tht correct that anomaly... especially if Rossi is there and tune with a thermocouple retroaction the target temperature at 1250C without moaning... question is thus why it work, how it work... if particles cannot survive, maybe they don't . maybe the role of the alumina is to avoid particle to stick 2014-10-19 0:11 GMT+02:00 Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com: Axil-- Your question: How can the surface of the reactor sustain a temperature of 1420C if the nickel particles are cooler that that temperature. Answer---The energy is generated by the particles is radiant energy and all is absorbed by the alumina near the inner surface with none being absorbed by the Ni particles. This seems unlikely to me. Bob - Original Message - *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Saturday, October 18, 2014 11:38 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor This idea contributes the belief that the nickel particles are the source of heat production. What you are saying is that the particles caused heat to be generated somewhere else in the reactor, not in or near the nickel particles. How can the surface of the reactor sustain a temperature of 1420C if the nickel particles are cooler that that temperature. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: The left side (in Figure 1) 45-50mm of the reactor are much cooler than the heated core between the insulated supports. This end near the thermocouple plug probably never exceeded 700C. Particles that ended up there did not undergo as much sintering. As I recall the Lugano test particle was nearly 500 microns across and probably was that size due to substantial sintering with smaller particles. Sintering of Ni would still occur in the colder part. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: And yet, particle 1 which showed Ni62 transmutation also shower that the tubercle nano-surface was still in place after days of 1400C operation. Any ideas? On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: As someone who has first hand experience working with micro-scale carbonyl Ni powder, and treating these powders in a thermochemical reactor, I can tell you that what you are saying about the nickel particles is 100% wrong. Even these 4-10 micron scale nickel particles will sinter into a porous mass by heating at 500-700C. Ni melts at 1455C and the nano-scale features will all melt at about half of this temperature - the nanoscale features will ball-up onto the micro-scale nickel particle to which the feature may be attached. Any nanopowder of Ni present is melted before 800C and becomes a larger particle - and then condenses. And Rossi specifically says he does not use nickel nanopowder anyway. The same is true for other free nanoparticles. By the time the IH reactor is operating above 1000C, there are no nickel nanoparticles or nano-features of any kind left - they are all melted into larger agglomerations. I don't know what your experience is with, but it is not with nickel powder. Alumina does not store hydrogen in any significant measure.
Re: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor
What I am saying is that the reaction site it not hotter than its environs. Think about it like a microwave oven (only x-rays instead of microwaves). The oven walls don't initially get hot. The food inside gets hot from the microwave absorbtion and the IR from the food then heats up the walls of the oven. In the case of LENR, the alumina absorbs the x-rays from the LENR reaction heating up, then the reaction site gets hot from the IR radiation back on it so that the reaction site ultimately in the steady state is the same temperature as the alumina around it. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: This idea contributes the belief that the nickel particles are the source of heat production. What you are saying is that the particles caused heat to be generated somewhere else in the reactor, not in or near the nickel particles. How can the surface of the reactor sustain a temperature of 1420C if the nickel particles are cooler that that temperature. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: The left side (in Figure 1) 45-50mm of the reactor are much cooler than the heated core between the insulated supports. This end near the thermocouple plug probably never exceeded 700C. Particles that ended up there did not undergo as much sintering. As I recall the Lugano test particle was nearly 500 microns across and probably was that size due to substantial sintering with smaller particles. Sintering of Ni would still occur in the colder part. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: And yet, particle 1 which showed Ni62 transmutation also shower that the tubercle nano-surface was still in place after days of 1400C operation. Any ideas? On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: As someone who has first hand experience working with micro-scale carbonyl Ni powder, and treating these powders in a thermochemical reactor, I can tell you that what you are saying about the nickel particles is 100% wrong. Even these 4-10 micron scale nickel particles will sinter into a porous mass by heating at 500-700C. Ni melts at 1455C and the nano-scale features will all melt at about half of this temperature - the nanoscale features will ball-up onto the micro-scale nickel particle to which the feature may be attached. Any nanopowder of Ni present is melted before 800C and becomes a larger particle - and then condenses. And Rossi specifically says he does not use nickel nanopowder anyway. The same is true for other free nanoparticles. By the time the IH reactor is operating above 1000C, there are no nickel nanoparticles or nano-features of any kind left - they are all melted into larger agglomerations. I don't know what your experience is with, but it is not with nickel powder. Alumina does not store hydrogen in any significant measure.
Re: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor
if particles cannot survive, maybe they don't . [image: Image] Some particles come out of the reactor after a month of 1400C temperatures just as they when in, that is with tubercles. They are structurally intact. Go figure!!! On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 7:26 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: this seems a mystery but maybe it is the key. as far as I understand your discussion, it seems impossible Ni particles surface structure stay stable even at 1000C... it won't be liquid, but will be aggregated too easily... when something works and there is something like a problem, maybe it is what make it work. the reaction came from a local abnormal structure in Ni or Pd , Ti, NiCu, ... I remember of codeposition experiments by spawar... now imagine an equivalent with Ni vapor? Ni is gaseous, at least evaporated, and forms particles with the NAE... the particle we see are regenerated. maybe is it why they are so strangely enriched. think about the Iwamura experiment... Pd on CaO works ? maybe Ni on Alumina works? ... people who say that it cannot be 1400C/1250C, have to admit that it would be incredibly lucky for IH to deliver a reactor that don't work and then have the testers measure abnormal temperature tht correct that anomaly... especially if Rossi is there and tune with a thermocouple retroaction the target temperature at 1250C without moaning... question is thus why it work, how it work... if particles cannot survive, maybe they don't . maybe the role of the alumina is to avoid particle to stick 2014-10-19 0:11 GMT+02:00 Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com: Axil-- Your question: How can the surface of the reactor sustain a temperature of 1420C if the nickel particles are cooler that that temperature. Answer---The energy is generated by the particles is radiant energy and all is absorbed by the alumina near the inner surface with none being absorbed by the Ni particles. This seems unlikely to me. Bob - Original Message - *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Saturday, October 18, 2014 11:38 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor This idea contributes the belief that the nickel particles are the source of heat production. What you are saying is that the particles caused heat to be generated somewhere else in the reactor, not in or near the nickel particles. How can the surface of the reactor sustain a temperature of 1420C if the nickel particles are cooler that that temperature. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: The left side (in Figure 1) 45-50mm of the reactor are much cooler than the heated core between the insulated supports. This end near the thermocouple plug probably never exceeded 700C. Particles that ended up there did not undergo as much sintering. As I recall the Lugano test particle was nearly 500 microns across and probably was that size due to substantial sintering with smaller particles. Sintering of Ni would still occur in the colder part. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: And yet, particle 1 which showed Ni62 transmutation also shower that the tubercle nano-surface was still in place after days of 1400C operation. Any ideas? On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: As someone who has first hand experience working with micro-scale carbonyl Ni powder, and treating these powders in a thermochemical reactor, I can tell you that what you are saying about the nickel particles is 100% wrong. Even these 4-10 micron scale nickel particles will sinter into a porous mass by heating at 500-700C. Ni melts at 1455C and the nano-scale features will all melt at about half of this temperature - the nanoscale features will ball-up onto the micro-scale nickel particle to which the feature may be attached. Any nanopowder of Ni present is melted before 800C and becomes a larger particle - and then condenses. And Rossi specifically says he does not use nickel nanopowder anyway. The same is true for other free nanoparticles. By the time the IH reactor is operating above 1000C, there are no nickel nanoparticles or nano-features of any kind left - they are all melted into larger agglomerations. I don't know what your experience is with, but it is not with nickel powder. Alumina does not store hydrogen in any significant measure.
Re: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor
You are close to my thinking. However,what the micro particles produce is not x-rays but coherent magnetism at extreme strength. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 7:31 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: What I am saying is that the reaction site it not hotter than its environs. Think about it like a microwave oven (only x-rays instead of microwaves). The oven walls don't initially get hot. The food inside gets hot from the microwave absorbtion and the IR from the food then heats up the walls of the oven. In the case of LENR, the alumina absorbs the x-rays from the LENR reaction heating up, then the reaction site gets hot from the IR radiation back on it so that the reaction site ultimately in the steady state is the same temperature as the alumina around it. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: This idea contributes the belief that the nickel particles are the source of heat production. What you are saying is that the particles caused heat to be generated somewhere else in the reactor, not in or near the nickel particles. How can the surface of the reactor sustain a temperature of 1420C if the nickel particles are cooler that that temperature. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: The left side (in Figure 1) 45-50mm of the reactor are much cooler than the heated core between the insulated supports. This end near the thermocouple plug probably never exceeded 700C. Particles that ended up there did not undergo as much sintering. As I recall the Lugano test particle was nearly 500 microns across and probably was that size due to substantial sintering with smaller particles. Sintering of Ni would still occur in the colder part. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: And yet, particle 1 which showed Ni62 transmutation also shower that the tubercle nano-surface was still in place after days of 1400C operation. Any ideas? On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: As someone who has first hand experience working with micro-scale carbonyl Ni powder, and treating these powders in a thermochemical reactor, I can tell you that what you are saying about the nickel particles is 100% wrong. Even these 4-10 micron scale nickel particles will sinter into a porous mass by heating at 500-700C. Ni melts at 1455C and the nano-scale features will all melt at about half of this temperature - the nanoscale features will ball-up onto the micro-scale nickel particle to which the feature may be attached. Any nanopowder of Ni present is melted before 800C and becomes a larger particle - and then condenses. And Rossi specifically says he does not use nickel nanopowder anyway. The same is true for other free nanoparticles. By the time the IH reactor is operating above 1000C, there are no nickel nanoparticles or nano-features of any kind left - they are all melted into larger agglomerations. I don't know what your experience is with, but it is not with nickel powder. Alumina does not store hydrogen in any significant measure.
Re: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor
I am sure that there may be a Ni-X alloy that melts at higher temperature than pure Ni. The field is wide open. There is just not enough good concrete data or a theory to say what works and what doesn't. It appears that Rossi has something that works, but this Lugano report provides, once again, only obscure clues. The new hotCat powder could just as easily be a catalyzed zirconium because we just don't know what is needed to make it work. The directly measured input powder suggests that Li may play a role. Looking back at the ICP-MS analysis of the ash from Rossi's original recipe that Sven Kullander had done only recently came to my attention. There was Li in this ash. So Li may well play a role all the way back to Rossi's lower temperature recipe. In this case the Li would not be vapor - it is part of an alloy with the carbonyl Ni particles which either occurred during the reaction or in the prepared powder. I think a Li-Ni alloy on the surface of the carbonyl Ni powder could be a part of the fuel and I am looking for ways to dope the surface of my carbonyl Ni powder with Li in ways that will not mess up the high surface area of the carbonyl particles. I think as a community we should reproduce Rossi's earlier work before heading off on the hotCat trail. Rossi only made the hotCat after having long Edisonian experience with the lower temperature reaction. It is incredibly valuable to have a working formula as a starting point to be able to apply variations to the experiment and see the effects of the changes. Bob Higgins On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Bob-- Thanks for that clarification about the melting of small Ni particles. Are there any compounds or alloys of Ni that would not melt or sinter below say 1100 C? Since Rossi says he does not use Ni nano particles the fuel may be something else containing Ni that could be exposed to the Li at 1000 C in some reliable configuration. For example the following abstract suggests some possible substrates that would hold the Ni at temperature. Composite nano particles of Ni-TiC and Ni-TiN were prepared by an active plasma-metal reaction method. The structure and morphology were evaluated by X-ray diffraction and transmission electron microscopy observations. The morphology of the composite particles is dice-like or dumbbell-like, where the outer sides are metallic and the inner part of the rod (or dice)-like structure is TiC or TiN. The formation mechanism of the composite particles is considered by analogy to the VSL mechanism. *The thermal stability of the nanocomposite particles is vastly superior to that of the metal particle.* The excellent catalytic property of the Ni-TiN composite particle was confirmed when compared to the well-known Raney Ni particle and mixed particles of Ni and TiC. Note the increased thermal stability. Bob
Re: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor
The SEI assay on page 45 of the report shows a PURE nickel particle with tubercles that have been unaffected by heat having survived 32 days of destructive temperatures up to 1400C. Lithium 6 is a reaction ash. Lithium 7 is a secret sauce (SS) alkali metal additive, The older versions of Rossi's reactor most probably used potassium as the SS. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 7:45 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: I am sure that there may be a Ni-X alloy that melts at higher temperature than pure Ni. The field is wide open. There is just not enough good concrete data or a theory to say what works and what doesn't. It appears that Rossi has something that works, but this Lugano report provides, once again, only obscure clues. The new hotCat powder could just as easily be a catalyzed zirconium because we just don't know what is needed to make it work. The directly measured input powder suggests that Li may play a role. Looking back at the ICP-MS analysis of the ash from Rossi's original recipe that Sven Kullander had done only recently came to my attention. There was Li in this ash. So Li may well play a role all the way back to Rossi's lower temperature recipe. In this case the Li would not be vapor - it is part of an alloy with the carbonyl Ni particles which either occurred during the reaction or in the prepared powder. I think a Li-Ni alloy on the surface of the carbonyl Ni powder could be a part of the fuel and I am looking for ways to dope the surface of my carbonyl Ni powder with Li in ways that will not mess up the high surface area of the carbonyl particles. I think as a community we should reproduce Rossi's earlier work before heading off on the hotCat trail. Rossi only made the hotCat after having long Edisonian experience with the lower temperature reaction. It is incredibly valuable to have a working formula as a starting point to be able to apply variations to the experiment and see the effects of the changes. Bob Higgins On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Bob-- Thanks for that clarification about the melting of small Ni particles. Are there any compounds or alloys of Ni that would not melt or sinter below say 1100 C? Since Rossi says he does not use Ni nano particles the fuel may be something else containing Ni that could be exposed to the Li at 1000 C in some reliable configuration. For example the following abstract suggests some possible substrates that would hold the Ni at temperature. Composite nano particles of Ni-TiC and Ni-TiN were prepared by an active plasma-metal reaction method. The structure and morphology were evaluated by X-ray diffraction and transmission electron microscopy observations. The morphology of the composite particles is dice-like or dumbbell-like, where the outer sides are metallic and the inner part of the rod (or dice)-like structure is TiC or TiN. The formation mechanism of the composite particles is considered by analogy to the VSL mechanism. *The thermal stability of the nanocomposite particles is vastly superior to that of the metal particle.* The excellent catalytic property of the Ni-TiN composite particle was confirmed when compared to the well-known Raney Ni particle and mixed particles of Ni and TiC. Note the increased thermal stability. Bob
RE: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor
Another remote possibility should be mentioned, if real gain is found in this device… and that would be this: the basis of gain could be only SPP – surface plasmon polaritons. This species may be gainful in itself as it condenses. Electrons would be lost to the Dirac sea via SPP, for instance - but with a relic such as spin retained in 3-space. Again that may seem remote to you now, but to someone who has studied SPP it is more probable than magic gamma ray absorbers, the infamous gram of magic fuel for 30 days, magic internal cooling to protect the fuel, magic fuel rejuvenation of surface features, and the dozen or so other miracles necessary for this device to be related to nuclear fusion. What are the main objections to a SPP modality? Jones From: Bob Higgins … Think about it like a microwave oven (only x-rays instead of microwaves). The oven walls don't initially get hot. The food inside gets hot from the microwave absorbtion and the IR from the food then heats up the walls of the oven.
Re: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor
I like it. SPPs only live for a few picoseconds. They are half light and half electron. SPPs need to be vigorously pumped. If fusion feeds SPP creation we should see an increase in electrons as well as heat. As Rossi reported, he sees a large production of electrostatic charge in his reactor, Electrons are being created by SPP formation from the transformation of fusion energy into electrons, When a Hot-Cat melts down or runs in self sustained mode, the pumping of SPPs come entirely from fusion. No external power is required. I would drain of those excess electrons off as a source of current as done in the Papp engine. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Another remote possibility should be mentioned, if real gain is found in this device… and that would be this: the basis of gain could be only SPP – surface plasmon polaritons. This species may be gainful in itself as it condenses. Electrons would be lost to the Dirac sea via SPP, for instance - but with a relic such as spin retained in 3-space. Again that may seem remote to you now, but to someone who has studied SPP it is more probable than magic gamma ray absorbers, the infamous gram of magic fuel for 30 days, magic internal cooling to protect the fuel, magic fuel rejuvenation of surface features, and the dozen or so other miracles necessary for this device to be related to nuclear fusion. What are the main objections to a SPP modality? Jones *From:* Bob Higgins … Think about it like a microwave oven (only x-rays instead of microwaves). The oven walls don't initially get hot. The food inside gets hot from the microwave absorbtion and the IR from the food then heats up the walls of the oven.
RE: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor
From: Axil I like it. SPPs only live for a few picoseconds. They are half light and half electron. SPPs need to be vigorously pumped. If fusion feeds SPP creation we should see an increase in electrons as well as heat. Since this reactor depends on continuous electrical input to sustain an incandescent filament, the current alone should be able to vigorously pump SPP and increase electron charge. The reactor may float at substantial charge above ground. As Rossi reported, he sees a large production of electrostatic charge in his reactor, Electrons are being created by SPP formation from the transformation of fusion energy into electrons Fusion energy may not be necessary. Does the Levi team mention electrostatic charge? When a Hot-Cat melts down or runs in self sustained mode, the pumping of SPPs come entirely from fusion. No external power is required. That was the previous design and is not the case here, since the reaction stops when the power stops. This may be a different kind of Hot-Cat than the one previously seen with the steel casing. A steel reactor would be grounded, reducing charge accumulation. Another remote possibility should be mentioned, if real gain is found in this device… and that would be this: the basis of gain could be only SPP – surface plasmon polaritons. This species may be gainful in itself as it condenses. Electrons would be lost to the Dirac sea via SPP, for instance - but with a relic such as spin retained in 3-space. Jones
Re: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor
It is unlikely that the SAME micro-scale features would re-appear - at least in Rossi's historical carbonyl process Ni particles. The particle shape with the high external surface area is a unique outcome from precipitatation from a highly volatile liquid. As the temperature rises to 500C, nickel will first sinter with the sharp edges dulling and adjacent particles growing together. After a melt, it will recrystalize into a smoother shape. What grows on its surface will depend on the chemistry inside the cell and the temperature. You have to do something to passivate the particles to keep them from sintering into a solid bulk at 500C. What I do is sugar-coat (with Fe2O3 nanopowder) the particles and this keeps them totally sintering together. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: By the time the IH reactor is operating above 1000C, there are no nickel nanoparticles or nano-features of any kind left - they are all melted into larger agglomerations. Is it possible that the micro-scale features in the Ni might reappear upon recrystallization? Eric
Re: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor
Fusion must be involved because there is all kinds of transmutations taking place. If the energy came from the vacuum, then no ash would be generated and the reactor will not need a fuel recharge to function. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 8:39 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Axil I like it. SPPs only live for a few picoseconds. They are half light and half electron. SPPs need to be vigorously pumped. If fusion feeds SPP creation we should see an increase in electrons as well as heat. Since this reactor depends on continuous electrical input to sustain an incandescent filament, the current alone should be able to vigorously pump SPP and increase electron charge. The reactor may float at substantial charge above ground. As Rossi reported, he sees a large production of electrostatic charge in his reactor, Electrons are being created by SPP formation from the transformation of fusion energy into electrons Fusion energy may not be necessary. Does the Levi team mention electrostatic charge? When a Hot-Cat melts down or runs in self sustained mode, the pumping of SPPs come entirely from fusion. No external power is required. That was the previous design and is not the case here, since the reaction stops when the power stops. This may be a different kind of Hot-Cat than the one previously seen with the steel casing. A steel reactor would be grounded, reducing charge accumulation. Another remote possibility should be mentioned, if real gain is found in this device… and that would be this: the basis of gain could be only SPP – surface plasmon polaritons. This species may be gainful in itself as it condenses. Electrons would be lost to the Dirac sea via SPP, for instance - but with a relic such as spin retained in 3-space. Jones
Re: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor
See my previous reply to Eric. Bare Ni will sinter together into a low porosity bulk at 500C. Coating the Ni particles with the Fe2O3 nanopowder before they ever get hot prevents large scale sintering. The tubercles that Rossi described during growth are micron-scale features. These are not active themselves, just a marker of the thermochemical processing. I have seen these myself. These do not melt like nanoscale features. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Bob Higgins: Even these 4-10 micron scale nickel particles will sinter into a porous mass by heating at 500-700C. Rossi uses micro particles in the 2 to 10 micron range. The nano structured surface tubercles coating will melt at lower temperatures that the sintering of the entire particle. This coat was seen to be intact in photos of these micro-particles from the TPT. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Bob-- Thanks for that clarification about the melting of small Ni particles. Are there any compounds or alloys of Ni that would not melt or sinter below say 1100 C? Since Rossi says he does not use Ni nano particles the fuel may be something else containing Ni that could be exposed to the Li at 1000 C in some reliable configuration. For example the following abstract suggests some possible substrates that would hold the Ni at temperature. Composite nano particles of Ni-TiC and Ni-TiN were prepared by an active plasma-metal reaction method. The structure and morphology were evaluated by X-ray diffraction and transmission electron microscopy observations. The morphology of the composite particles is dice-like or dumbbell-like, where the outer sides are metallic and the inner part of the rod (or dice)-like structure is TiC or TiN. The formation mechanism of the composite particles is considered by analogy to the VSL mechanism. *The thermal stability of the nanocomposite particles is vastly superior to that of the metal particle.* The excellent catalytic property of the Ni-TiN composite particle was confirmed when compared to the well-known Raney Ni particle and mixed particles of Ni and TiC. Note the increased thermal stability. Bob
Re: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor
Maybe this low temperature sintering particle behavior is the reason why Rossi takes so much time to start the E-Cat going. He needs to get the magic going before the nickel particles are destroyed by heat, On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: It is unlikely that the SAME micro-scale features would re-appear - at least in Rossi's historical carbonyl process Ni particles. The particle shape with the high external surface area is a unique outcome from precipitatation from a highly volatile liquid. As the temperature rises to 500C, nickel will first sinter with the sharp edges dulling and adjacent particles growing together. After a melt, it will recrystalize into a smoother shape. What grows on its surface will depend on the chemistry inside the cell and the temperature. You have to do something to passivate the particles to keep them from sintering into a solid bulk at 500C. What I do is sugar-coat (with Fe2O3 nanopowder) the particles and this keeps them totally sintering together. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: By the time the IH reactor is operating above 1000C, there are no nickel nanoparticles or nano-features of any kind left - they are all melted into larger agglomerations. Is it possible that the micro-scale features in the Ni might reappear upon recrystallization? Eric
Re: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor
*These do not melt like nanoscale features.* What is the temperature at which these surface features are destroyed? On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 8:50 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: See my previous reply to Eric. Bare Ni will sinter together into a low porosity bulk at 500C. Coating the Ni particles with the Fe2O3 nanopowder before they ever get hot prevents large scale sintering. The tubercles that Rossi described during growth are micron-scale features. These are not active themselves, just a marker of the thermochemical processing. I have seen these myself. These do not melt like nanoscale features. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Bob Higgins: Even these 4-10 micron scale nickel particles will sinter into a porous mass by heating at 500-700C. Rossi uses micro particles in the 2 to 10 micron range. The nano structured surface tubercles coating will melt at lower temperatures that the sintering of the entire particle. This coat was seen to be intact in photos of these micro-particles from the TPT. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Bob-- Thanks for that clarification about the melting of small Ni particles. Are there any compounds or alloys of Ni that would not melt or sinter below say 1100 C? Since Rossi says he does not use Ni nano particles the fuel may be something else containing Ni that could be exposed to the Li at 1000 C in some reliable configuration. For example the following abstract suggests some possible substrates that would hold the Ni at temperature. Composite nano particles of Ni-TiC and Ni-TiN were prepared by an active plasma-metal reaction method. The structure and morphology were evaluated by X-ray diffraction and transmission electron microscopy observations. The morphology of the composite particles is dice-like or dumbbell-like, where the outer sides are metallic and the inner part of the rod (or dice)-like structure is TiC or TiN. The formation mechanism of the composite particles is considered by analogy to the VSL mechanism. *The thermal stability of the nanocomposite particles is vastly superior to that of the metal particle.* The excellent catalytic property of the Ni-TiN composite particle was confirmed when compared to the well-known Raney Ni particle and mixed particles of Ni and TiC. Note the increased thermal stability. Bob
Re: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor
Magnetism is even less likely the cause at the temperature of the hotCat. It is one thing to ascribe coherent effects at temperatures of 400C (being improbable there), but by the time you get over 1000C, it is hard to imagine being able to maintain any kind of condensed matter alignment that could support a magnetic field enhancement. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: You are close to my thinking. However,what the micro particles produce is not x-rays but coherent magnetism at extreme strength. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 7:31 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: What I am saying is that the reaction site it not hotter than its environs. Think about it like a microwave oven (only x-rays instead of microwaves). The oven walls don't initially get hot. The food inside gets hot from the microwave absorbtion and the IR from the food then heats up the walls of the oven. In the case of LENR, the alumina absorbs the x-rays from the LENR reaction heating up, then the reaction site gets hot from the IR radiation back on it so that the reaction site ultimately in the steady state is the same temperature as the alumina around it. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: This idea contributes the belief that the nickel particles are the source of heat production. What you are saying is that the particles caused heat to be generated somewhere else in the reactor, not in or near the nickel particles. How can the surface of the reactor sustain a temperature of 1420C if the nickel particles are cooler that that temperature. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: The left side (in Figure 1) 45-50mm of the reactor are much cooler than the heated core between the insulated supports. This end near the thermocouple plug probably never exceeded 700C. Particles that ended up there did not undergo as much sintering. As I recall the Lugano test particle was nearly 500 microns across and probably was that size due to substantial sintering with smaller particles. Sintering of Ni would still occur in the colder part. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: And yet, particle 1 which showed Ni62 transmutation also shower that the tubercle nano-surface was still in place after days of 1400C operation. Any ideas? On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: As someone who has first hand experience working with micro-scale carbonyl Ni powder, and treating these powders in a thermochemical reactor, I can tell you that what you are saying about the nickel particles is 100% wrong. Even these 4-10 micron scale nickel particles will sinter into a porous mass by heating at 500-700C. Ni melts at 1455C and the nano-scale features will all melt at about half of this temperature - the nanoscale features will ball-up onto the micro-scale nickel particle to which the feature may be attached. Any nanopowder of Ni present is melted before 800C and becomes a larger particle - and then condenses. And Rossi specifically says he does not use nickel nanopowder anyway. The same is true for other free nanoparticles. By the time the IH reactor is operating above 1000C, there are no nickel nanoparticles or nano-features of any kind left - they are all melted into larger agglomerations. I don't know what your experience is with, but it is not with nickel powder. Alumina does not store hydrogen in any significant measure.
RE: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor
BTW – the beauty of an SPP hypothesis is that - not only is it falsifiable, but the proof or disproof will happen in about 6 days if everything goes well. If the MFMP puts together a “dummy” reactor - and it is even slightly gainful, then of course the mystery will be solved. From: Axil Fusion must be involved because there is all kinds of transmutations taking place. If the energy came from the vacuum, then no ash would be generated and the reactor will not need a fuel recharge to function. A better explanation for the transmutation is that isotopes have been salted into the sample which were there at the start. If there was real transmutation there would be radioactive daughters in the ash. There were none. From: Axil I like it. SPPs only live for a few picoseconds. They are half light and half electron. SPPs need to be vigorously pumped. If fusion feeds SPP creation we should see an increase in electrons as well as heat. Since this reactor depends on continuous electrical input to sustain an incandescent filament, the current alone should be able to vigorously pump SPP and increase electron charge. The reactor may float at substantial charge above ground. As Rossi reported, he sees a large production of electrostatic charge in his reactor, Electrons are being created by SPP formation from the transformation of fusion energy into electrons Fusion energy may not be necessary. Does the Levi team mention electrostatic charge? When a Hot-Cat melts down or runs in self sustained mode, the pumping of SPPs come entirely from fusion. No external power is required. That was the previous design and is not the case here, since the reaction stops when the power stops. This may be a different kind of Hot-Cat than the one previously seen with the steel casing. A steel reactor would be grounded, reducing charge accumulation. Another remote possibility should be mentioned, if real gain is found in this device… and that would be this: the basis of gain could be only SPP – surface plasmon polaritons. This species may be gainful in itself as it condenses. Electrons would be lost to the Dirac sea via SPP, for instance - but with a relic such as spin retained in 3-space. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor
Tubercles is a nebulous description. You could call those features tubercles, but I do not. They are not tubes at all. I have seen tubes (hence my belief that I saw tubercles in my powder and they were at larger scale (pictures are in my paper). Only Rossi can say which he intended as tubercles. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The SEI assay on page 45 of the report shows a PURE nickel particle with tubercles that have been unaffected by heat having survived 32 days of destructive temperatures up to 1400C. Lithium 6 is a reaction ash. Lithium 7 is a secret sauce (SS) alkali metal additive, The older versions of Rossi's reactor most probably used potassium as the SS.
Re: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor
How do SPPs convey the heat away from the NAE so that the nanoscale is NOT the hottest spot? SPPs normally attenuate at very small scale, and the attenuation is electromagnetic absorption of the lossy plasmon waveguide. If the NAE is the hottest spot in the reactor, then there could never be a meltdown because the NAE would evaporate before the macro-scale apparatus got hot enough to melt. It is only if the heat is conveyed away from the NAE that in a short term high output burst that the NAE could heat its environment hotter than itself and cause a meltdown. In steady state, the NAE eventually heats back to the temperature of the environment by radiant IR heating and convection. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 6:08 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Another remote possibility should be mentioned, if real gain is found in this device… and that would be this: the basis of gain could be only SPP – surface plasmon polaritons. This species may be gainful in itself as it condenses. Electrons would be lost to the Dirac sea via SPP, for instance - but with a relic such as spin retained in 3-space. Again that may seem remote to you now, but to someone who has studied SPP it is more probable than magic gamma ray absorbers, the infamous gram of magic fuel for 30 days, magic internal cooling to protect the fuel, magic fuel rejuvenation of surface features, and the dozen or so other miracles necessary for this device to be related to nuclear fusion. What are the main objections to a SPP modality? Jones *From:* Bob Higgins … Think about it like a microwave oven (only x-rays instead of microwaves). The oven walls don't initially get hot. The food inside gets hot from the microwave absorbtion and the IR from the food then heats up the walls of the oven.
Re: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor
No radioactive isotopes production is another LENR miracle. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: BTW – the beauty of an SPP hypothesis is that - not only is it falsifiable, but the proof or disproof will happen in about 6 days if everything goes well. If the MFMP puts together a “dummy” reactor - and it is even slightly gainful, then of course the mystery will be solved. From: Axil Fusion must be involved because there is all kinds of transmutations taking place. If the energy came from the vacuum, then no ash would be generated and the reactor will not need a fuel recharge to function. A better explanation for the transmutation is that isotopes have been salted into the sample which were there at the start. If there was real transmutation there would be radioactive daughters in the ash. There were none. From: Axil I like it. SPPs only live for a few picoseconds. They are half light and half electron. SPPs need to be vigorously pumped. If fusion feeds SPP creation we should see an increase in electrons as well as heat. Since this reactor depends on continuous electrical input to sustain an incandescent filament, the current alone should be able to vigorously pump SPP and increase electron charge. The reactor may float at substantial charge above ground. As Rossi reported, he sees a large production of electrostatic charge in his reactor, Electrons are being created by SPP formation from the transformation of fusion energy into electrons Fusion energy may not be necessary. Does the Levi team mention electrostatic charge? When a Hot-Cat melts down or runs in self sustained mode, the pumping of SPPs come entirely from fusion. No external power is required. That was the previous design and is not the case here, since the reaction stops when the power stops. This may be a different kind of Hot-Cat than the one previously seen with the steel casing. A steel reactor would be grounded, reducing charge accumulation. Another remote possibility should be mentioned, if real gain is found in this device… and that would be this: the basis of gain could be only SPP – surface plasmon polaritons. This species may be gainful in itself as it condenses. Electrons would be lost to the Dirac sea via SPP, for instance - but with a relic such as spin retained in 3-space. Jones
Re: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor
The entire volume of the reactor is a SPP condensate. This condensate acts as one super atom where all its parts have the same temperature. As heat is input into the condensate, all the SPP share in the temperature rise and the temperature of the system goes evenly up as one unit without hot spots. The magnetic field that cases the gainful nuclear reaction bring that energy directly to the local SPP and that SPP shares it newfound energy windfall with all his brothers. The is a positive feedback loop where heat begets more SPPs and that makes for more nuclear reactions. But there is a limit to the amount of energy that the structure of the reactor can take. The reactor will vaporize. The steel will vaporize and condense into micro droplets and the alumina will turn to rubies. From Rossi as follows: Andrea Rossi December 28th, 2013 at 8:32 PM James Bowery: Very sorry, I cannot answer to this question exhaustively, but I can say something. Obviously, the experiments are made with total respect of the safety of my team and myself. During the destructive tests we arrived to reach temperatures in the range of 2,000 Celsius degrees, when the “mouse” excited too much the E-Cat, and it is gone out of control, in the sense that we have not been able to stop the raise of the temperature ( we arrived on purpose to that level, because we wanted to study this kind of situation). A nuclear Physicist, analysing the registration of the data, has calculated that the increase of temperature (from 1,000 Celsius to 2,000 Celsius in about 10 seconds), considering the surface that has increased of such temperature, has implied a power of 1 MW, while the Mouse had a mean power of 1.3 kW. Look at the photo you have given the link of, and imagine that the cylinder was cherry red, then in 10 seconds all the cylinder became white-blue, starting from the white dot you see in the photo ( after 1 second) becoming totally white-blue in the following 9 seconds, and then an explosion and the ceramic inside ( which is a ceramic that melts at 2,000 Celsius) turned into a red, brilliant stone, like a ruby. When we opened the reactor, part of the AISI 310 ss steel was not molten, but sublimated and recondensed in form of microscopic drops of steel. Warm Regards, A.R. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: How do SPPs convey the heat away from the NAE so that the nanoscale is NOT the hottest spot? SPPs normally attenuate at very small scale, and the attenuation is electromagnetic absorption of the lossy plasmon waveguide. If the NAE is the hottest spot in the reactor, then there could never be a meltdown because the NAE would evaporate before the macro-scale apparatus got hot enough to melt. It is only if the heat is conveyed away from the NAE that in a short term high output burst that the NAE could heat its environment hotter than itself and cause a meltdown. In steady state, the NAE eventually heats back to the temperature of the environment by radiant IR heating and convection. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 6:08 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Another remote possibility should be mentioned, if real gain is found in this device… and that would be this: the basis of gain could be only SPP – surface plasmon polaritons. This species may be gainful in itself as it condenses. Electrons would be lost to the Dirac sea via SPP, for instance - but with a relic such as spin retained in 3-space. Again that may seem remote to you now, but to someone who has studied SPP it is more probable than magic gamma ray absorbers, the infamous gram of magic fuel for 30 days, magic internal cooling to protect the fuel, magic fuel rejuvenation of surface features, and the dozen or so other miracles necessary for this device to be related to nuclear fusion. What are the main objections to a SPP modality? Jones *From:* Bob Higgins … Think about it like a microwave oven (only x-rays instead of microwaves). The oven walls don't initially get hot. The food inside gets hot from the microwave absorbtion and the IR from the food then heats up the walls of the oven.
RE: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor
From: Bob Higgins How do SPPs convey the heat away from the NAE so that the nanoscale is NOT the hottest spot? SPPs normally attenuate at very small scale, and the attenuation is electromagnetic absorption of the lossy plasmon waveguide. If the NAE is the hottest spot in the reactor, then there could never be a meltdown because the NAE would evaporate before the macro-scale apparatus got hot enough to melt. The SPP “independent gain hypothesis” would work with no nuclear tie-in – a Dirac sea explanation for at least that part of the gain. This is radical but it fits the facts of no gamma, no radioactive ash, need for constant and large electrical input, need for mostly ceramics and little metal, etc. and even the alumina tubes. The most important thing of interest is that - since the MFMP is going to build a “dummy” reactor – they could see the evidence of SPP gain, without added nickel, hydrogen, lithium or any other “fuel”- if they know what to look for. Unfortunately, this would mean that meaningful calibration cannot be accomplished with the dummy, as it is now seen to be active above a trigger temperature, which is the active photon going into superradiance. The $64 is what is the value of this photon. NASA has seen the photon at 27 THz (wavelength 10.5 microns) which corresponds to 1050 C, but that could be because of different conditions in their experiment. Perhaps there are varying factors of superradiance which make a broad range of photons candidates for SPP interaction. First, MFMP would need to chart a comparison of IR radiation at the camera wavelength along with a real temperature profile, done with a platinum thermocouple, which confirms the calculated gain. Then they would need to look for a large jump in the IR profile which coincides with the incandescence of the SPP light at superradiance. It is safe to surmise that this semi-coherence happens about 1050 C. If they see a big jump there, then we have explained a major part of the conundrum. If they find even slight gain (COP 1.2 or so) then that will indicate a non-nuclear modality which could affect nuclear reactions later. If the gain is large enough, a nuclear secondary reaction is superfluous. It is only if the heat is conveyed away from the NAE that in a short term high output burst that the NAE could heat its environment hotter than itself and cause a meltdown. The previous hot cats which were all in stainless jackets were subject to meltdown, but I can find reference to the ceramic one being in a meltdown. It seems to be in better control or Rossi would not have left it there. Perhaps the breakthrough of Rossi, if there is one, is to get away from a nuclear pathway altogether, and this one is not nuclear at all. (but he wants you to think it is). Another remote possibility should be mentioned, if real gain is found in this device… and that would be this: the basis of gain could be only SPP – surface plasmon polaritons. This species may be gainful in itself as it condenses. Electrons would be lost to the Dirac sea via SPP, for instance - but with a relic such as spin retained in 3-space. Again that may seem remote to you now, but to someone who has studied SPP it is more probable than magic gamma ray absorbers, the infamous gram of magic fuel for 30 days, magic internal cooling to protect the fuel, magic fuel rejuvenation of surface features, and the dozen or so other miracles necessary for this device to be related to nuclear fusion. What are the main objections to a SPP modality? Jones From: Bob Higgins … Think about it like a microwave oven (only x-rays instead of microwaves). The oven walls don't initially get hot. The food inside gets hot from the microwave absorbtion and the IR from the food then heats up the walls of the oven.
RE: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor
One thing worth adding – Rossi is said to use a sintered instead of a fused alumina tube. This could be an important detail in superradiance, since the particle size of the alumina before sintering would influence emissivity. For instance, if the tube was made from 10-11 micron alumina powder, then that could favor NASA mentioning a parameter of 27 THz… however, that could be merely one of many coherency ranges which work for SPP… and not a favored range. The SPP “independent gain hypothesis” would work with no nuclear tie-in – a Dirac sea explanation for at least that part of the gain. This is radical but it fits the facts of no gamma, no radioactive ash, need for constant and large electrical input, need for mostly ceramics and little metal, etc. and even the alumina tubes. The most important thing of interest is that - since the MFMP is going to build a “dummy” reactor – they could see the evidence of SPP gain, without added nickel, hydrogen, lithium or any other “fuel”- if they know what to look for. Unfortunately, this would mean that meaningful calibration cannot be accomplished with the dummy, as it is now seen to be active above a trigger temperature, which is the active photon going into superradiance. The $64 is what is the value of this photon. NASA has seen the photon at 27 THz (wavelength 10.5 microns) which corresponds to 1050 C, but that could be because of different conditions in their experiment. Perhaps there are varying factors of superradiance which make a broad range of photons candidates for SPP interaction. First, MFMP would need to chart a comparison of IR radiation at the camera wavelength along with a real temperature profile, done with a platinum thermocouple, which confirms the calculated gain. Then they would need to look for a large jump in the IR profile which coincides with the incandescence of the SPP light at superradiance. It is safe to surmise that this semi-coherence happens about 1050 C. If they see a big jump there, then we have explained a major part of the conundrum. If they find even slight gain (COP 1.2 or so) then that will indicate a non-nuclear modality which could affect nuclear reactions later. If the gain is large enough, a nuclear secondary reaction is superfluous. It is only if the heat is conveyed away from the NAE that in a short term high output burst that the NAE could heat its environment hotter than itself and cause a meltdown. The previous hot cats which were all in stainless jackets were subject to meltdown, but I can find reference to the ceramic one being in a meltdown. It seems to be in better control or Rossi would not have left it there. Perhaps the breakthrough of Rossi, if there is one, is to get away from a nuclear pathway altogether, and this one is not nuclear at all. (but he wants you to think it is). Another remote possibility should be mentioned, if real gain is found in this device… and that would be this: the basis of gain could be only SPP – surface plasmon polaritons. This species may be gainful in itself as it condenses. Electrons would be lost to the Dirac sea via SPP, for instance - but with a relic such as spin retained in 3-space. Again that may seem remote to you now, but to someone who has studied SPP it is more probable than magic gamma ray absorbers, the infamous gram of magic fuel for 30 days, magic internal cooling to protect the fuel, magic fuel rejuvenation of surface features, and the dozen or so other miracles necessary for this device to be related to nuclear fusion. What are the main objections to a SPP modality? Jones From: Bob Higgins … Think about it like a microwave oven (only x-rays instead of microwaves). The oven walls don't initially get hot. The food inside gets hot from the microwave absorbtion and the IR from the food then heats up the walls of the oven. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor
But what about the conservation of energy? What mass is being depleted in order to release the energy? No one has ever shown proof that energy can appear out of nowhere and continue to exist. I suggest that the true source will be uncovered one day and it will be associated with a depletion of fuel mass. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Oct 18, 2014 10:48 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor One thing worth adding – Rossi is said to use a sintered instead of a fused alumina tube. This could be an important detail in superradiance, since the particle size of the alumina before sintering would influence emissivity. For instance, if the tube was made from 10-11 micron alumina powder, then that could favor NASA mentioning a parameter of 27 THz… however, that could be merely one of many coherency ranges which work for SPP… and not a favored range. The SPP “independent gain hypothesis” would work with no nuclear tie-in – a Dirac sea explanation for at least that part of the gain. This is radical but it fits the facts of no gamma, no radioactive ash, need for constant and large electrical input, need for mostly ceramics and little metal, etc. and even the alumina tubes. The most important thing of interest is that - since the MFMP is going to build a “dummy” reactor – they could see the evidence of SPP gain, without added nickel, hydrogen, lithium or any other “fuel”- if they know what to look for. Unfortunately, this would mean that meaningful calibration cannot be accomplished with the dummy, as it is now seen to be active above a trigger temperature, which is the active photon going into superradiance. The $64 is what is the value of this photon. NASA has seen the photon at 27 THz (wavelength 10.5 microns) which corresponds to 1050 C, but that could be because of different conditions in their experiment. Perhaps there are varying factors of superradiance which make a broad range of photons candidates for SPP interaction. First, MFMP would need to chart a comparison of IR radiation at the camera wavelength along with a real temperature profile, done with a platinum thermocouple, which confirms the calculated gain. Then they would need to look for a large jump in the IR profile which coincides with the incandescence of the SPP light at superradiance. It is safe to surmise that this semi-coherence happens about 1050 C. If they see a big jump there, then we have explained a major part of the conundrum. If they find even slight gain (COP 1.2 or so) then that will indicate a non-nuclear modality which could affect nuclear reactions later. If the gain is large enough, a nuclear secondary reaction is superfluous. It is only if the heat is conveyed away from the NAE that in a short term high output burst that the NAE could heat its environment hotter than itself and cause a meltdown. The previous hot cats which were all in stainless jackets were subject to meltdown, but I can find reference to the ceramic one being in a meltdown. It seems to be in better control or Rossi would not have left it there. Perhaps the breakthrough of Rossi, if there is one, is to get away from a nuclear pathway altogether, and this one is not nuclear at all. (but he wants you to think it is). Another remote possibility should be mentioned, if real gain is found in this device… and that would be this: the basis of gain could be only SPP – surface plasmon polaritons. This species may be gainful in itself as it condenses. Electrons would be lost to the Dirac sea via SPP, for instance - but with a relic such as spin retained in 3-space. Again that may seem remote to you now, but to someone who has studied SPP it is more probable than magic gamma ray absorbers, the infamous gram of magic fuel for 30 days, magic internal cooling to protect the fuel, magic fuel rejuvenation of surface features, and the dozen or so other miracles necessary for this device to be related to nuclear fusion. What are the main objections to a SPP modality? Jones From: Bob Higgins … Think about it like a microwave oven (only x-rays instead of microwaves). The oven walls don't initially get hot. The food inside gets hot from the microwave absorbtion and the IR from the food then heats up the walls of the oven.
RE: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor
From: David Roberson * But what about the conservation of energy? What mass is being depleted in order to release the energy? Electron mass – 511 keV. The Dirac sea of negative energy is the repository in this suggestion - that intense field of the SPP is analogous to being a “wormhole” for depleting electrons via this field http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_sea
