Re: [Vo]:Uploaded Mengoli Ni-H paper

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> I assume heat after death is sustained by hydrogen or deuterium outgassing
> from a hydride, and reacting near the surface. The heat only lasts as long
> as it takes outgas. That's Ed Storms' hypothesis. It is surprising that it
> took 3 days to outgas from nickel, because it does not hold much gas.
>

Jean-Paul Biberian told me this is sintered nickel with small crystals. He
has seen this kind of material load up to 50% with gas loading. So it holds
a lot more hydrogen than I realized.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Uploaded Mengoli Ni-H paper

[Jed Rothwell]

JonesBeene  wrote:


> This is a surprisingly thorough and fair paper but it is twenty years old.
> It begs to be updated.
>

I believe the authors stopped working on this long ago. There is nothing
for them to update.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Uploaded Mengoli Ni-H paper

[Jed Rothwell]

Note that this paper describes a 3-day heat after death event, on p. 16:

The plain curve of fig. 9 emphasizes both the remarkable temperature
increase paralleling electrolysis (I = 0.150 A) and a quite unexpected
phenomenon: after 240 min of electrolysis, in o.c. conditions, the
electrolyte temperature did not decrease to its original value. In other
words, the system showed a persistent thermal “after effect”: 0.300 W were
still emitted by the electrode 4000 min after the cell had been taken to
o.c.


The terminology is a little obscure:

"After effect" means heat after death.

o.c. means open circuit; i.e. turned off.

4000 min = 66 hours or ~3 days. That is the longest Ni-H heat after death
event I have ever heard of. The few other heat after death events with Ni-H
are reported in other papers, but I do not recall any as long as this.

I assume heat after death is sustained by hydrogen or deuterium outgassing
from a hydride, and reacting near the surface. The heat only lasts as long
as it takes outgas. That's Ed Storms' hypothesis. It is surprising that it
took 3 days to outgas from nickel, because it does not hold much gas. It is
indeed "quite unexpected" as the authors say.

Look carefully at Fig. 9, p. 17 to see what the authors mean.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Uploaded Mengoli Ni-H paper

[JonesBeene]

From: Jed Rothwell

➢ This is one of the most comprehensive papers about Ni-H cold fusion:

Mengoli, G., et al., Anomalous heat effects correlated with electrochemical 
hydriding of nickel. Nuovo Cimento Soc. Ital. Fis. A, 1998. 20 D: p. 331

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MengoliGanomaloush.pdf

➢ I have some doubts about this work, but I will refrain from discussing it for 
now, and let the readers decide.


This is a surprisingly thorough and fair paper but it is twenty years old. It 
begs to be updated. 

Among the controversial conclusions from 1998  there are several worth noting. 
First there is this: “Compared with the number of negative papers denying the 
Fleischmann-Pons effect, very few negative results on the H2O-Ni system have 
been reported”. The authors go on to reject Mills rationale and also that of 
Bush saying that “The nature of the thermal phenomenon is still very obscure. 
Mills’ hypothesis is ruled out, at least for the catalytic cycle involving 
potassium, by the positive results achieved here with Na2CO3 electrolyte. 
Bush’s hypothesis of “alkali-hydrogen fusion” is ruled out by the occurrence of 
substantial after-effects [the so-called heat-after- death phenomenon]. END of 
quote.

I think this highlights the disagreement from those who want the field to be 
related to “cold fusion” with heat coming from a P nuclear fusion event – in 
contrast with the view of others who accept that excess heat can result from an 
unknown non-nuclear mechanism – and that fusion is not proven to occur. 
However, there could be more than one type of anomaly which includes a side 
effect of “occasional fusion” (rare fusion due to QM tunneling - which serves 
to obscure the main effect)

Mengoli et al say the only relevant dynamic which coordinates well with excess 
heat is simply the formation of hydride and there is no indication of anything 
nuclear. Hydride formation is chemical - and for it so show the level of excess 
heat over extended periods – above that of chemistry and also for this not to 
show signs of fusion means that actual phenomenon for thermal gain was not yet 
imagined back in 1998... or else that Mills theory can be modified in some way 
(Holmlid provides the way).

If this paper were to be updated in the context of Holmlid, then a new 
possibility emerges. That explanation would begin with hydride and progress to 
a dense storable form of hydrogen – UDH. The formation of UDH alone produces 
slight thermal gain but less than nuclear. A massive amount of thermal gain due 
to hot fusion can be realized from reacting UDH with laser ignition.

 If Holmlid is correct on this last point, then the merger of cold fusion with 
hot fusion has already happened and this will become the new paradigm of 
physics.