Re: [Vo]:Mills critical critiques on LENR: a mixture of nickel and lithium aluminum hydride
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 29 Dec 2014 10:06:31 -0800: Hi, [snip] First, we can note that after the hydrogen is released from LiAlH4, the lithium remains alloyed to aluminum, since there is no intrinsic mechanism to separate the metals below the Li boiling point of 1342 °C which is closely approached, and this is notably where maximum COP occurs for Parkhomov. In an alloy, lithium atoms near the boiling point would react differently than as an element. Near-phase-change could be the key to the exotherm and to promoting double ionization of Li. According to wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_hydride) a less common method of the preparation of LiH is by heating LiAlH4 (200 ºC). Furthermore: Thus removal of H2 requires high temperatures, well above the 700 °C used for its synthesis. ...so it would seem that at 1300 ºC it ought to decompose readily enough. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Mills critical critiques on LENR: a mixture of nickel and lithium aluminum hydride
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 29 Dec 2014 10:06:31 -0800: Hi, [snip] To back up a bit as far back as the early nineties, lithium was claimed to be responsible for most of the energy gain in electrolytic reactions, since as an doubly positive ion, Li has the characteristic energy hole define by Mills for promoting ground state redundancy. The first IP is 5.4 eV and the second is 75.64 eV and together, they present a deficit which is very close to the value of (3 x 27.2 = 81.6 eV). Nickel provides two more holes so the net reaction being demonstrated both here and for 25 years does fit into Mills model superficially. Yet achieving the ~76 eV to create the hole is almost out of the question for electrolysis in terms of probability and even at 1300 degrees it would be rare. Yet this can happen readily during energetic phase change (as Parkhomov has apparently demonstrated). This is a misunderstanding. Li *metal atoms* present a hole (or energy sink) by having two electrons for which the sum of the binding energies is 81.6 eV. I.e. H + Li (note metal atom, not ion!) = Hy[n=1/4] + Li++ + excess energy. IOW, by donating 81.6 eV to a Lithium atom(!), the H atom shrinks to H[n=1/4] while at the same time the Li atom uses the energy released by the H atom to become ionized to Li++. In short the shrinkage reaction neither needs nor wants Li++. Rather it produces it as an end product through the shrinkage reaction. The input material is an H atom and a Lithium atom, both of which are readily available upon thermal decomposition of LiH. Once the catalytic reaction is complete, the newly formed Li++ ion may then, at it's own discretion, reacquire a pair of electrons from the environment, becoming neutralized in the process, after which it is once again available to act as a catalyst for another shrinkage reaction. Note also, that in electrolysis experiments both H and Li atoms will form at the cathode, though the Li atom will be short lived, as it will rapidly react with water. This means that the chances of living long enough to catalyze a shrinkage reaction with a Hydrogen atom are small in electrolysis reactions. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Mills critical critiques on LENR: a mixture of nickel and lithium aluminum hydride
The boiling point for Li in side a nano particle may occur at a different temperature than 1342 C. The local electric and magnetic conditions may make a big difference in how tight the Li is bound to the Al. Bob - Original Message - From: mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, January 19, 2015 7:54 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills critical critiques on LENR: a mixture of nickel and lithium aluminum hydride In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 29 Dec 2014 10:06:31 -0800: Hi, [snip] First, we can note that after the hydrogen is released from LiAlH4, the lithium remains alloyed to aluminum, since there is no intrinsic mechanism to separate the metals below the Li boiling point of 1342 °C which is closely approached, and this is notably where maximum COP occurs for Parkhomov. In an alloy, lithium atoms near the boiling point would react differently than as an element. Near-phase-change could be the key to the exotherm and to promoting double ionization of Li. According to wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_hydride) a less common method of the preparation of LiH is by heating LiAlH4 (200 ºC). Furthermore: Thus removal of H2 requires high temperatures, well above the 700 °C used for its synthesis. ...so it would seem that at 1300 ºC it ought to decompose readily enough. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Mills critical critiques on LENR: a mixture of nickel and lithium aluminum hydride
You noted: Once the catalytic reaction is complete, the newly formed Li++ ion may then, at it's own discretion, reacquire a pair of electrons from the environment, becoming neutralized in the process, after which it is once again available to act as a catalyst for another shrinkage reaction. I would add that the neutral Li would also act as a good heat transfer agent, if it did not react, keeping the structure from getting to hot and changing shape. Bob - Original Message - From: mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, January 19, 2015 8:12 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills critical critiques on LENR: a mixture of nickel and lithium aluminum hydride In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 29 Dec 2014 10:06:31 -0800: Hi, [snip] To back up a bit - as far back as the early nineties, lithium was claimed to be responsible for most of the energy gain in electrolytic reactions, since as an doubly positive ion, Li has the characteristic energy hole define by Mills for promoting ground state redundancy. The first IP is 5.4 eV and the second is 75.64 eV and together, they present a deficit which is very close to the value of (3 x 27.2 = 81.6 eV). Nickel provides two more holes so the net reaction being demonstrated both here and for 25 years does fit into Mills' model superficially. Yet achieving the ~76 eV to create the hole is almost out of the question for electrolysis in terms of probability and even at 1300 degrees it would be rare. Yet this can happen readily during energetic phase change (as Parkhomov has apparently demonstrated). This is a misunderstanding. Li *metal atoms* present a hole (or energy sink) by having two electrons for which the sum of the binding energies is 81.6 eV. I.e. H + Li (note metal atom, not ion!) = Hy[n=1/4] + Li++ + excess energy. IOW, by donating 81.6 eV to a Lithium atom(!), the H atom shrinks to H[n=1/4] while at the same time the Li atom uses the energy released by the H atom to become ionized to Li++. In short the shrinkage reaction neither needs nor wants Li++. Rather it produces it as an end product through the shrinkage reaction. The input material is an H atom and a Lithium atom, both of which are readily available upon thermal decomposition of LiH. Once the catalytic reaction is complete, the newly formed Li++ ion may then, at it's own discretion, reacquire a pair of electrons from the environment, becoming neutralized in the process, after which it is once again available to act as a catalyst for another shrinkage reaction. Note also, that in electrolysis experiments both H and Li atoms will form at the cathode, though the Li atom will be short lived, as it will rapidly react with water. This means that the chances of living long enough to catalyze a shrinkage reaction with a Hydrogen atom are small in electrolysis reactions. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
[Vo]:Mills critical critiques on LENR: a mixture of nickel and lithium aluminum hydride
Mills recently had more uncomplimentary things to say about recent LENR research. See SCP thread: a mixture of nickel and lithium aluminum hydride See thread: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations /topics/4274 * A poster, James Bowery, brought up a discussion about Alexander Parkhomov's recent work. James posted: Alexander Parkhomov, a Russian scientist: http://www.researchgate.net/profile/A_Parkhomov claims he has replicated Rossi's E-Cat using a mixture of nickel and lithium aluminum hydride. He provides an English translation of his report: http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Lugano-Confirmed.pdf In his replication, he measures heat output by completely boiling off a fixed amount of water rather than inferring power output via infrared camera. He reports no radioactivity or energetic gammas. Randy's initial reply: How does he know what is in the Ecat cell? LiAlH4 + Ni as a hydrogen dissociator run at elevated temperature is disclosed in my patents. They are filed in Russia. James Replied: A few people have been speculating for some time that Rossi's E-Cat nickle-based catalytic system was actually a takeoff of Hydrocatalysis Power Corp's nickle-based catalytic technology. One might further speculate that Dr. Parkhomov took that seriously enough to look into the BLP Russian patent filings involving LiAlH4 + Ni. Randy's follow-up reply: In general, I have found the rogues left in that bogus cold fusion field are very poor at science, self deluded, or dishonest. Telling is that I was flamed when I published on a catalytic reaction involving light hydrogen and nickel, and now it is the main event. Of course, no one admits to my work. Shameful. Good luck to them getting light hydrogen to fuse or undergo a nuclear reaction. None the less I think that it is a mistake to use a hydrogen porous vessel for a hydrino reaction. * Obviously there is no love lost between Dr. Mills and the loosely associated LENR community - at least it would seem from Dr. Mills' POV. Of particular interest to me, Dr. Mills states (and also complains that) he had once been flamed when he published work on ... a catalytic reaction involving light hydrogen and nickel, and now it is the main [LENR] event. Mills initially seems to be saying that he finds many LENR researchers to be, in his opinion, very poor at science, self deluded, or dishonest. But then he follows up with the comment that he had been flamed and that no on admits to [his prior] work. IMO, that would seem to contradict Mills' prior claim that he finds LENR research to be a bogus science filled with some dishonest researchers. I tend to think Mills makes such statements primarily for strategic BLP business reasons rather than wanting to make an honest effort to discuss any underlying scientific content of the latest LENR data. From Mils' POV, they are unwelcomed distractions. IOW, Move along, move along... nothing to see here. I would add, it's an understandable position any CEO might take for strategic BLP business reasons - primarily to maintain control over their RD plans. But from the perspective of pursuing scientific inquiry...it stinks. Comments? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Mills critical critiques on LENR: a mixture of nickel and lithium aluminum hydride
Quite aside from the business consequences of his comments, my perception of Mills is that the failure of the LENR community to take his theory more seriously -- particularly given the LENR community's theoretic poverty -- is bad science, independent of the quality of the empirical work of the LENR community. If his theory is as coherent, all encompassing and supported by experiment as he believes it is, then his contempt for the LENR community's ignorance of it -- particularly given the dominant culture's hostility to it -- is quite understandable. On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Mills recently had more uncomplimentary things to say about recent LENR research. See SCP thread: a mixture of nickel and lithium aluminum hydride See thread: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations/topics/4274 * A poster, James Bowery, brought up a discussion about Alexander Parkhomov's recent work. James posted: Alexander Parkhomov, a Russian scientist: http://www.researchgate.net/profile/A_Parkhomov claims he has replicated Rossi's E-Cat using a mixture of nickel and lithium aluminum hydride. He provides an English translation of his report: http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Lugano-Confirmed.pdf In his replication, he measures heat output by completely boiling off a fixed amount of water rather than inferring power output via infrared camera. He reports no radioactivity or energetic gammas. Randy's initial reply: How does he know what is in the Ecat cell? LiAlH4 + Ni as a hydrogen dissociator run at elevated temperature is disclosed in my patents. They are filed in Russia. James Replied: A few people have been speculating for some time that Rossi's E-Cat nickle-based catalytic system was actually a takeoff of Hydrocatalysis Power Corp's nickle-based catalytic technology. One might further speculate that Dr. Parkhomov took that seriously enough to look into the BLP Russian patent filings involving LiAlH4 + Ni. Randy's follow-up reply: In general, I have found the rogues left in that bogus cold fusion field are very poor at science, self deluded, or dishonest. Telling is that I was flamed when I published on a catalytic reaction involving light hydrogen and nickel, and now it is the main event. Of course, no one admits to my work. Shameful. Good luck to them getting light hydrogen to fuse or undergo a nuclear reaction. None the less I think that it is a mistake to use a hydrogen porous vessel for a hydrino reaction. * Obviously there is no love lost between Dr. Mills and the loosely associated LENR community - at least it would seem from Dr. Mills' POV. Of particular interest to me, Dr. Mills states (and also complains that) he had once been flamed when he published work on ... a catalytic reaction involving light hydrogen and nickel, and now it is the main [LENR] event. Mills initially seems to be saying that he finds many LENR researchers to be, in his opinion, very poor at science, self deluded, or dishonest. But then he follows up with the comment that he had been flamed and that no on admits to [his prior] work. IMO, that would seem to contradict Mills' prior claim that he finds LENR research to be a bogus science filled with some dishonest researchers. I tend to think Mills makes such statements primarily for strategic BLP business reasons rather than wanting to make an honest effort to discuss any underlying scientific content of the latest LENR data. From Mils' POV, they are unwelcomed distractions. IOW, Move along, move along... nothing to see here. I would add, it's an understandable position any CEO might take for strategic BLP business reasons - primarily to maintain control over their RD plans. But from the perspective of pursuing scientific inquiry...it stinks. Comments? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Mills critical critiques on LENR: a mixture of nickel and lithium aluminum hydride
From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson Mills recently had more uncomplimentary things to say about recent LENR research. See SCP thread: a mixture of nickel and lithium aluminum hydride See thread: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations /topics/4274 * Mills is probably correct about his large contribution to the field - but sadly misinformed about the limits of his patent coverage. He apparently still believes that he can patent a theory. His patents do not anticipate the high temperature ceramic reactor, nor do they anticipate SPP, nor the key feature of near-phase-change in Li-Al alloy. Yes - he deserve more credit for his insight than he gets, but he should acknowledge that his actual devices have been one failure after another going back 20 years. This inability to take a useful theory from Lab to market is hard to fathom but the reality of having nothing to demonstrate, which can be independently verified - is one reason why Mills is routinely ignored by peers well he is arrogant enough to think he has no peers, but that is part of the problem, isnt it? The interest in lithium as either reactant or catalyst has been jolted by the Parkhomov report, which if anything appears to be much more convincing than the Levi report on which it was based. Not to mention far more convincing than the madly sparking seam welder, LOL. Yet the Russian results do look closer to the f/H (fractional hydrogen) reaction than anything nuclear. OTOH, this reaction is not what BLP wishes that they had covered in IP. Close, but mention of one catalyst is not close enough when half the periodic table qualitied under your theory. The probative question is - how does aluminum facilitate access to the deep Rydberg ionization potential of lithium, in a way which has been missed by everyone including Mills? First, we can note that after the hydrogen is released from LiAlH4, the lithium remains alloyed to aluminum, since there is no intrinsic mechanism to separate the metals below the Li boiling point of 1342 °C which is closely approached, and this is notably where maximum COP occurs for Parkhomov. In an alloy, lithium atoms near the boiling point would react differently than as an element. Near-phase-change could be the key to the exotherm and to promoting double ionization of Li. To back up a bit as far back as the early nineties, lithium was claimed to be responsible for most of the energy gain in electrolytic reactions, since as an doubly positive ion, Li has the characteristic energy hole define by Mills for promoting ground state redundancy. The first IP is 5.4 eV and the second is 75.64 eV and together, they present a deficit which is very close to the value of (3 x 27.2 = 81.6 eV). Nickel provides two more holes so the net reaction being demonstrated both here and for 25 years does fit into Mills model superficially. Yet achieving the ~76 eV to create the hole is almost out of the question for electrolysis in terms of probability and even at 1300 degrees it would be rare. Yet this can happen readily during energetic phase change (as Parkhomov has apparently demonstrated). Going beyond Mills - the interatomic spacing for Al-Li alloy is unique at 3.2 Angstrom which is far closer than the crystal spacing in either pure lithium or aluminum or any other alloy of the two, indicating a high order of structure but only in the 1:1 alloy. Therefore the phase change for boil-off of lithium would be expected to be extraordinarily energetic in the sense of recalescence and promoting double ionization. Recalescence is a temporary increase in power, sometimes extreme, which occurs when molten metal goes through phase-change on cooling. The near boil-off of the double positive ion would expose Li++ to hydrogen gas, even without complete boil-off. Plus, the phase change can be strongly exothermic even without ground state redundancy; but not net gainful, since it should be reversible without an intrinsic power source which Mills theory describes. Three cheers for the redundant ground state part of the theory - which he got right! So yes, Mills theory can explain the major part of the Parkhomov experiment, but not all of it. And no, this device is not protected by any BLP patent which I have seen. The theory of operation is not patentable in itself, only a device - so even though Mills could (and possibly should) win a big prize one day - for the basic theory - he may miss the economic bounty of a working device. Unless that wildly sparking seam-welder does work for more than a few hours at a time J
Re: [Vo]:Mills critical critiques on LENR: a mixture of nickel and lithium aluminum hydride
Sigh . . . I had forgotten what a jerk Mills can be. He owes everything to Fleischmann Pons -- as do we all. If they had not published, he never would have thought to do his first experiments. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mills critical critiques on LENR: a mixture of nickel and lithium aluminum hydride
Its not clear that he owes everything to Fleischmann Pons. If they had not published, he might well have developed his theory from his original motivation, which was high temperature superconductivity. Given fractional Rydberg states its clear that their pusuit would be a new source of energy. While it is certainly no fault of Fleischmann Pons, it may even be the case that Mills would have marketed an energy technology years earlier if they had not published and triggered hysterical opposition from the authorities. Stolper's book on Mills http://www.amazon.com/Genius-Inventor-controversy-historical-contemporary/dp/1419643045 has passages such as that concerning high-temperature superconductivity on p105: Mills began the sustained work on his reformulation of quantum theory in the fall of 1988, when he became interested in high-temperature superconductivity. He wondered whether it would be possible at room temperature. He soon found that he couldn't get a grip on the problem with standard quantum mechanics... In Anderson's opinion, superconductivity needed an entirely new theory. Mils carried that opinion to its logical extreme, which was further than any other investigator of superconductivity cared to go: develop a new quantum theory, not just a new theory of superconductivity On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Sigh . . . I had forgotten what a jerk Mills can be. He owes everything to Fleischmann Pons -- as do we all. If they had not published, he never would have thought to do his first experiments. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mills critical critiques on LENR: a mixture of nickel and lithium aluminum hydride
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Its not clear that he owes everything to Fleischmann Pons. His first experiments were electrochemical with nickel, similar to FP's experiments with Pd. As I recall, he said he was prompted to do them by the reports of cold fusion. He also repeatedly claimed that he can explain cold fusion based on his theory. Now he says cold fusion is bogus and the researchers are very poor at science, self deluded, or dishonest. You do not need his theory to explain bogus results, do you? You don't need any theory. You just dismiss them. You toss them out, along with the laws of thermodynamics and calorimetry going back to Lavoisier. All wrong. Hundreds of world class experts from hundreds of major laboratories are all very poor at science. Who knew that National Labs and places like BARC were staffed by such dunderheads? Even if his theories prove right, personally he is yet another tiresome, arrogant fool. - Jed
