What does this mean...
"May mean that the specific nickel powder Dr Parkhomov first used is not so important" On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 6:45 PM, Bob Higgins <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, that is correct. We do not have an SEM of Parkhomov's Ni particles. > You don't know that they were not similar to MFMP's. However, the same > thing happened to Parkhomov's particles as the MFMP particles - they were > covered with liquid Li-Al-Ni-H at the time of the reaction and the fine > features were substantially dissolved giving the Li-Al-Ni-H its 4% Ni. > This tends to equalize bigger and smaller particles. > > Parkhomov's choice of Ni powder seemed to have worked. He didn't get > quite the COP claimed by the Lugano team for the HotCat (but the Lungano > numbers appear to be wrong too high). In the Lugano case, look on page 43 > Figure 2 - it is almost identical to the micrographs of MFMP, and MFMP was > replicating Parkhomov. It is a pretty compelling case that all 3 > experiments were commensurate at the core, save for some iron particles in > the HotCat. > > > On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 4:21 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I have no problem with the surface features of the MFMP nickel powder. >> The comparison was between Lagano and the latest Dr. Parkhomov's >> experiment of the 27th/28th February. >> >> Where is the micrograph of that Russian powder? >> >> Your mixing apples and oranges. >> >> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Bob Higgins <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Axil, have you looked at the SEM images (courtesy of Ed Storms) of the >>> Ni from the MFMP reactor? >>> >>> >>> https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2fllFSWpFNVJoUlIxbERhRTE2M2FTY0s3TU9sZ2FsVG5wMGdodlE2ZW1JMVE&usp=sharing >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 5:40 PM, Bob Higgins <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Axil, what you are describing as "proper sized" and "tubercles" are >>>>> applicable to Rossi's low temperature catalyzed Ni fuel. >>>>> >>>> >>>> For a temperature of 1200C, the proper size is about 2 microns give or >>>> take. >>>> >>>> >>>>> This is not what was used in the HotCat or Parkhomov experiment. SEM >>>>> images of the Ni core from the MFMP experiment (Bang!) show that early on >>>>> the Ni particles are completely reduced of oxide by the evolved hydrogen >>>>> and by 300C, they are sintering into a sparse 3D web like structure. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Page 43 figure 2 of the Lagano report shows a particle with tubercles. >>>> The other has been melted. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Then above 900C, the released Li-Al alloy molten metal is wetting to >>>>> the Ni and actually dissolving the fine features while completely coating >>>>> the Ni. This coating is a Li-Al-Ni-H alloy and this is likely a new >>>>> modality of LENR with Ni inside liquid metal and with the hydrogen ions in >>>>> the liquid metal. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> There is no experimental proof of this statement. >>>> >>>> >>>>> The iron in the Lugano experiment is a known catalyst to make LiAlH4 >>>>> decompose at a lower temperature. >>>>> >>>> >>>> true >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> That is probably why the Lugano HotCat worked better at a lower >>>>> temperature than Parkhomov (the Lugano temperatures were significantly >>>>> off, >>>>> with the 1410C measurement probably ~1130C; I can send you the paper if >>>>> you >>>>> want). This also decreases that calculated COP by at least 20% which is >>>>> getting closer to Parkhomov. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Key to my point, Lugano demo worked better than the Parkhomov system >>>> because Rossi's nickel particles are LENR reaction proven. Parkhomov nickel >>>> did not work as stated by Parkhomov's own experimental analysis. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Lugano and Parkhomov are commensurate. Rossi's low temperature eCat >>>>> catalyzed fuel is different and the reaction there is gas phase. >>>>> >>>>> Rossi's nickel powder looks the same over all his applications. >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
