I looked at the report again. Figure 3 deals with FUEL. The picture in figure 3 shows FUEL particles. There is a 100 micron fuel particle in the fuel and also a huge iron particle: particle 3. The aggregation of the nickel happens in the preprocessing process. The testers would have selected like size particles between the fuel and the ash to ensure that the resolution of the test processes were the same: 100X100 microns.
Particle 2 is aluminum oxide and is assumed to be some contamination from a high temperature sealer. But that is a fuel particle, so the chances are excellent that the fuel came from a previous reactor run where particle 2 was a part of the sealer that was broken from that previous reactor run. The iron particle might well be garbage from the previous preprocessing reactor run. Maybe what Rossi learned from the Lugano test is that using old reaction ash is great for his new reaction. On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 10:20 AM, Bob Higgins <[email protected]> wrote: > I spent some time re-analyzing the results of the Lugano report. Close > examination of the SEM image of fuel particle 1 (mostly Ni) on page 43 > indicates that the particle is unlike a carbonyl Ni starting material - it > looks more like a Vale T255 powder that has been coated and agglomerated > due to sintering. There is evidence of the filamentary T255 carbonyl > structure in the SEM, but it looks like a composite particle. Further, the > SEM image shows signs of another material being disposed on the surface > area of the particle, similar to what I have seen when I dry-tumble mixed > nanopowder onto the surface of carbonyl Ni powder. > > Examining the EDS analysis of this particle on page 44, there is a clear > peak for Al in the spectrum. The EDS is a small spot examination, so the > Al peak appears to be on the surface of fuel particle 1, not a halo > contamination from nearby LiAlH4. Further, the Al does not show in the EDS > spectrum of particles 2 or 3 of the fuel, again indicating that the Al peak > in particle 1 is not due to measurement halo and really is part of the > surface of particle 1. > > Al also shows in the EDS of the ash particle 1, the one that is > predominantly Ni. Li will not show in EDS analysis because its x-ray peak > is too low energy to be captured by the EDS sensor - so, Li could be > present, but would not have been picked up. > > In the SIMS analysis of the fuel particle (page 47), both Li and Al (mass > 27) show. The SIMS analysis is for a 100x100 micron patch, so the Li and > Al could have come from nearby LiAlH4; however, supporting evidence for the > Li-Al being present on the fuel particle comes from the EDS which has a > much smaller analysis area (probably less than 5 microns square) which > showed evidence of Al. The SIMS analysis on page 48 after sputter cleaning > still shows a reduced amount of Al on the surface at M/z=27. It is not > clear why the Li peak in the SIMS analysis is so strong - it is from > greater Li abundance in the ion analysis stream, but it is not clear > whether that is from a greater propensity for Li to sputter from the > incident Ga beam or if there is more Li on the surface. > > My conclusion is that the Ni fuel particles have been thermo-chemically > pre-processed. It may be that this is a particle that has been ground up > from the ash of a previous reactor run. It appears to have started out as > a Ni powder like filamentary carbonyl Vale T255 that has been heated to a > temperature in the 300-700C range while mixed with the LiAlH4. > > It is also interesting to note that in Alexander Parkhomov's experiments, > he mixes the LiAlH4 powder with his carbonyl Ni powder in a mortar and > grinds the two together with a pestle. This has not been done in any of > the MFMP replication attempts. Perhaps Parkhomov's grinding/mixing is a > partial substitute for Rossi's pre-processing of the Ni powder with LiAlH4. > > Bob Higgins > > On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Bob Higgins <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> The Li and Al are going to be present in equal amounts in the fuel, but >>> only the Al will show in the XRD. XRD has a pretty small spot and you can >>> be pretty sure that the measurement diameter will not include much that is >>> not the Ni particle. OTOH, SIMS is a much bigger spot size and it would be >>> easy to pick up stray LiAlH4 in the fuel in the fringes of measurement. >>> >> >> nowhere do you see aluminum in the fuel. >> >>> >>> >>> So, in SIMS, why didn't we see the Al on the Ni fuel powder? It is >>> somewhat of a mystery, but what is reported are the raw counts. SIMS is a >>> micro-sputtering process, and it is possible that the Li atoms sputter like >>> crazy, maybe orders of magnitude faster than the Al. IMHO, you would need >>> to see some kind of equalized measurement by SIMS of LiAlH4 (for example) >>> to see how it sputters. In other words, you would like an abundance >>> equalization of the count based on the sputter rates. I suspect there is >>> no Li on the Ni in the fuel, but chance particles of the LiAlH4 in the >>> vicinity that are sputtered and the Li just sputters orders of magnitude >>> faster than anything else. The Li counts are somewhat of a mystery, but >>> not a compelling one. >>> >> >> table 1 shows a lot of lithium as measured in tha same way as the ash. >> The lithium is 1/3 the amount as the ash. This lithium must have been added >> by a fuel preperation process. >> >>> >>> There is extremely little C in the system. The C that shows up is >>> primarily from contamination by the conductive black tape to which the >>> powders are adhered to place them in the XRD or SIMS instruments. >>> >> >> the last line of the Lugano report said that there ws a large amount of >> carbin in the fuel that when away in the ash. >> >>> >>> Who knows in the story of the Fe? I can guess that the Fe could have >>> gone in as nanopowder in the fuel and wouldn't have been noticed as a >>> "particle" in the SEMs because of its small size. The nano Fe may dissolve >>> in the molten Li-Al, and upon cooling, condense as a larger particle. If I >>> were adding Fe to the mix, I would be inclined to add it as a nanopowder to >>> help insure its dissolution in the molten Li-Al. >>> >> >> There was not eveidence that Li-Al formed. >> The purity of the lithium on the surface of the nickel particle does not >> support the idea of element transport by lithium metal: iton or aluminum. >> Lithium was the only liquid at play at reactor temperatures. >> >> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> The Lugano report said that the nickel particle varient was the same >>>> particle kind and the fuel was very find grained with a gray color. >>>> >>>> "All of the Ni becomes quickly surface coated with liquid Li-Al-H. " >>>> >>>> Not so. The nickel particles are covered by pure lithium from the fuel >>>> (see below). No aluminum is found in the analysis and the lithium coat is >>>> very thiin and uniform since the nanowire coat looks crip and sharp. >>>> >>>> The iron particle was not in the fuel to begin with. It must have >>>> formed by some accretion process. The iron might be a transmutation product >>>> of carbon, Iron was present in the fuel. There was a large amount of carbon >>>> found in the fuel but none found in the ash. >>>> >>>> The liquid lithium may carry iron is a desolved form to condense in a >>>> large particle. But no iron is found on the nickel particle so that speaks >>>> against ion transport by liquid metal. >>>> >>>> The purity of the lithium on the surface of the nickel particle does >>>> not support the idea of element transport by lithium metal, the only liquid >>>> at play at reactor temperatures. >>>> >>>> Figure 9 shows a large amount of lithium on the nickel particles IN THE >>>> FUEL. Rossi coated the nickel with lithium in the FUEL. Replicators do not >>>> do this. They use untreated nickel powder. Have you all missed this? >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Bob Higgins <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Note that there are many optimizations of carbonyl processing designed >>>>> to produce, in particular, long strand connected particles with high >>>>> surface area optimized for nickel metal hydride battery performance. I >>>>> suspect that Rossi used a standard variant of this process that is >>>>> available COTS. It is well known that Rossi has a history of using the >>>>> Vale T255 grade - a jar of it was seen in one of his videos. It appears >>>>> that in the Lugano fuel, the T255 was not used, but the Ni was probably >>>>> another carbonyl variant. >>>>> >>>>> At high temperature (>300C) and in the presence of H2, the oxide >>>>> readily is stripped from the Ni particle surface and other metals readily >>>>> wet to the clean Ni surface. As the temperature continues to rise, the >>>>> liquid Li-Al-H foams and froths as it releases its hydrogen. All of the >>>>> Ni >>>>> becomes quickly surface coated with liquid Li-Al-H. Much of the fine >>>>> nanoscale Ni features dissolve in this metal and reach an equilibrium of >>>>> Ni >>>>> (~5%) dissolving into the melt AND condensing out of the melt back onto >>>>> the >>>>> particle surface. There could be a type of "co-deposition" of the Ni >>>>> taking place with simultaneous deposition of Ni-H or with hydrogen anions. >>>>> >>>>> Also taking place at the same time is the sintering of the Ni. >>>>> Wherever particles touch, they will grow together, and pull together into >>>>> a >>>>> more compact form. >>>>> >>>>> There is a tremendous amount of alumina present in the form of tubes >>>>> and cement. It is hard to ascribe the alumina particle as part of the ash >>>>> - it is probably just debris. >>>>> >>>>> The same cannot be readily said about the iron particle. Why such a >>>>> large particle would be useful in the fuel is not clear, nor is it clear >>>>> what happens to the iron in the liquid Li-Al (I am not a chemist). Li and >>>>> Fe do form compounds such as LiFePO4. Perhaps some percentage of the Fe >>>>> dissolves into the liquid Li-Al-H and enhances the liquid state reaction >>>>> in >>>>> some way. Perhaps it participates in the co-deposition on the surface of >>>>> the Ni to enhance the liquid-solid metal interface LENR reaction. It is >>>>> probably naive to think the large Fe particles in the fuel are there by >>>>> chance, and probably also unreasonable to think they wouldn't dissolve in >>>>> the very active liquid metal environment. Rossi is known to have used Fe >>>>> in his low temperature eCat fuel. >>>>> >>>>> Bob Higgins >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 8:22 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> The nickel particles grains looks like they have moved around under >>>>>> the influence of some EMF stimulation and have found each other. >>>>>> Electrostatic abreaction can do this. There should be a strong dipole >>>>>> based >>>>>> electrostatic attraction at work that takes advantage of the apparent EMF >>>>>> induced vibratory particle movement in the fuel mix. It looks like the >>>>>> lithium never recombines with the aluminum at 400C and above having >>>>>> found a >>>>>> home on the surface of the Nickel particles, covering all the prticles >>>>>> completely in a very thin layer. >>>>>> >>>>>> The aluminum forms it own particle as shown the formation of a huge >>>>>> luminum oxide particle of over a 120 microns in length. I wount’t thing >>>>>> this could happen with the aluminum not at its melting temperature. >>>>>> >>>>>> The iron particle is truly large being some 300 by 100 microns in >>>>>> size. How could this particle be formed if it was not in the fuel to >>>>>> begin >>>>>> with. The fuel was observed to be very fine grey particles. 300 microns >>>>>> is >>>>>> not fine powder. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 9:54 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> in 8. fuel Analysis it states: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The fuel contains natural nickel powder with a grain size of a few >>>>>>> microns. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> so the nickel must move around at tempertures where lithium is >>>>>>> liquid. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I misunderstood the particle analysis in the Lugano report, On page >>>>>>>> 50 of the Lugano report, I just realized that the nickel fuel particle >>>>>>>> had >>>>>>>> a hugh natural abundance of pure lithium content. Its size may not have >>>>>>>> changed between when it was fuel through the time that it became ash. >>>>>>>> It's >>>>>>>> huge. Consistently, Table 1 also shows a lot of lithium in the fuel. >>>>>>>> This >>>>>>>> particle configuration is not consistence with the commensally >>>>>>>> availible >>>>>>>> nickel particles used by replications. That stuff is about 5 microns >>>>>>>> average and contains lots of carbon but no lithium. Rossi has somehow >>>>>>>> processed the commensally available particles to add lots of lithium. >>>>>>>> Did >>>>>>>> Rossi give his COTS nickel particles some sort of lithium bath in a >>>>>>>> fuel >>>>>>>> fabrication process. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In figure 3, there is lots of carbon in particle 1. But in figure >>>>>>>> 9, there was none. How can that be? The fuel should contain lots of >>>>>>>> carbon. >>>>>>>> Why does fig. 9 not show any? Both types of test should have shown >>>>>>>> carbon, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The nickel particles are huge at about 100 microns, There are a >>>>>>>> number of them in the micrograph (a) on page 44. It is unlikely that >>>>>>>> nickel >>>>>>>> particles can move around much in a particle fuel mixture with lithium >>>>>>>> aluminum hydride powder. So how could they gather together in an >>>>>>>> aggragation of such large numbers unless they came into the fuel mix >>>>>>>> as 100 >>>>>>>> Micron particles to begin with. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If anybody has an explanation I am willing and able to be educated. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
