I don't know if any of Rossi's particular results are as stated or
not. He has made so many inconsistent statements regarding
experimental facts that the situation is clouded at best. I also
haven't had time to read all the many posts of late. I see there are
various new people here. For that reason I'll repeat some old remarks
before making a few hopefully relevant new ones. In any case, as
posted here prior, my deflation fusion theory offers some explanation
of the creation of copper with some enthalpy, and without high energy
signatures except in trace amounts. LENR reaction rates in general,
and the production of improbable high energy signature events as
well, can be expected, by my theory, to increase when heat turn on
and turn off occur. These are times of maximal thermal gradients and
thus maximal hydrogen hopping rates. This will be explained somewhat
below. *No positron emission* is expected from any of the LENR
reactions presented below.
There are numerous candidate copper producing reactions that are
exothermic, at least within the deflation fusion model, which explain
Rossi's observed results. These reactions involve an electron
initially in the product nucleus, and the production of numerous low
energy photons. Some of the simplest and thus possibly most credible
examples follow:
58Ni28 + p* --> 59Cu29 * + 3.419 MeV [-6.329 MeV]
60Ni28 + p* --> 61Cu29 * + 4.801 MeV [-4.840 MeV]
61Ni28 + p* --> 62Cu29 * + 5.866 MeV [-3.722 MeV]
62Ni28 + p* --> 63Cu29 + 6.122 MeV [-3.415 MeV]
64Ni28 + p* --> 65Cu29 + 7.453 MeV [-1.985 MeV]
The energy in brackets is the initial energy deficit due to the
electron in the product nucleus. A negative energy indicates an
initially trapped electron, and thus a quick weak reaction if such
are feasible. The p* indicates a deflated proton, a proton plus
electron pair with near ground state energy and very small orbital
radius.
There is a problem with some of the above reactions. They produce
radioactive copper, which Rossi explicitly says does not remain as a
byproduct. The problem products which are radioactive are 59Cu29,
61Cu29 and 62Cu29. Generally, LENR has not been found to produce
detectable high energy signatures. It also has not been found to
produce radioactive products, including neutrons, energetic isomers,
and radioactive isotopes. Also there is no apparent pathway to
produce copper from all the Ni isotopes, which makes observing "more
than 30%" conversion to copper very unlikely.
Deflation fusion provides a reason for Rossi's observations. If
sufficient energy is available from the overall reaction, yet the
initial energy deficit retains the kinetically energetic nuclear
electron within the product nucleus, the prospects for an immediate
follow-on weak reaction are very good, and this eliminates the
production of significantly radioactive nuclei in the above cases.
I suggest the weak reactions that occur as a result of deflation
fusion primarily involve electron capture which occurs post strong
force reactions, and which further add to the initial energy deficit
by about 0.8 MeV, and subtract from the final net energy by roughly
the same amount. This is energy lost to the production of a neutron
and neutrino in the weak sub-reaction that captures the nuclear
electron:
(energy, about 0.8 MeV) + p + e --> n + neutrino
This roughly 0.8 MeV energy comes from the kinetic energy of the
electron, which is the same high value it had in the very small
deflated state, even though its then exceptionally low potential
energy is even much further reduced in the product nucleus. The high
kinetic energy trapped electron reduces the half life for post strong
reaction weak reaction to nearly zero.
Loss of energetic signatures in addition to p + e fusion energy is
due to the fact that electron capture of a "tunneled in" electron
occurs, the electron part of the deflated pair coming from *outside*
the target atom, as opposed to an electron which is part of the high
Z target atom's atomic shells. This prevents auger electrons and
high energy x-rays from the electron capture. Further, the neutrino
generated by the weak reaction carries off the majority of available
kinetic energy. This taken all together accounts for an extreme lack
of high energy signatures from various heavy element LENR reactions.
We now have the following approximate composite reactions starting
from abundant isotopes:
58Ni28 + p* --> 59Cu29 * + 3.419 MeV [-6.329 MeV] --> 59Ni28 +
neutrino + ~2.6 MeV
60Ni28 + p* --> 61Cu29 * + 4.801 MeV [-4.840 MeV] --> 61Ni28 +
neutrino + ~4.0 MeV
61Ni28 + p* --> 62Cu29 * + 5.866 MeV [-3.722 MeV] --> 62Ni28 +
neutrino + ~5.1 MeV
62Ni28 + p* --> 63Cu29 + 6.122 MeV [-3.415 MeV]
64Ni28 + p* --> 65Cu29 + 7.453 MeV [-1.985 MeV]
Note that the 59Ni28, created in the first reaction, has a 76000 y
half life, so should not produce significant radiation in the ash,
though it should be readily detectable. If 30% copper is produced
then this is understandable because a portion of the 59Ni28 can be
converted to 60Ni28 via
59Ni28 + p* --> 60Ni28 + neutrino + energy
Followed by further conversion of 60Ni28 to copper via the above
reactions.
A more direct route might be offered by:
58Ni28 + 2 p* --> 60Zn30 * + 8.538 MeV [-11.541 MeV] --> 60Ni28 + 2
neutrinos + ~7 MeV
and numerous other cluster type reactions.
The above reactions are only examples taken from many feasible
reactions, in order to show feasibility, and to show the approximate
energy balances. Within the deflation fusion scenario the energy does
not necessarily balance for a specific single reaction due to the
energy exchanges with the vacuum. The energies involved are random
variables. Deflation fusion theory predicts that only the last two
reactions in the list of five, involving 62Ni and 64Ni produce
significant enthalpy. Further, none of these reactions create
observable enthalpy from gammas, i.e. the enthalpy produced by low
energy photons dwarfs that which can be attributed to observed
positron gammas or reaction gammas, and this matches Rossi's
results. The practical heat generation comes from photon emission
from interactions between the trapped electron and composite nucleus.
Background information on related deflation fusion theory, and more
equations, can be found here:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/dfRpt
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflationFusionExp.pdf
http://www.mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/DeflationFusion2.pdf
and the references provided within.
From the reactions provided, it is clear, within the context of my
theory, there are feasible exothermic reactions or reaction sequences
creating stable copper from each of the five common Ni isotopes, as
well as enthalpy, but not the amount of enthalpy that can be expected
from the mass balances. What deflation fusion theory adds to that
is an explanation for the observed enthalpy without the high energy
signatures conventionally required, namely an explanation based on a
very short half-life weak reaction that amounts to electron capture,
when that is energetically feasible. Heavy element LENR does not
create (in large measure) radioactive products. This is because in
most cases an energy deficit in the compound nucleus prevents an
activated nucleus from being created, and provides fast pathways
involving either a strong or strong-weak combination reaction, which
with very high probability lead to stable nuclei.
One thing my theory predicts is the great importance to LENR of short
range magnetic *gradients*, as opposed to magnetic fields, which also
have some importance in preliminary spin coupling. One important
effect in Ni nanoparticles is the ability of a single Fe atom to
align the spins of around 100 Ni atoms in within a nanoparticle. I
would assume similar capabilities can be attributed to cobalt atoms
as to iron atoms in this respect. The important thing here is that
the chemical-nano-physical environment can provide extreme magnetic
gradients, without ambient field being imposed. The addition of even
small amounts of Fe or Co to Ni nano-particles can achieve a chemical
environment with strong magnetic gradients suitable for enhancing
deflated state hydrogen hopping rates, and without the need for
application of magnetic or electric fields, merely the hot loading,
and thermal cycling recommended in my articles, in particular iron
and other lattices which can not be loaded, especially gas loaded,
at low temperatures, such as 100°C.
I have also noted the potential usefulness of loading zeolites or
other insulating nano-pore containing surface with LENR lattice
containing material, for the purpose of inducing field gradients
which optimize LENR conditions. Use of electrostatic fields, imposed
upon nanoparticles insulated from each other, increases surface
charges and thus electron fugacity, the value of which has been
explained in my papers. More importantly, the use of magnetic fields
on a matrix of separated magnetic nanoparticles, in an otherwise non-
magnetic environment, creates a matrix of strong field gradients, due
especially to the short range of those gradients.
The question then arises, how can these gradients be optimized? The
answer is to use a very high mu material to load the nano-pores, and
impose a magnetic field on that material in order to create large
short range magnetic gradients. Fortunately, materials exists with mu
that is many orders of magnitude larger than that of pure Ni or Fe.
Mu metals are such materials. Conveniently, many such high mu
materials contain Ni and Fe. The various commercial compositions of
mu metals typically do not achieve extremely high mu *until baked in
the presence of hydrogen*.
Coincidentally, Ni with about 10% iron was once used as a high mu
material, useful for magnetic shielding and transformer coils. Cu was
eventually added, without significantly impairing the mu, to improve
ductility. One has to wonder if Rossi stumbled upon his mixture by
coincidence! Also coincidental, perhaps is that Pd that has been
worked is more effective at D+D__>He, and that working the PD on
steel rollers or under steel hammers, as perhaps Johnson Matthey did,
and certainly some other researchers did, could implant small
particles of iron which could impart magnetic gradients in highly
localized surface locations.
In any case, regardless of what Rossi has done, and whether what he
has done performs as has been represented, my theory suggests that
highly effective mu metal formulas should be used, especially for
protium based LENR. The mu metal nanoparticles should be held in
spatially close but isolated form, isolated by an insulating, low mu,
highly refractory material, such that externally imposed strong
imposed electric and magnetic fields can be used to enhance and
control fusion rate. From the work of Dennis Cravens isolation of
lattice material in nanopores is useful for preventing sintering as
well. From the work reported by Scott Chubb and Dennis Letts,
"Magnetic Field Triggering of Excess Power in Deuterated Palladium",
Infinite Energy, issue 95, it can be deduced, from Fig. 9 especially,
that a moderately fast directionally moving (rotated) magnetic field
is much more useful than a static magnetic field. This is easily
understood in terms of the increased tunneling rate provided by the
field rotation. A fully 360° rotating field makes sense. It is also
useful to maintain an electrostatic field, if also used, co-linear
with the B field. The reasons for this are likely that axially pre-
aligned spins, and co-aligned gradients, are useful for making
tunneling favorable in the same direction the E field makes tunneling
favorable.
As a slight digression, it is notable that deflation fusion,
especially where D+D-->H is involved, is optimized in part by
maximizing the hydrogen *tunneling* rate in the lattice. Diffusion
in high loading metals, like Pd, V, Ti, etc., unfortunately is
primarily by ordinary motion at useful temperatures, but these have
the benefit of fast diffusion and high loading even at atmospheric
pressures. On the other hand, the small lattice constants of Ni, Fe
and Cu, provide for diffusion driven almost entirely by high
*tunneling* rates, but suffer from very small loading coefficients at
atmospheric pressure. The obvious solution to this dilemma is to use
nanoparticles or nanolayers of small lattice constant material to
reduce the diffusion distance, and to imbed the small lattice
constant high tunneling rate material into high loading material , or
to coat nanoparticles of the high tunneling rate material with the
high loading material, in order to achieve higher loading via the
spillover effect. Once the composite material is loaded, hydrogen
diffusion through the high tunneling rate material can be driven by
thermal gradients and thermal cycling, by electromigration, or by
magnetic field rotation, etc.
Getting back to the topic of the use of mu metal type materials,
consider the product offered at:
http://www.blockemf.com/catalog/product_info.php?
cPath=763&products_id=5101
http://tinyurl.com/3smxtlb
Chemical analysis (attached) shows it to be about 80% Ni, 14% Fe, 5%
Mo, 0.5% Mn, plus trace S, Si, C, P. This is a very good protium
cold fusion lattice prospect. Curie temp about 454°C. The
saturation induction is surprisingly low though, at 7500 gauss.
Permeability is 325,000! Comes in $75/roll quantity, but no
specification on the weight of the roll. It is convenient the
material is in wire form, because this makes feasible
electromigration experiments, as well as plasma loading experiments
similar to those of Clayter et al.
It is probably far more cost effective to obtain materials not yet
heat treated, if pore loading is to be done, because the cost of
ingredients themselves is mainly in the Ni. The cost of high mu
material, on the other hand, is primarily in heat treating of the
material in a hydrogen atmosphere, something that will happen in the
LENR process anyway. The mu of properly heat treated material can be
increased by a factor of 40.
Zeolites can be prepared for loading with heavy metals by treating
with an appropriate acid, such as hydrochloric acid, or phosophoric
acid, to empty the pores and to provide the interior of the pores
with a strong negative charge after the zeolite is then baked at
around 400°C. The zeolite can then be loaded by placing in an
aqueous solution containing the metals to be loaded. There are other
more direct methods. Here is an article on "Removal of Nickel(II)
from Aqueous Solutions by Adsorption with Modified ZSM- 5 Zeolites",
published by P. PANNEERSELVAM et al, at a university in Chennai, India:
http://www.e-journals.in/PDF/V6N3/729-736.pdf
Chennai, India was the home of the ICCF16 (International Conferance
on Cold Fusion) convention. What a coincidence!
They use treated ZSM-5 zeolite for removal of Ni. "The modified
zeolite was converted to Na+ form using aqueous NaHCO3 solution. The
Na+ form of modified zeolite, represented as PNa2--ZSM-5 was
characterized by XRD, BET, SEM and AAS techniques. It was then tested
for ion exchange with aqueous Ni(SO4) solution." "... optimum pH
range for the removal of Ni2+ was found to be 4."
Loading pores with a uniform alloy of metals, such as Ni, Fe, and Mo,
may be more difficult. It may also be unnecessary, and the fine
grained variability of a metallic glass may in fact be useful to
obtaining consistent results, though larger crystals do produce a
higher mu. After baking at high temperature to remove water, the
loaded material can be baked at a higher temperature, possibly up to
1000°C, in a hydrogen atmosphere to increase its mu. It is a
convenient fact that the effectiveness of the total process, whatever
is produced, can largely be determined by measuring or comparing the
mu of the resulting material or materials. This can be achieved by
placing fixed weight samples in a solenoid coil and measuring the
(change in) inductance (or AC impedance).
There are various materials and surface preparation methods that can
provide nanopores useful for loading with metals to achieve LENR. One
method for preparing nanopores is the anodization of aluminum, or
some other metals, which has been discussed much here in the past.
The size and depth of the hexagonal pores can be controlled by
varying the electrolyte, voltage, current density, and duration used
in the anodization. This kind of surface pore may be useful for
loading using ordinary electroplating/codeposition techniques, but
using higher than normal voltages initially (or removing the pore
bottoms by etching), and with the electrode surface being converted
to a cathode for the plating phase.
That's my take on the Rossi extravaganza, except it would not be
surprising to see the whole magical thing disappear in a puff of
smoke, one way or another. Now returning to lurk mode ...
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
