A nice idea could also be: Use a nickel tube and apply heat as well as hydrogen /inside/ of the tube. If there are any gamma rays or particles that trigger other reactions, the efficiency should be better. Also parasitic heat losses are minimized, because the hottest surface is inside. Also preparation (glowing in vacuum) should be easier.
I dont understand the idea behind the Piantelli-Focardi design of apparatus. It seems to be inefficient to me and difficult to measure. It must also been said, many have tried to replicate it, so far I know Fiat and some universities are among them. One group reported, they have observed all effects that Focardi & Piantelli have reported, but could not measure excess heat. Dont know, if they reported gamma rays. If you do a precise replication, expect it to be difficult and possibly without result because many have already tried. Peter ----- Original Nachricht ---- Von: Aussie Guy E-Cat <[email protected]> An: [email protected] Datum: 08.11.2011 08:36 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Focardi 1998 cell replication > Overall I do agree with you, especially as cell A was a Ni plated > stainless rod and it produces more power than did the Ni plated Ni rod. > However I do plan to replicate the original Piantelly / Focardi cell > design as closely as I can and how they produced, processed and H loaded > the Ni rods. > > Once I have that data set, I will start trying other Ni samples, like > your Ni pipe suggestion with internal heater (which I like) and the Ni > powder. > > > On 11/8/2011 5:39 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > > > ----- Original Nachricht ---- > > Von: Aussie Guy E-Cat<[email protected]> > > An: [email protected] > > Datum: 08.11.2011 07:28 > > Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Focardi 1998 cell replication > > > >> I have read Focardi did heat treat the Ni rod, which I also intend to > >> do. I also understand there can be problems with the Ni rod becoming H > >> loaded and producing heat when there is no external heating applied. I > >> do note Focardi does show a vacuum supply that can be applied to the > >> cell and with his 300 watts of thermal heat, the rod would get quite hot > >> as in a vacuum, it's ability to radiate heat away would be reduced. > >> > >> Here is a question I'm sure Vortex can answer a lot quicker and easier > >> than I can. > >> > >> Assuming a 10mm dia Ni rod 50 mm long, inserted inside a high temp > >> ceramic coil form, which is wrapped with high temp wire and in a vacuum. > >> How much power would need to be applied to get the Ni rod to 500 deg C? > >> Is this possible or would I need to use a more exotic heat source? IE > >> how to get a Ni rod to 500 deg C in a vacuum without breaking my several > >> thousand dollar budget? > >> > > The reaction is probably a surface effect, it is unlikely that the > hydrogen diffused deep into the nickel rod. > > > > You could use a nickel pipe and place the heater inside. Very low power > should be needed to heat it to 500° > > in a vacuum. 500° is equivalent to red hot glowing iron, nothing > special,commercial heaters are available. > > Placing the heater inside should avoid parasitic thermal energy losses and > improve the COP much (if there is any) and should make the proof much > easier. > > Dont understand why Focardi& Piantelly had not this thought, I think, > this is rather obvious. > > They always choose the most distant confusing and difficult way this makes > me doubt about their seriousness. > > > > Such an arrangement, but much smaller, is found in electronic vacuuum > valves as cathode. They use a small nickel pipe (barium oxide coated) with > the heater inside as a cathode. > > > > > >
