Jones,
Kengchi still has a small language barrier -when he says fissures he
really is referring to fissures - cracks not fission - in the Ni geometry ..
I think he mentioned Pd by mistake - I am guilty of hijacking his magma
question by responding with the National Instrument news that Ron Kita
delivered the other day. Keng took early retirement from LM , he was a lead
power supply designer and frequently sought after member of tiger team
investigations, He has at least several patents that I am aware of and is
author of several books on switching power supply design like zero crossover
PWM and loopback modeling. If you overlook a few improper nouns [remembering
he is an EE with English as a second language] Keng brings a lot to the table
and is very accustomed to modeling his ideas with math. He has an interesting
idea of fracturing ceramics in place of the Ni environment where the Casimir
quality reduction might be overridden by increased rigidity and smaller
geometry - remember Casimir effect still accumulates even for resistive
material and a doped ceramic might attain higher values than a pure conductor
if it is rigid enough to avoid the deformations which stiction would normally
create.
Fran
_____________________________________________
From: Jones Beene [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 10:58 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:magma heat source?
From: Roarty, Francis
> Is it possible that 1) Ni-H releases H, 2) the released H is forced
> into Pd fissure, 3) its electron cloud goes through redistribution, and 4)
> energy is released. [snip]
Doesn't that scenario presuppose that there is an adequate distribution of pure
palladium in the magma, and in particles which are large enough to fissure?
That situation seems unlikely in a statistical sense - given the rarity of Pd
in the earth's crust, and the fact it is almost always found as an alloy, and
is very ductile and would heal fissures when under pressure. However, something
similar with Ni-Pd alloy could happen, according to Ahern's Arata replication.
But first, isn't "electron cloud redistribution" a dynamical Casimir effect,
not necessarily involving fusion? That is my take on it. If so, you do not need
fissures anyway (as opposed to maximum loading). However, this brings up two
overlooked points.
There is a most interesting but limited paper showing thermal gain in hydrogen
filters - which is seen around 350 C. The effect is the small 'bump' in the
graph that happens after power is cutoff. This same trigger temperature was
found by Ahern, and by several others - and it has been found in both Pd and Ni
(and in alloys of the two) - always in a range around 350 C. That information
is all in the public domain, and in the paper from Fralick of NASA -
lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FralickGClenratgrcp.pdf or http://tinyurl.com/cydppod.
It is not a big effect in itself, but the 'bump' or gain - is persistent.
Perhaps all that is needed, for getting excess heat continuously from even the
hydrogen filter shown in the paper - is to cycle around this point
continuously, using good controls. In a commercial context, that should read:
"using good controls such as NI and Siemens have developed for this niche".
Does this not explain why one must add heat to an exothermic process in order
to get the excess heat? And why the Austin meeting could provide confirmation
of some of what has been mostly anecdotal.
That little detail - concerning a novel process always requiring some level of
power input to get excess output - is perplexing to all the experts in
thermodynamics who want to model this as a nuclear process... one where heat
addition is not required. It is not primarily that kind of process! But let me
add the caveat that, yes - a small number of real nuclear reactions can and do
occur - but as a side effect. The nuclear reactions seen are 4 orders of
magnitude too low to provide the excess energy, but they do manage to confuse
everyone into thinking that this is nuclear (instead of primarily non-nuclear
with a small nuclear side-effect).
I am almost certain that this will be the one big message, if not the only
useful message, which comes out of the NI conference in Austin: "cycle your
input carefully around the trigger point". Of course, this means Rossi is
either full of BS with his 600 degree nonsense, or else that he has found a
completely new reaction regime over the most common one (and the one which he
started with). The smart money is on "completely full of BS" and/or his silly
attempts to always add misdirection and disinformation, into the mix.
So back to the original suggestion of an alternative for magma heating. Nickel
is not rare. In earth's crust, there is 99 ppm of Ni compared to .015 for Pd -
several thousand times more. Plus, deuterium is not needed for NiH thermal
success. Plus, Ahern and others discovered that an alloy of nickel with only 5%
Pd provides 400% increase hydrogen loading compared to pure Pd (4:1 vs 1:1). If
we are looking for energy gain through some kind of electron cloud
redistribution, or whatever happens in tight loading, then you would want
maximum the loading and the porosity of the matrix, no? That eliminates Pd in
favor of alloys which seem to be mostly (95%) nickel, and in some kind of a
natural porous 'foam' with Casimir internal cavities which form and disappear
as the magma squishes around, and there are probably many undiscovered hosts
for this process.
Jones
