There are a few experimenters here on Vortex who have taken notice of the "Reiter effect" - which is based on the work of Nick Reiter with nanoporous zeolites, which have been loaded with various metals by ion exchange.
Recently, Nick got excellent results with Co-Gd infused zeolite beads and hydrogen. Cobalt is notably ferro-magnetic, and gadolinium has very unusual magnetic properties. Manganese is another element that is "almost" ferromagnetic in many respects. In fact, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory has made manganese-based PMs (Permanent Magnets) with 40 MGOe coercivity - which is pretty amazing. This is an ARPA-E success story: http://arpa-e.energy.gov/Portals/0/Documents/FundedProjects/REACT%20Slicks/F inal_Slick_PNNL.pdf Anyway, back to the cross-connection between thermal gain and magnetism -Nick has now found a recipe for what appears to give a substantial boost over both Co and Ni (cobalt was actually better than nickel) - which is a 50-50 blend of Ni and Mn. (made by using equal molar amounts of the chlorides in aqueous solution loaded into 3A beads). These experiments of Reiter are low-budget "thermometry" experiments so far, where comparative temperature gains are documented. He is rumored to be building an air-flow calorimeter <g> which will help in getting this important information spread around - if the results hold. The Ni-Mn beads are running for long periods with at delta-T of near 100C over the null run baseline of ~350C. Potentially this is much better than Celani's results and the active material is simpler to produce. This is great news for the low-budget scientists amongst us - and most importantly it points to an underlying mechanism for gain in Ni-H but it may be more complicated than you want to believe now. Moreover, if Rossi is really getting positive results at 1000C, then magnetism is unlikely to be involved in his reactor. That is troubling in itself, since it means that there could be many - four or five or more - active gainful mechanisms for thermal anomalies in metal-hydrogen loading. Here are the main metal-hydrogen reactions which have substantial experimental evidence behind them (in roughly chronological order): 1) The original LENR of P&F which is seen with palladium and deuterium and involves fusion to helium or tritium. 2) The original f/H (fractional hydrogen) mechanism of Mills, now expanded by Miley and others as Rydberg hydrogen. No radioactivity involved. 3) A Focardi/Rossi mechanism involving the transmutation of nickel into copper or other metals. This is probably a W-L mechanism but little radioactivity is seen. 4) The Storms mechanism, which is similar to 1) and is true LENR fusion of protons. 5) A nano-magnetism mechanism which may be quasi-fusion related (reversible proton fusion). I think that this is the Reiter mechanism, but he might not agree. This is QM based, but can leave trace radioactivity. 6) Any combination or permutation of the above This list is NOT what most theorist want to imagine: that there could be many mechanisms for gain in hydrogen loaded cavities. In fact the mainstream hates this worse than anything that has come up since the original "cold fusion" shocker intruded on their complacency. But essentially we must ask- why not many mechanism? After all, hydrogen is most of the known universe, 95% perhaps - so why should hydrogen reactions be "limited by its underlying simplicity" instead of being "complicated due to its latent quantum complexity"? I ask you, why not 5 (or six)? Jones
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
