One further detail to put under the microscope, since the devil is in the details…
As a general rule – therefore it can be said that there is
no correlation between loading ratio and heat unless it is related to
isotopes, meaning that this detail about the lack of any correlation can be
limited to hydrogen (protium) and does not necessarily apply to deuterium.
In tests done for EPRI, Ahern tested an alloy of nickel and palladium which
stored 4 times more hydrogen than did palladium. When nano Palladium was
used as a pure metal, the hydrogen ratio was close to 1:1. With this NiPd
alloy, the hydrogen storage ratio was almost 4:1 yet the much higher loading
alloy was NOT the best performer for thermal gain with hydrogen.
Notably Ahern did not test any alloys with deuterium. There is plenty of
evidence with deuterium - that loading ratio is well-correlated to excess
heat.
Moreover, all of Ahern’s loaded nano nickel alloys showed some thermal gain
when the temperature was raised near the Curie point of nickel, in contrast
to nano-titanium for instance, which showed no thermal gain at the same
temperature.
Since this parameter (raising the temperature this high) was never done in
the prior 5 decades of research - in the mainstream quest to maximize
hydrogen storage in metals, then taking everything together, we can make
several conclusions based on what is in the record.
These are conclusion about what factors are active for thermal gain with
hydrogen and not deuterium in testing which has be replicated by other
groups. Loading is not important with hydrogen, based on this testing -
since the alloy which performed the best (copper-nickel) loaded poorly, and
the alloy which loaded highest was gainful, but not the best. The second is
that to see any thermal gain with hydrogen, the matrix alloy needs to be
raised to near the Curie point. With deuterium, Cravens has shown that gain
can be seen at a low temperature.
Since these conclusions with hydrogen are very different from the case with
deuterium loading, the message stands out unequivocally for me at least -
that we are dealing with TWO DIFFERENT routes to thermal gain.
Jones
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
