Newly-found Document Provided Details of Nickel Powder from Early-model E-Cat

The following was submitted by Hank Mills

A new paper has been located by the folks at LENR-forum. It was titled “Analysis of two types of nickel powder” and was written by Curt Edstrom of Ralon, and Jan-Erik Nowacki of KTH in Sweden. (Original document in Swedish available here) The paper contains analysis of powder obtained by Sven Kullander which was provided to him by Andrea Rossi, and details an analysis of unused powder and ash from a previous model of E-Cat.

This powder had, according to Rossi, certain additives removed. In the ash but not the new powder, iron was found in addition to many other elements. Some of the elements, such as copper, were likely contaminants (Rossi has recently said that copper was probably a contaminant). Lithium was mentioned as a possible catalyst despite not being found. In addition, a series of high magnification scanning electron microscope (SEM) were included which show fine, detailed features of the nickel powder. Many folds, cracks, cube shaped blocks, and tubercules can be seen. This document not only gives us additional data about the elemental composition of the powder, but gives us an example of the nickel particles we need for successful replications. Here’s one image.

For my full analysis, please go to an article posted today on PESWiki:

http://pesn.com/2014/10/13/9602545_Leaked-Second-Paper_With_High-Magnification_of_Rossis-Nickel-Particles_Brings_Replication_Closer/

Hank Mills

  • Daniel Maris

    Well surface area seems to be the key, so that looks good. 🙂

  • Ophelia Rump

    I am fascinated by the emerging geometrical structures. Cube shapes, and surface geometries.
    These suggest underlying order in the process along with the violent chaos which so easily comes to mind imagining a nuclear reaction. Is the order critical to the function?

  • artefact

    Great!
    Now there need to be many people replicating. The winner gets the biggest adrenalin rush of his life.

  • clovis ray

    Hi, folks.

    Fascinating indeed, the sem gives us a look, at where the magic is, image these little guys with towering, tubular, waving in synce

  • Hank Mills

    I’m excited that the flood gates of information about the secret sauce are opening. The data we are getting and SEM images are stunning: we now know the entire contents of the reactor, the isotopic shifts, the catalysts, the surface features of the nickel, and a bit about the AC being input into the device. Now we simply need a team of qualified individuals to replicate this AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE.

    The time for messing around with wire and other primitive systems is over. We have the ingredients for the most advanced LENR device on the planet and we need to use the knowledge to replicate. I’m convinced that wide spread replications are the only thing that can break through the barriers the mainstream media have setup. If we ever want the world to consider this tech as real, we need to make replicating a top priority.

    • Ophelia Rump

      I think you are mistaken about replication. The future lies in building imaging instruments into the reactor so that they can do live imaging at multiple scales. What does this look like live?

      • Aleksandr Albert

        I assume you really want to see what happens to the particles in real time, but you wont fit an SEM inside of one of those tubes, and even if you could, SEM’s are a fairly slow scanning based technology, imaging a single particle of nickel may take a couple of minutes. Add in the fact that at those scales and temperatures it would be extremely non-trivial to keep a loose particle in place and unfortunately all we are left with is a pipe dream.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Agreed completely: replication should have top priority now that it seems feasible. Faithful replication.

      • artefact

        Does not belong in this thread but:

        on Vortex said Jed Rothwell: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg98594.html

        “Brian Ahern just called me to say that he spoke with expert in thermal
        imaging. The expert went over the paper and said this was exactly the right
        kind of camera for these materials and this range of temperatures. The guy
        said surface roughness and various other factors come into play. He knows
        something about alumina and he said these are the instruments and
        wavelengths he would select.
        Brian said his own doubts have been resolved.”

        That was a big issue that seems now to be resolved…

        • ecatworld

          Fine for this thread — thanks, artefact.

        • Sanjeev

          People also forget that they used a dummy to check that the instruments are working perfectly. With the same Alumina tube and same camera, the COP was exactly 1.
          Camera did not give incorrect readings in the dummy test, so we know that there is no such issue.

          • Ged

            People really have a problem remembering they did the proper scientific controls which nullify a lot of the worries slung around, even me.

          • Bob Greenyer

            The challenge was that the blank did not go to the same temperatures as the activated reactor and so it was not a valid comparison and also because it would be expected for there to be a difference in the emissivity and effective transparency of the Alumina and Inconel.

            What this anecdotal evidence is pointing to – is that the temperature of these materials would be accurately read by the IR camera used, and since the input power was in the same range it follows logically that the higher temperature must be from excess heat coming from another source other than the electrical input.

            A physical test with a dummy reactor with and inner core coil and outer coil to test the range of temps against a thermocouple with IR and visible spectrum cameras in play, and that is one thing the MFMP is considering.

          • Ged

            I do respectively disagree that the higher temps of the active reactor make the comparison with the control not valid. The input power was similar, so what differences exist must principally lie in the variable that was changed: the active fuel. It’s the whole point. Basic good science design.

            Your control design is more exacting and can give note precise results, however. Making it great science design.

          • Bob Greenyer

            I was merely quoting the skeptical positioning to date.

            We are focussing on building a test that would settle the debate.

          • Mark Szl

            Exactly, they had a “no treatment” or “natural history” or even “placebo” control group. So yes a lot of criticisms where bogus.

        • bachcole

          It is not resolved for skeptopaths. Only valium will resolve this issue for them. (:->)

          • Ophelia Rump

            Lithium might seem more aprapos.

          • Billy Jackson

            Cheese may result in runaway reactions…

  • The Finnish Patent is very close to Rossi’s Results check it out again:
    Inventors Pekka Soininen
    Applicant Etiam Oy
    https://www.google.com/patents/WO2013076378A2?cl=en&dq=WO2013076378&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GPw7VLTILs7uoASCmIGICw&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA

    • Bob Greenyer

      I love this paper, but it always did come across a little as a state of the art summary. I would have preferred to see them demonstrate some embodiments.

  • Bob Greenyer

    MFMP collaborator Bob Higgins studied previously available SEMs and produced powder as close as his 30 years of working at this scale for Motorola and his insight could predict.

    Here is the process, openly published.

    http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/experiements/dormant-experiments/powder-test-cells/372-adding-nano-scale-features-to-macro-scale-metals-for-lenr-applications

    He commented on the above paper – he is working from the Swedish version.

    “That is a good lead. I obtained the paper in Swedish which contains a lot of details not mentioned in e-catworld. I will translate it and analyze. The pictures of the virgin Ni powder definitely show carbonyl Ni powder. The carbon in the EDX is probably left over from the carbonyl process, not an additive. My starting carbonyl Ni powder has a small remnant carbon left from the process, but is essentially pure Ni.”

    He is sending 10g samples of the partially reduced (activated for H2 dissociation) finished powders to Southern France and Minnisota.

  • AB

    Out of curiosity, how does one produce these crystalline nickel grains? Celani has described some of his technique but I don’t know if he’s made similar powder.

  • Andrew

    Found the worst example of a “science” blog ever concerning cold fusion. http://motls.blogspot.ca/2014/10/cold-fusion-science-which-is-not-science.html?m=1

  • Melchior
  • Ged

    Wonder what new energy invention to make after thermal electrics and biofuel from waste were let downs -> See promise in the original Fleischmann and Pons experiments and try to replicate based on experience from those other energy field attempts -> get some promising but small results, use intuition to try to increase output -> very early demos: better output, now experiment with parameters on reliability/reproducibility and more output -> low temp e-cat: lots of output, but still too cool for industry and hard to control, aim for higher temps -> hot-cat: success, but not much control or reliability, need better for industry, work on those with new design -> current hot-cat v3

  • anonamous

    I been through the presented documents thoroughly..sorry It took a while to respond. One of my associates have posted on here before.
    I admire the diligence of the 3rd Party ..all seems good..A new parameter/mechanism has to added fundamentally to physics….this is pointing to the.electroweak. I would be confident to say that the W- W+ and Z boson interact under a mechanism that spontaneoulsy break symmetry .
    however this leads into something more fundamental….the higgs mechanism has two paths not one!!!! there has to be more multiple higgs bosons or one higgs with different flavours…
    ..

  • Bob Greenyer

    MFMP collaborator B. Higgins has read through this new release and says the following.

    “The analysis and SEM photos of the starting powder (without catalyst) show it to be conclusively carbonyl nickel. There is a lot of debris analysis for the “Old” (ash) powder, but most interesting is the Figure 17 analysis of the Ni particle that looks minimally changed in the ash from its original form. It is a carbonyl Ni particle with iron. On page 17, they even conclude that the catalyst added may be iron.”

    This basically means Bobs powder is pretty much on the mark and his lab, Ryan’s and Mathieu’s should have plenty to test in the coming week.

    • Robert Ellefson

      Note the size of the iron-dominant crystal in the fuel micrographs – they are large crystals, > 150 microns, and no apparent nano-scale iron is observed. For example, the SIMS analysis did not show iron on the surface of the nickel-dominant fuel grain in figure 7, appendix 3. I think you need macro-scale iron crystals to take advantage of EMF fields by distorting them locally into large gradients to drive plasmonic activity in the fuel. The wavelengths active in the EMF stimulant may restrict the physical dimensions of iron grains that are effective.

      • Hank Mills

        I think there may be a need for different sizes of iron in the fuel mix: nano powder and macro sized particles. If replication work begins soon, I hope several tests with multiple sizes, combinations, and ammounts of iron will be tested. The same goes for lithium. Also, there may be a need to adjust the frequencies or intensities of the magnetic stimulation with different sizes of powder.

        The testing program needs to be continual. A few shots in the dark may not be successful.

      • GordonDocherty

        This is indeed very interesting – effectively, you are saying the em field generated by the “heating” coil around the mixture is causing the atoms in the iron to spin-align and strengthen the em field local to the crystals (notice the heater is a coil round the mixture, not a wire through it). In effect, the e-cat is working inside the core of an electromagnet. This is the kind of detail that’s really good to know! It also explains why certain “secret” substances can be added to the nickel powder after the powder has been otherwise processed. As to Lithium being present, perhaps that is one of the improvements made to create the hot-cat: provide a Hydrogen source from Lithium Aluminum Hydride, another powder additive. What “Figure 19 New powder. Crystal Formation of pure nickel grains” shows is that there are plenty of Casimir pockets.

        • GordonDocherty

          and field emission tips – for focused electron beam emission? See, for example:

          http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.1225

          – in particular, “We theoretically investigate the interaction of moderate intensity near-infrared few cycle laser pulses with nano-scale metal tips”

          So, (near) IR again…

          With all these geometrical forms present that are known to affect behaviours at the nano-scale, it becomes harder to argue why particular effects don’t happen, rather than why they do!

  • deleo77

    Interesting that Mike McKubre has weighed in with a detailed analysis of the test below. He has his points with his criticism, but over-all it appears his reaction is fairly encouraging.

    Seeing this makes me think that Darden and Vaughn should really consider getting more input and involvement from the LENR community. I fully understand operating in secrecy, and even stealth mode, as IH is currently doing. But at a certain point, especially with science such as LENR, all of that secrecy could potentially work against you. How great would it be to have Mike McKubre, Peter Hagelstein, or Brian Ahern visit IH in North Carolina and collaborate on some level? As long as there are no major conflict of interests, it will likely lead to more progress and understanding of the e-cat reactor. LENR is ultimately a gift to the world. If Darden and Vaughn bring scientists like McKubre into the mix, only good things can happen:

    http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue118/analysis.html

  • GordonDocherty

    The picture suggests the powders were created using the Nickel Carbonyl Process. Now Nickel tetracarbonyl (Nickel Carbonyl) is one of the nastiest substances known to man. That’s the bad news. The good news, however, is that it is used in the PRODUCTION of ultra-high grade nickel, and is NOT PRESENT in the end product. Further, when carbonyl gas is used in large volumes in refineries, this allows for the economic production of a range of nickel powders with different properties. So, for example, new products can be made by using the gas stream essentially as a coating medium. These new products include nickel coated graphite particulates, nickel coated carbon fibres and the large scale commercial production of high porosity nickel foam. Another benefit is that THE PROCESS HAS NO REAL WASTE PRODUCTS, with used gas recycled back into the main refinery process. Refineries in North America and Britain can currently each process up to 50,000 tonnes per year of nickel in his way, producing a wide range of different products. So, if you own such a refinery, the LENR revolution is definitely good news for you!

    Anyway, here’s some more information on the Carbonyl Process:

    http://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=499
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00774009
    http://cvmr.ca/news/?p=128
    http://www.william-rowland.com/resources/pdfs/inco2.pdf
    http://www.vale.com/canada/en/business/mining/nickel/products/nickel-powder/Pages/default.aspx

    plus much else besides on the web…

    • Dave Lawton

      We have one of the largest refinerys near were I live.Its at the Clydach Refinery near Swansea,Wales.I`ll nip down with a bucket and scrouge some.If anyone needs some for research I`m sure they will send you some. It`s what I do and they are very obliging.

      • GordonDocherty

        Dear Dave,
        If you know anyone at the plant (I was looking on the Web –
        Mike Cox is the General Manager, UK Operations at the Vale Clydach
        Refinery) then they might be interested in the potential (positive)
        impact on production – and Vale are “quite big” (Headquarters, Brazil,
        bought Inco (Canada), one of the Major Players in Nickel mining and
        processing…). Now, there is a form on the Vale – Brazil website that
        requires a whole bunch of details from you before you can even submit
        the form, but a direct link with the Clydach Refinery, so they can
        factor LENR into their Scenario Planning – as well as inform Vale in
        Canada – would do the job far quicker and be far more certain of getting
        them to follow developments as they unfold – on the e-catworld
        web-site, of course 😉

    • LCD

      are you differentiating between Nickel Carbonyl and the process? Because Nickel Carbonyl melts at like 0 deg?

      • GordonDocherty

        the Process – in fact, the Clydach Refinery referred to just below is where Ludwig Mond, the inventor of the nickel carbonyl process, built his first factory

  • Fortyniner

    You seem to be following this – what exactly are we looking at?

  • GordonDocherty

    In this case, “heat” is being measured in terms of the IR given off. Now, in measuring temperatures, like a liquid, we are used to “popping in a thermometer” and reading the result. Although this may be an oversimplification in some ways, this is essentially what also happens in many science experiments. What we are actually doing in this case, of course, in measuring temperature is measuring the transfer of heat to the temperature sensing device and MAKING AN ASSUMPTION that the heat is coming from the whole body (after all, heat travels uniformly in all directions, right?) It is not the only possibility, however. To understand what I mean, we’ve all seen what happens when we put a dry leaf out “in the sunshine” – not very much – until we put a magnifying glass in front of it and focus the Sun’s radiation – now we see the leaf burn… So, a reaction occurring in those pockets we have now all seen such that the IR is focused away from the reaction site due to some form of magnetic lensing, and we now see a way to measure a higher heat at the surface than inside. As another example, the Sun’s surface is hotter than the layer beneath – and it’s been shining quite a while, so there has been plenty of time for the heat to “even out”, which it probably would if it were not for the fact that the Sun is also radiating energy away… The argument that the temperature gradient must be uniform decreasing from the centre to the outside of the e-Cat is therefore not quite as robust as at first appears – factors such as magnetic fields / magnetic lensing, reaction sites, and the number of reaction sites active at any one time must all be taken into account. Of course, with a different configuration / design, if you did trigger every reaction site simultaneously to 100% capacity then, in other words, you would have achieved instant nuclear ignition inside a large volume. This goes back to the point I raised earlier about the miscalculation of Castle Bravo where it was believed that the Lithium 7 present in the Lithium blanket present in the thermonuclear device would be inert in the nuclear sense. It was not. The result – instead of a circa 4-8 Megaton TNT equivalent release of energy, the energy released was 15 Megatons, or about 2.5 times predicted… This clearly does not happen in the case of the e-Cat, so its design clearly does not trigger large scale simultaneous reactions across the reactor (which would make it a type of small-scale thermonuclear bomb), nor does it support or encourage such, nor is it therefore going to be the case that there is a uniform decreasing temperature gradient from the absolute centre-line of the reactor to the outside surface. Indeed, if anything, what this shows is that the reactor design is inherently safe as it clearly radiates heat energy away from the centre, most probably via electromagnetic field lines (those same fields looking likely as being necessary for the reactions to proceed in the first place – perhaps part of the purpose of the iron found in the ash?) – in effect, the e-cat seems to breed mini forms of the magnetic fields responsible for the Sun’s Coronal Mass Ejections. As an analogy, think of the “heat bubbles” that rise out of milk when it is heated toward boiling – as the average temperature of the milk increases, local hot-spots boil first. Indeed, this local-boiling is something often used in cooking, with the right control, to keep a hot body “simmering along” for a long time without breaking down – the milk proteins mostly stay intact. Indeed, “simmering” is likely a good way to describe the e-Cat operation – the nuclear fuel inside the e-Cat is just simmering along – it is not erupting in a single (mushroom-shaped?) boil – nor can it, for if it does start to run away, the core does melt, so dowsing and shutting the whole reaction process down.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      But alumina is opaque to its own thermal infrared. The case of solar corona is different because tenuous collisionless plasmas are not in thermal equilibrium with nearby objects or with themselves. Below sun’s visible surface temperature grows downward. I think the same must happen also in E-cat’s alumina shell.

      • GordonDocherty

        I agree – in which case, the temperature just under the alumina must be very high indeed (if this were the Sun, the alumina would be some distance off the surface, so that there is plenty of room for a “hot atmosphere”) – given the e-Cat did not melt, it does indeed look like the same must happen also in E-cat’s alumina shell. Also, the (Inocel or Tungsten?) wires coiled around the e-Cat didn’t melt – and they are clearly visible in the pictures, so again suggesting the heat is being radiated outward…

        • Pekka Janhunen

          If the temperature would be somewhat lower than reported, it would solve these issues. See many other reply to Michele above.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            sorry, meant to say: see my other reply to Michele above

          • GordonDocherty

            OK – so, basically, the setup was good at “losing heat” – makes sense, and is a rather nice system characteristic, as it means the rate of reaction can be increased on a loaded system without the system “losing steam” (pun intended)

  • Pekka Janhunen

    The alumina surface has cooling fins. In the report the fins are modelled for convection, but I’m not sure how their effect is included for the Stefan-Boltzmann law application. Corrugation of a surface increases its effective emissivity (if emissivity is defined per uncorrugated area). I suspect that the real temperature may have been lower than reported. The total energy flux was probably more or less correct.