Rossi, Lugano, Neutrons and Electromagnetics (Keith Thompson)

The following was posted by Keith Thompson

From the Lugano test, 98.7% Ni62 in the ash requires that nickel atoms all through the 3D volume of the nickel lattice have reacted not just at the 2D lattice surface, based on starting with normal isotope composition nickel for the fuel transmuting to 98.7% Ni62 in the ash, this would require 316 additional neutrons per 100 non-Ni62 isotope atoms, assuming that each Ni64 lost 2 neutrons to become Ni62. (I think that this is unlikely, removing neutrons would be even harder than adding neutrons most likely each Ni64 gains a proton).

Within a nickel FCC lattice structure, for every nickel atom there is one octahedral site and two tetrahedral sites, so for every 100 nickel atoms @ 3 sites per atom = 300 O & T sites.

As it is difficult to get hydrogen to fill 100 % of octahedral interstitial sites and near impossible to fill 100 % of T sites, it is unlikely that larger lithium atoms would migrate through the lattice and fill the O sites, therefore lithium can only coat the 2D nickel lattice surface.

If lithium is external to the nickel lattice and is the source of the neutrons, lithium neutrons would have to be first emitted then pass into and through the nickel lattice to then be absorbed by the nickel atoms. I think this is unlikely; it is more probable that Li7 atoms closest to the nickel lattice gain a proton as a by-product of the environment that produces the main nickel transmutation.

This leaves hydrogen atoms as the source, so with full loading providing an individual hydrogen atom in each O site, i.e. a single proton per O site, this combines with an electron providing the neutron.

The neutron is produced and combines with the Nickel atom due to; hydrogen atom confinement within the O site (from having as near 100% loading of O sites as possible), contact pressure from the lattice structure trying to contract (metal bond dimension for empty lattice versus stretched / expanded lattice from hydrogen filling), additional pressure from the heated lattice structure (vibration of the lattice due to the additional energy from being heated), and additional pressure from magnetic resonance of the nickel lattice structure (high frequency electrically induced, superimposed on the resistance heating coil supply – tungsten with Inconel tails, Andrea Rossi mentions “electromagnetics” on Feb. 1st 9.07pm, the Lugano report summary on page 30 mentions “some electro-magnetic stimulation”). Magnetic resonance induces vibration of the lattice structure to be ordered and in phase, it is likely that there will be more than one potential driving frequency with each frequency producing a different resonant lattice vibration modal structure. At least one of these frequencies is likely to produce the required constructive / destructive interference patterns from the combining of pressure waves traveling through the lattice. All these different pressure mechanisms will combine to produce occasional random localised extreme pressure events where there will be low momentum collisions between the O site confined hydrogen atom and the nickel atom locked into the vibrating lattice.

As lighter nickel isotopes are transmuted towards Ni62 using up hydrogen atoms, replacement hydrogen atoms from external to the nickel lattice are pushed into the lattice, (via a lithium / hydrogen and other compound COATING of the nickel particle providing a hydrogen spillover effect, i.e. “catalyst”), the hydrogen atoms are then pushed through the lattice into the vacated O sites to be in turn reacted until Ni62 dominates the ash.

Keith Thomson.

  • Nicholas Cafarelli

    Hey Keith. Why do you suppose Parkhomov’s reactor tubes keep breaking?

    • MasterBlaster7

      In Soviet Russia reactor tubes break you!

    • Steve H

      Local hot-spots due to minimal magnetic stirring from a single phase heater supply!

      • Agaricus

        Once the nickel powder sinters locally, it will act as a solid metal, and any further heating will result in differential expansion that could crack the alumina shell as shown. A looser alumina material such as ‘corundum’ might be more resistant to such stresses.

        Alternatively, the nickel and the hydride might be mixed directly with porous alumina material to disperse them, and the mixed material used to mould a core. This would need a layer of pure alumina added to provide insulation before the heater coil was wound onto the composite cylinder.

        This may have been how the hot cat test reactor that Rossi demonstrated may have been constructed, as no nickel ‘fuel’ was visible when it was dissected post-demo.

        • Guest

          In researching sintering I came upon this snippet:

          “Sintering temperatures between 850 and 1050 C are commonly used to produce porous nickel products. The reducing conditions required for sintering are obtained easily with nitrogen-hydrogen gas mixtures…”

          http://goo.gl/U0FubS links page 212 of

          Nickel, Cobalt, and Their Alloys edited by Joseph R. Davis
          ASM International, Jan 1, 2000

          Since ASM stands for the American Society for Metals, I think we can trust the quote’s accuracy.

          If the reactor is filled without purging, then plenty of nitrogen would be available inside after sealing. In conjunction with freed hydrogen perhaps porous nickel results during startup. A careful schedule of startup.

        • Nicholas Cafarelli

          In researching sintering I came upon this snippet:

          “Sintering temperatures between 850 and 1050 C are commonly used to produce porous nickel products. The reducing conditions required for sintering are obtained easily with nitrogen-hydrogen gas mixtures…”

          http://goo.gl/U0FubS links page 212 of

          Nickel, Cobalt, and Their Alloys edited by Joseph R. Davis
          ASM International, Jan 1, 2000

          Since ASM stands for the American Society for Metals, I think we can trust the quote’s accuracy.

          If the reactor is filled without purging, then plenty of nitrogen would be available inside after sealing. In conjunction with freed hydrogen perhaps porous nickel results during startup. A careful schedule of startup.

          http://ni.comli.com — be neither believer nor skeptic, be an experimenter

      • Nicholas Cafarelli

        Have you ever used ferrofluid, metal particles suspended in oil, to visualize and verify this? Placing ferrofluid in a transparent tube and winding a coil of wire around the tube – fed by AC – would shed light on the dynamics.

        Anyone, e-catworld readers, already have ferrofluid on hand who can do a quick video would do a service to all of us.

        You could also compare single phase to other phase setups.

        Check youtube for many videos about homemade ferrofluid.

        http://hydronick.com

  • Nicholas Cafarelli

    Hey Keith. Why do you suppose Parkhomov’s reactor tubes keep breaking?

    • MasterBlaster7

      In Soviet Russia reactor tubes break you!

    • Steve H

      Local hot-spots due to minimal magnetic stirring from a single phase heater supply!

      • Once the nickel powder sinters locally, it will act as a solid metal, and any further heating will result in differential expansion that could crack the alumina shell as shown. A looser, admixed, alumina material such as ‘corundum’ might be more resistant to such stresses.

        Alternatively, the nickel and lithium aluminium hydride might be mixed directly with porous alumina material to disperse them, and the mixed material used to pressure-mould a core. This would need a layer of pure alumina added to provide containment and insulation before the heater coil was wound onto the composite cylinder. When the mixed material is heated, the lithium aluminium hydride will decompose into hydrogen and liquid lithium that will migrate throughout the porous core material.

        This may have been how the hot cat test reactor that Rossi demonstrated was constructed, as no nickel ‘fuel’ was visible when it was dissected post-demo.

        • Guest

          In researching sintering I came upon this snippet:

          “Sintering temperatures between 850 and 1050 C are commonly used to produce porous nickel products. The reducing conditions required for sintering are obtained easily with nitrogen-hydrogen gas mixtures…”

          http://goo.gl/U0FubS links page 212 of

          Nickel, Cobalt, and Their Alloys edited by Joseph R. Davis
          ASM International, Jan 1, 2000

          Since ASM stands for the American Society for Metals, I think we can trust the quote’s accuracy.

          If the reactor is filled without purging, then plenty of nitrogen would be available inside after sealing. In conjunction with freed hydrogen perhaps porous nickel results during startup. A careful schedule of startup.

        • Nicholas Cafarelli

          In researching sintering I came upon this snippet:

          “Sintering temperatures between 850 and 1050 C are commonly used to produce porous nickel products. The reducing conditions required for sintering are obtained easily with nitrogen-hydrogen gas mixtures…”

          http://goo.gl/U0FubS links page 212 of

          Nickel, Cobalt, and Their Alloys edited by Joseph R. Davis
          ASM International, Jan 1, 2000

          Since ASM stands for the American Society for Metals, I think we can trust the quote’s accuracy.

          If the reactor is filled without purging, then plenty of nitrogen would be available inside after sealing. In conjunction with freed hydrogen perhaps porous nickel results during startup. A careful schedule of startup.

          http://ni.comli.com — be neither believer nor skeptic, be an experimenter

      • Nicholas Cafarelli

        Have you ever used ferrofluid, metal particles suspended in oil, to visualize and verify this? Placing ferrofluid in a transparent tube and winding a coil of wire around the tube – fed by AC – would shed light on the dynamics.

        Anyone, e-catworld readers, already have ferrofluid on hand who can do a quick video would do a service to all of us.

        You could also compare single phase to other phase setups.

        Check youtube for many videos about homemade ferrofluid.

        http://hydronick.com

    • KeithT

      Nicholas,

      In the Lugano reactor tube I think that all of the hydrogen is chemically locked up in the catalyst chemicals, and that these chemicals evolve very little vapour pressure and do not release free hydrogen gas when taken up to temperature.

      With replicate reactors all it would take is a very small vapour pressure from decomposing chemicals or hydrogen gas evolution to form a pressure, the ceramic tube wound with resistor elements may have a lot of radial strength due to the helical wound resistor wire reinforcement, but the tube will not be any good in axial tensile strength as it will rely on a ceramic material in tension at high temperature, so the tube will crack, if free hydrogen escapes and contacts oxygen in the air at high temperature the tube will also go bang.

      Keith Thomson

      • Nicholas Cafarelli

        Might longitudinal reinforcement, using wire, improve the situation? In your opinion.

        I am surprised by your belief that the LiAlH4 does not decompose.

        I have read that the decomposition involves three reactions and begins as low as 150C – 170C.

        Thanks for weighing in Keith. I appreciate it.

        • KeithT

          Nicholas

          Longitudinal wires may help if you were trying to hold the tube together to resist internal pressure, but only if they had any strength over the lifespan required, creep is a major problem for furnace components under load, nickel alloys tend to have a lower melting point than pure nickel, as the operating temperature is 1400 degrees C, nickel or nickel alloy no, but tungsten wire yes, (also why I mentioned that the coils are likely to be tungsten). You can get fibre / wire wound pressure vessel designs but these will be cross wound for strength and rigidity.

          In the Fabio Penon report – August 2012 test it is stated that the Hot Cat is fuelled by a “tablet which acts as a Hydrogen reserve” (Hydride pellet?), however on the photograph showing an operating Hot Cat the inner tube appeared to have no end closures, in the weight measurements there is also no mention of them, and the internal tube temperature was measured. In the Levi Essen et. al. report of the failed November 2012 test where the Hot Cat melted, there is also mention of measuring the internal temperature of the inner tube, so this Hot Cat also had no end closures. For the December 2012 and march 2013 tests the inner tube had “cone shape caps” “hot-hammered” fitted, a threaded
          screw fitting can also be seen on one end cap. In two of the tests there could be no pressurised hydrogen atmosphere and in the other two tests it is unlikely that any Hydrogen atmosphere or pressure is available after the first few days. Hydrogen can escape through a solid steel pressure vessel wall given time so escaping out of a hot badly sealed container will be easy. Any Hydrogen that is in the particles is likely already pre-charged and any gas atmosphere absorbed in the first few hours is a top up, the Hydrogen then has to be retained within the powder and withstand continuous temperature cycling over the full Hot Cat operational lifespan.

          With regard to the LAH, I think lithium, aluminium, and hydrogen are present in the in the “catalyst” chemicals, but not combined all together as the chemical LAH, I feel that LAH decomposes at too a low temperature to be a candidate for use.

          Keith Thomson

  • Steve H

    Just a heads-up wrt a 3-phase magnetic field from Rossi’s heater.
    Each sine-wave is displaced by 120 degrees (electrical) from the previous one, as the current rises and falls in amplitude.
    This will in turn create a very unusual cork-screwing magnetic field along the length of the reactant material. Think along the lines of coax screening but throughout the entire core.

  • Steve H

    Just a heads-up wrt a 3-phase magnetic field from Rossi’s heater.
    Each sine-wave is displaced by 120 degrees (electrical) from the previous one, as the current rises and falls in amplitude.
    This will in turn create a very unusual cork-screwing magnetic field along the length of the reactant material. Think along the lines of coax screening but throughout the entire core.

  • Steve H

    An excerpt from page 29 of the Lugano report states that the fuel composition was mainly 58 Ni and 60 Ni converted mainly to 62 Ni in the ash.
    Does this still hold true with your theory – that 0.9% 64Ni has dominated the reaction?

    Lugano excerpt:-
    “Another remarkable change in the ash as compared to the unused fuel is the identified change in the isotope composition of Ni. The unused fuel shows the natural isotope composition from both SIMS and ICP-MS, i.e. 58Ni (68.1%), 60Ni (26.2%), 61Ni (1.1%), 62Ni (3.6%), and 64Ni (0.9%), whereas the ash composition from SIMS is: 58Ni (0.8.%), 60Ni (0.5%), 61Ni (0%), 62Ni (98.7%), 64Ni (0%), and from ICP-MS: 58Ni (0.8%), 60Ni (0.3%), 61Ni (0%), 62Ni (99.3%), 64Ni (0%). We note that the SIMS and ICP-MS give the same values within the estimated 3% error in the given percentages”.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Could nickel(64) be going to nickel(62) by the following two step reaction?
      H(1) + Ni(64) > Cu(65)* Step1
      H(1) + Cu(65)* > Ni(62) + He(4) Step 2
      ________________________
      Over all:
      2 H(1) + Ni(64) > Ni(62) + He(4) 11.8 MeV

      • Steve H

        Thanks Alan.
        I couldn’t say – my forte is not in nuclear physics. That’s why I asked the question. It seems as if 64Ni is doing an awful lot of the work for so small an amount!

        • Alan DeAngelis

          Yeah Steve,
          I’d have to go back and look at the report but I think they just stopped the reaction before it ran out of fuel. So, maybe they just got a local hot spot that isn’t a representative sample. I’ll be happier when they’ll be able to dissolve the entire ash of a reaction in acid and then look at the isotopes of nickel and lithium in the homogeneous solution.

  • Steve H

    An excerpt from page 29 of the Lugano report states that the fuel composition was mainly 58 Ni and 60 Ni converted mainly to 62 Ni in the ash.
    Does this still hold true with your theory – that 0.9% 64Ni has dominated the reaction?

    Lugano excerpt:-
    “Another remarkable change in the ash as compared to the unused fuel is the identified change in the isotope composition of Ni. The unused fuel shows the natural isotope composition from both SIMS and ICP-MS, i.e. 58Ni (68.1%), 60Ni (26.2%), 61Ni (1.1%), 62Ni (3.6%), and 64Ni (0.9%), whereas the ash composition from SIMS is: 58Ni (0.8.%), 60Ni (0.5%), 61Ni (0%), 62Ni (98.7%), 64Ni (0%), and from ICP-MS: 58Ni (0.8%), 60Ni (0.3%), 61Ni (0%), 62Ni (99.3%), 64Ni (0%). We note that the SIMS and ICP-MS give the same values within the estimated 3% error in the given percentages”.

    Regards,

    Steve.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Could nickel(64) be going to nickel(62) by the following two step reaction?
      H(1) + Ni(64) > Cu(65)* Step1
      H(1) + Cu(65)* > Ni(62) + He(4) Step 2
      ________________________
      Over all:
      2 H(1) + Ni(64) > Ni(62) + He(4) 11.8 MeV

      • Steve H

        Thanks Alan.
        I couldn’t say – my forte is not in nuclear physics. That’s why I asked the question. It seems as if 64Ni is doing an awful lot of the work for so small an amount!

        • Alan DeAngelis

          Yeah Steve,
          I’d have to go back and look at the report but I think they just stopped the reaction before it ran out of fuel. So, maybe they just got a local hot spot that isn’t a representative sample. I’ll be happier when they’ll be able to dissolve the entire ash of a reaction in acid and then look at the isotopes of nickel and lithium in the homogeneous solution.

    • KeithT

      Steve H,

      I was not implying that Ni64 was the source of Ni62.
      I counted up the difference in neutrons for each of the nickel isotopes converting from their molar fraction within the natural fuel to the resulting molar fraction within the ash, for nickel isotopes less than Ni62 I added neutrons, for Ni64 i removed neutrons, so total number of neutrons for nickel isotopes in the ash, minus the total number in the natural is the figure I obtained.

      However I have doubts that it would be possible to Knock off / remove two neutrons from Ni64 to convert it to Ni62 this would require an energetic event, so how did Ni64 disappear, as I stated it is more likely that it gained a proton.

      In both of the isotope examinations of the ash 64Ni disappeared, the question for me was where this small quantity disappeared to.

      Keith Thomson

  • Gerard McEk

    Keith, reading Axil’s plea for a RF field your story seems in agreement with that. I am not sure the three phase heating coli is needed. I would have loved to see a proper oscilloscope connected to the heating coil power system in the Lugano report. Maybe they did, but did not report that?

  • Gerard McEk

    Keith, reading Axil’s plea for a RF field your story seems in agreement with that. I am not sure the three phase heating coli is needed. I would have loved to see a proper oscilloscope connected to the heating coil power system in the Lugano report. Maybe they did, but did not report that?

  • for those curious of FCC and octahedral and tetrahedral site, this link gives some key of crystallography

    http://www.chem1.com/acad/webtext/states/crystals-cubic.html

  • for those curious of FCC and octahedral and tetrahedral site, this link gives some key of crystallography

    http://www.chem1.com/acad/webtext/states/crystals-cubic.html

  • Dr. Mike

    Keith,
    Did you calculate the total number of neutrons available from both hydrogen and lithium based on the data from the Lugano report? Based on the weight percentages in the fuel analysis on page 53 of the Lugano report, the relative amounts of the Ni, Li and Al in the 1 gram of fuel loaded into the reactor were:

    Ni: 0.55gr = 0.0094M
    Li: 0.0117gr = 0.000169M
    Al: 0.0438gr = 0.000162M

    Since there are 4 atoms of hydrogen for each atom of Li or Al, the ratio of hydrogen atoms to Ni atoms can be calculated as: H:Ni = 4 x 0.000165 / 0.0094 = 0.70. Assuming every hydrogen atom was turned into a neutron and every Li atom yielded one neutron, there still would have been only 0.87 neutrons available for each Ni atom. This data is not consistent with all of the Ni in the reactor becoming Ni62.

    I assume that once we have full knowledge of both an accepted LENR theory and what was really in the fuel in the Lugano reactor, we will be able to explain how all of he Ni was converted to Ni62 with such a small amount of available hydrogen and lithium. Until that knowledge is obtained, there will remain an unexplained inconsistency in the Lugano data.
    Dr. Mike

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Interesting observation. However, I do not think that it is possible to calculate the composition of the fuel reliably on the basis of the MS data. One of the reasons is that parts of the charge might have condensed at the reactor walls. Lithium would be the first candidate due to its relatively low boiling point.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Sorry, I’m wrong. You obviously refer to the analysis of the unused fuel. It may still be possible that the samples were not representative, though.

  • Dr. Mike

    Keith,
    Did you calculate the total number of neutrons available from both hydrogen and lithium based on the data from the Lugano report? Based on the weight percentages in the fuel analysis on page 53 of the Lugano report, the relative amounts of the Ni, Li and Al in the 1 gram of fuel loaded into the reactor were:

    Ni: 0.55gr = 0.0094M
    Li: 0.0117gr = 0.000169M
    Al: 0.0438gr = 0.000162M

    Since there are 4 atoms of hydrogen for each atom of Li or Al, the ratio of hydrogen atoms to Ni atoms can be calculated as: H:Ni = 4 x 0.000165 / 0.0094 = 0.70. Assuming every hydrogen atom was turned into a neutron and every Li atom yielded one neutron, there still would have been only 0.87 neutrons available for each Ni atom. This data is not consistent with all of the Ni in the reactor becoming Ni62.

    I assume that once we have full knowledge of both an accepted LENR theory and what was really in the fuel in the Lugano reactor, we will be able to explain how all of he Ni was converted to Ni62 with such a small amount of available hydrogen and lithium. Until that knowledge is obtained, there will remain an unexplained inconsistency in the Lugano data.
    Dr. Mike

    • KeithT

      Dr. Mike,

      As the lithium and other elements are outside the nickel lattice, I do not see how they can contribute neutrons that then have to travel all through the lattice to be absorbed by a majority of the nickel atoms. As you have noted the number of neutrons available from lithium and other elements is insufficient. So where does the large quantity of neutrons come from? The hydrogen atoms however can travel through the nickel lattice into position and be absorbed, I do not see there being insufficient hydrogen atoms, as replacement hydrogen atoms are pumped into the lattice from the spill-over catalyst chemicals surrounding the lattice.

      Keith Thomson

      • Dr. Mike

        Keith,
        I agree that as hydrogen is used up within the Ni, more will be supplied until it is all used up. Are you speculating that the fuel contains other sources of hydrogen, possibly some other form of hydride? The 1:1 ratio of Li:Al strongly suggests that LiAlH4 was one hydride used in the fuel. However, of the other fuel elements listed on page 53 of the report (C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, and Mn), which element in the fuel was in the form of a hydride to supply more hydrogen? The hydrogen supplied by the LiAlH4 would have been used up before converting 25-30% of the Ni58 and Ni60 to Ni62. There are only about 70 hydrogen atoms available per 100 Ni atoms in the fuel if all of the neutrons come from hydrogen the LiAlH4, not the 316 that you calculated are needed.
        Dr. Mike

        • Zack Iszard

          Good ol’ stoichiometry.

          I seem to remember that EDX spectrometry in an SEM was used for some of the elemental analysis in the Lugano report; if that is the case, only the top few dozen to few hundred atoms of a surface were actually measured. It follows from the relative placement of the hydride to the nickel (separate bulk materials) that the surface of nickel would react to completion before a substantial amount of protons made it deep into the lattice.

          If, however, the 98% conversion to Ni62 was achieved throughout the bulk material, as would be revealed by ICP-MS with the proper prep, then the mismatch of stoichiometry is indeed puzzling.

          Fantastic thread! I strongly agree that phonon resonance plays a major role in the phenomena. I also believe that “magnetic stirring” is an apt name not because atoms are actually moving, but that homogenizing the nuclear magnetic moments of reactants may homogenize the reaction rate – and thus preventing local burn-outs. (This assumes, of course, that alignment of nuclear magnetic moments of reactants have an impact on the reaction rate)

          • Robert Ellefson

            Here is the ICP-MS and ICP-AES data from Appendix 4, showing 99.3% enrichment to Ni-62 *throughout the entire bulk of the sample*
            This is an amazing finding indeed.

          • Da Phys

            Very interesting thread indeed. A few comments. First NiH in beta-phase is known to have many interstitial void spaces, up to 10%, therefore I would not dismiss the idea that Li is filling these vacancies, at least in the few layers close to the surface.
            With regard to the possible lack of Li-7 as neutron donors, indeed the question is whether the MS results are representative of the full volume or if only the surface was measured. I admit that I’m not familiar with the types of MS used here and I cannot comment on this.
            The lack of Ni-64 in the ash is puzzling, to say the least. Lattice assisted neutron transfer from Li-7 to Ni cannot explain this result and I don’t like the idea to have two different phenomena occuring at the same time. This is however not the only issue with this theory because from a pure energetic point of view, as surprising as it may be, Li-6 is more apt to give a neutron than Li-7 (1.7 MeV difference). In practice it is hard to know if Li-6 does also contribute to neutron transfer, this is something that should not be dismissed given the fact that He was detected in some early experiments in the 1990’s (in other words He would be obtained after double neutron transfer from Li-7, and not from the fusion of Li-7 with H/D, the dominant theory of the 1990’s).
            I’m a big fan of Hagelstein’s work on lattice-assisted neutron transfer. The missing piece in the puzzle may indeed be “magnetic stirring”. Li-7 has an astonishingly high nuclear magnetic moment and I can imagine that phonons propagating in a lattice composed of many hydrogens may create an attractive force on the s-wave neutron of Li-7 located into a lattice vacancy.

          • Dr. Mike

            Zack.
            The results on page 53 are from a bulk measurement (ICP-MS and ICP-AES) so the mismatch of stoichiometry is quite puzzling. The question of where the reactants came from to convert all of the Ni to Ni62 should have been put to the Lugano investigators as part of the review process on this website. Perhaps this question can still be added to the list since nearly 5 months after the report was issued, we still have not seen a reply to the questions that were raised.

            Until I calculated the amount of hydrogen available from the LiAlH4, I had always just assumed there was a super abundance of hydrogen available in the Lugano reactor, that is, enough to convert all of the Ni to Ni62 plus extra to continue nuclear reactions that perhaps produced He as a final product. The reactor would have needed 4-5 times as much hydrogen just to convert all of the Ni to Ni62.
            Dr. Mike

        • Obvious

          MgH2 is another H candidate, and since it decomposes at around 250 C, allows for staged H release. It is at least as nasty as LAH to deal with. Rossi’s fuel cocktail seems to be looking more and more volatile, and less and less likely that it was simply poured in without a glove box and special procedures.
          Edit: there seems to be a wide range of values for MgH2 decomposition temperatures in the literature.
          I also found a report showing that MgH2/LiBH4/TiCl compounds release H more smoothly and is far less volatile than MgH2 by itself. Perhaps Ni can substitute for Ti?

          • Dr. Mike

            Obvious,
            It would have been nice if the weight % of Mg (and all the other elements listed in the report) had been given in the Lugano report to see if there was enough to supply the extra hydrogen from MgH2 needed to convert all of the Ni to Ni62.
            Dr. Mike

          • Obvious

            Indeed. However, if we work backwards, assuming there was enough H, then a range of necessary volumes of the H carriers should be calculable.
            There are so many degrees of freedom for speculation that pretty much we are left with building devices and “going Galileoian” with them to answer the questions. Rossi will continue to not be helpful to his competition, undoubtably.
            This assumes also that the H is the source of neutrons, which is a problem in itself. How many other isotopes in the reactor ingredients can be robbed without creating unstable/ radioactive elements? There is plenty of aluminum, for example. Notably, aluminum has many isotopes, almost all with very short half lives, under 8 minutes, which is actually consistent with what Rossi has said in the past.( I haven’t looked up the decay chains yet to see if they would be readily detectable.)

          • Dr. Mike

            Obvious,
            I believe hydrogen is the most likely source for the neutrons, but like you am open to other sources if someone could propose a model.
            Dr. Mike

          • Obvious

            A quick look at Al suggests some rather energetic gammas are likely in the most probable Al reaction product, Al26, which is surprisingly unstable for an Z=N atom. Maybe there is a method to get Al27 to turn into Mg24 without making a radioactive mess. Really, there isn’t that much of a neutron shortage as much as a shortage of non-dangerous radiation pathways. I’m sure we can think up enough sources for neutrons by juggling the ingredients.

          • Da Phys

            Mike, if H is the source of neutrons, how to explain the isotopic shift of Li?

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Interesting observation. However, I do not think that it is possible to calculate the composition of the fuel reliably on the basis of the MS data. One of the reasons is that parts of the charge might have condensed at the reactor walls. Lithium would be the first candidate due to its relatively low boiling point.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Sorry, I’m wrong. You obviously refer to the analysis of the unused fuel. It may still be possible that the samples were not representative, though.

  • Dr. Mike

    Keith,
    I agree that as hydrogen is used up within the Ni, more will be supplied until it is all used up. Are you speculating that the fuel contains other sources of hydrogen, possibly some other form of hydride? The 1:1 ratio of Li:Al strongly suggests that LiAlH4 was one hydride used in the fuel. However, of the other fuel elements listed on page 53 of the report (C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, and Mn), which element in the fuel was in the form of a hydride to supply more hydrogen? The hydrogen supplied by the LiAlH4 would have been used up before converting 25-30% of the Ni58 and Ni60 to Ni62. There are only about 70 hydrogen atoms available per 100 Ni atoms in the fuel if all of the neutrons come from hydrogen the LiAlH4, not the 316 that you calculated are needed.
    Dr. Mike

    • Zack Iszard

      Good ol’ stoichiometry.

      I seem to remember that EDX spectrometry in an SEM was used for some of the elemental analysis in the Lugano report; if that is the case, only the top few dozen to few hundred atoms of a surface were actually measured. It follows from the relative placement of the hydride to the nickel (separate bulk materials) that the surface of nickel would react to completion before a substantial amount of protons made it deep into the lattice.

      If, however, the 98% conversion to Ni62 was achieved throughout the bulk material, as would be revealed by ICP-MS with the proper prep, then the mismatch of stoichiometry is indeed puzzling.

      Fantastic thread! I strongly agree that phonon resonance plays a major role in the phenomena. I also believe that “magnetic stirring” is an apt name not because atoms are actually moving, but that homogenizing the nuclear magnetic moments of reactants may homogenize the reaction rate – and thus preventing local burn-outs. (This assumes, of course, that alignment of nuclear magnetic moments of reactants have an impact on the reaction rate)

      • Dr. Mike

        Zack.
        The results on page 53 are from a bulk measurement (ICP-MS and ICP-AES) so the mismatch of stoichiometry is quite puzzling. The question of where the reactants came from to convert all of the Ni to Ni62 should have been put to the Lugano investigators as part of the review process on this website. Perhaps this question can still be added to the list since nearly 5 months after the report was issued, we still have not seen a reply to the questions that were raised.

        Until I calculated the amount of hydrogen available from the LiAlH4, I had always just assumed there was a super abundance of hydrogen available in the Lugano reactor, that is, enough to convert all of the Ni to Ni62 plus extra to continue nuclear reactions that perhaps produced He as a final product. The reactor would have needed 4-5 times as much hydrogen just to convert all of the Ni to Ni62.
        Dr. Mike

    • Obvious

      MgH2 is another H candidate, and since it decomposes at around 250 C, allows for staged H release. It is at least as nasty as LAH to deal with.

      • Dr. Mike

        Obvious,
        It would have been nice if the weight % of Mg (and all the other elements listed in the report) had been given in the Lugano report to see if there was enough to supply the extra hydrogen from MgH2 needed to convert all of the Ni to Ni62.
        Dr. Mike

        • Obvious

          Indeed. However, if we work backwards, assuming there was enough H, then a range of necessary volumes of the H carriers should be calculable.
          There are so many degrees of freedom for speculation that pretty much we are left with building devices and “going Galileoian” with them to answer the questions. Rossi will continue to not be helpful to his competition, undoubtably.
          This assumes also that the H is the source of neutrons, which is a problem in itself. How many other isotopes in the reactor ingredients can be robbed without creating unstable/ radioactive elements. There is plenty of aluminum, for example. Notably, aluminum has many isotopes, almost all with very short half lives, under 8 minutes, which is actually consistent with what Rossi has said in the past.( I haven’t looked up the decay chains yet to see if they would be readily detectable.)

          • Dr. Mike

            Obvious,
            I believe hydrogen is the most likely source for the neutrons, but like you am open to other sources if someone could propose a model.
            Dr. Mike

          • Obvious

            A quick look at Al suggests some rather energetic gammas are likely in the most probable Al reaction product, Al26, which is surprising unstable for an Z=N atom. Maybe there is a method to get Al27 to turn into Mg24 without making a radioactive mess. Really, there isn’t that much of a neutron shortage as much as a shortage of non-dangerous radiation pathways. I’m sure we can think up enough sources for neutrons by juggling the ingredients.

  • Nicholas Cafarelli

    Might longitudinal reinforcement, using wire, improve the situation? In your opinion.

    I am surprised by your belief that the LiAlH4 does not decompose.

    I have read that the decomposition involves three reactions and begins as low as 150C – 170C.

    Thanks for weighing in Keith. I appreciate it.

    • KeithT

      Nicholas

      Longitudinal wires may help if you were trying to hold the tube together to resist internal pressure, but only if they had any strength over the lifespan required, creep is a major problem for furnace components under load, nickel alloys tend to have a lower melting point than pure nickel, as the operating temperature is 1400 degrees C, nickel or nickel alloy no, but tungsten wire yes, (also why I mentioned that the coils are likely to be tungsten). You can get fibre / wire wound pressure vessel designs but these will be cross wound for strength and rigidity.

      In the Fabio Penon report – August 2012 test it is stated that the Hot Cat is fuelled by a “tablet which acts as a Hydrogen reserve” (Hydride pellet?), however on the photograph showing an operating Hot Cat the inner tube appeared to have no end closures, in the weight measurements there is also no mention of them, and the internal tube temperature was measured. In the Levi Essen et. al. report of the failed November 2012 test where the Hot Cat melted, there is also mention of measuring the internal temperature of the inner tube, so this Hot Cat also had no end closures. For the December 2012 and march 2013 tests the inner tube had “cone shape caps” “hot-hammered” fitted, a threaded
      screw fitting can also be seen on one end cap. In two of the tests there could be no pressurised hydrogen atmosphere and in the other two tests it is unlikely that any Hydrogen atmosphere or pressure is available after the first few days. Hydrogen can escape through a solid steel pressure vessel wall given time so escaping out of a hot badly sealed container will be easy. Any Hydrogen that is in the particles is likely already pre-charged and any gas atmosphere absorbed in the first few hours is a top up, the Hydrogen then has to be retained within the powder and withstand continuous temperature cycling over the full Hot Cat operational lifespan.

      With regard to the LAH, I think lithium, aluminium, and hydrogen are present in the in the “catalyst” chemicals, but not combined all together as the chemical LAH, I feel that LAH decomposes at too a low temperature to be a candidate for use.

      Keith Thomson

  • Nicholas Cafarelli

    Regarding calculations in general see http://goo.gl/tyNWLC for the number of atoms inside the Parkhomov Thermogenerator. The analysis is precise regarding solids and a close guess regarding gases. You will find it very interesting and mind-expanding. There is very, very little inside an AGP system and alternatives can be explored once you know the numbers of atoms.

    http://hydronick.com

  • Nicholas Cafarelli

    Regarding calculations in general see http://goo.gl/tyNWLC for the number of atoms inside the Parkhomov Thermogenerator. The analysis is precise regarding solids and a close guess regarding gases. You will find it very interesting and mind-expanding. There is very, very little inside an AGP system and alternatives can be explored once you know the numbers of atoms.

    http://hydronick.com