New Russian Journal Article: Chinese Researchers find Excess Heat and Transmutation found in Palladium-Deuterium System

Thanks to David Nygren and AlainCo for sharing this interesting find on the LENR-Forum

An article in the August 2015 issue Russian Journal of Physical Chemistry A reports on an experiment by researchers Xin Lu (of Changchun University of Science and Technology in Changchun, China) and Jian Tian (of Changchun University) with a palladium-deuterium system where both excess heat and transmutations were found when a current was applied. Here’s the abstract of the article:

A relationship was studied among D/Pd gas-solid system current, pressure and producing excess heating in this paper. The results indicated that when the pressure of deuterium is at 9 × 104 Pa, electric current is 8 A and lasting heat is 40 days, the superheating energy is 280 MJ, the maximum superheating power is 80 W and averaging to each palladium atom energy for the superheating energy is 1.7 × 104 eV. Analysis of the sample by SEM (scanning electron microscopy) and EDS (energy dispersive spectrometry) found that after the current triggering the surface of sample was changed and new elements such as Pb, Sn, Ca, and Ag appeared. The results suggested that the superheating appeared come from a nuclear transmutation.

The full text of the article can be obtained for a fee via Springer Link here:

Thanks to Sanjeev — here’s a link to a PDF of the Article:

  • Sanjeev

    Full paper here (English) : (Edit: Not full, just 2 pages.)

    This is Pd-D but a “dry” system, which is very interesting.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Very interesting because it negates many of the arguments to do with the pollution of the electrode (other than electrostatic etc.)

      • Sanjeev

        And it seems no Li or LiOH was used. No catalyst, but there is a ceramic to support the wire. They passed a current of 8A directly through Pd.

        • Ecco

          The ceramic support could be sort of acting like a catalyst itself.

  • Gerard McEk

    It seems there are thousand ways of generating LENR effects. Why does it take so long to validate it?

    • LookMoo

      It takes long time to translate this into English as US researcher don’t have any language training.

      • Bob Greenyer

        To be fair, it only takes a few people to make a decent translation and the community is increasingly proving that it can come together to do this. If a paper is found, the key points are now translated very quickly. The trick is to have those papers accessible in multiple languages at all times so that new people can access them as they come to work in the field – Sort of like a multi-lingual LENR-CANR.

        For my part I have help Francesco Celani, Ugo Abundo and others over the past several years translate Italian research into English, which can now be improved as I have a native Italian speaker in the office. I have also helped Mathieu Valat with English translations of key texts.

        It is frankly a waste of scientist time to all learn Russian – the Russians don’t all learn English, that was very clear when I was there – but they do make sure they get the most out of work published in other languages somehow.

        Note that the Chinese research discussed above is authored in English even though it is to be published in a Russian journal.

    • Obvious

      A thousand ways and a thousand theories: maybe a million combinations of which one or two combine correctly in a researchers lifetime? And many millions of ways to get it wrong…

  • Bob Greenyer

    If it is Palladium, that would be LiAlD4

  • Ecco

    I think it could be important. One can see why by looking at its basic definition on wikipedia. See how closely it could apply to many ongoing and recent LENR experiments:

    In the case catalytic or adsorbent systems where a metal species is dispersed upon a support (or carrier) material (often quasi-inert oxides, such as alumina or silica), it is possible for an adsorptive species to indirectly adsorb to the support surface under conditions where such adsorption is thermodynamically unfavorable. The presence of the metal serves as a lower-energy pathway for gaseous species to first adsorb to the metal and then diffuse on the support surface. This is possible because the adsorbed species attains a lower energy state once it has adsorbed to the metal, thus lowering the activation barrier between the gas phase species and the support-adsorbed species.

    Hydrogen spillover is the most common example of an adsorptive spillover. In the case of hydrogen, adsorption is most often accompanied with dissociation of molecular hydrogen (H2) to atomic hydrogen (H), followed by spillover of the hydrogen atoms present.

    This would imply that it might be mostly the powder on the inner walls of the ceramic tube that is generating excess heat.

    Interesting idea that of crushing up a catalytic converter, although it would probably make electric triggering non-trivial unless one is using electrodes.

    By the way, have you ever read of EPOC (Electrochemical Promotion of Catalysis)? I didn’t until recently and I think that might be related to several observed LENR effects as well. It’s also called Non-faradaic electrochemical modification of catalytic activity (NEMCA). Again, read its description here, it seems quite much related to dry, electrically activated LENR experiments to me:

    Non-faradic electrochemical modification of catalytic activity (NEMCA effect), also known as electrochemical promotion of catalysis (EPOC), is used to describe the increase in catalytic activity (up to 90-fold) and selectivity of a gas exposed electrode on a solid electrolyte cell upon application of a potential. This phenomenon is well documented and has been observed on various surfaces (Ni, Au, Pt and Pd) supported by O2−, Na+ and proton conducting solid electrolytes.

  • Axil Axil

    Regarding catalytic action and HHO.

    LENR is basically a catalytic reaction. In the Rossi reaction, the nickel powder is a Commercial Off the Shell (COTS) catalytic product. What makes LENR powerful and capable of over unity power production is the addition of an amplifier of the catalytic action. For example, Rossi calls this amplifier his “secret sauce”. So LENR is a two step process like an multi stage rocket. The first stage will not get us to where we want to go. We need the booster stage to get into the over unity power zone.

    That booster is a mechanism to produce nanoparticles. These particles add power to the LENR catalytic reaction by and nano optical amplification process.

    The catalyst must burn nanoparticles to get its power generation level into the over unity zone. In the case of HHO, a catalatic converter will produce heat by combining oxygen and hydrogen but it will not reach the over unity zone. A nanoparticle booster must be added. Nanoparticles of water must be created in sufficient quantities to boost the activity of the catalytic converter to over unity.

    The way to produce nanoparticles in water is to cavitate it or to expose it to an electric arc. Cavitation is the best way to produce water nanoparticles. Then that water can be used as a feedstock into a catalytic process to extract over unity energy.

    This is how Joe Papp produced his secret fuel. His trick was to produce nanoparticles of water and in a latter improvement, nanoparticles of noble gases to get his fuel to over unity levels.

    Santelli produces nanoparticles in his special hydrogen gas by decomposing oil waste in an electric arc. That hydrogen gas contains nanoparticles. Rossi gets into the over unity zone by using a secret sauce to produce nanoparticles of lithium and hydrogen to boost the activity of his nickel catalyst.

    This is why the nickel particles in the ash produced in the Lugano demo was completely covered with lithium. That lithium came from the residue of nanoparticles of lithium that exist at high temperatures.

    • Ecco

      How would you explain the findings of this recently released paper:

      They’re not using nanoparticles or electric arcs. They’re simply recombining oxygen and hydrogen/deuterium on a hydrogen/deuterium-saturated Al2O3-Pd catalyst at room temperature. As long as the flow of H2/D2-O2 on the catalyst remains within a certain concentration, evolved heat exceeds that of water formation (in other words, excess heat gets produced). Too much or too little recombination yields no excess.

      This paper can be freely downloaded.

    • Ted-X

      Nanoparticles of pure Nickel are likely to be continuously produced (precipitated or suspended in the gas phase) due to oscillating nature of the temperature and formation of volatile or surface carbonyls of nickel. The temperature swing (up and down) is essential for this process, as the presence of some carbon and oxygen in the mixture.
      Please note that some researchers demonstrated the LENR effect using separately prepared nanoparticles of nickel (these nanoparticles, as most known nanoparticles, tend to agglomerate into clusters very strongly).
      Noble gases are generally considered to be monoatomic, so they are sub-nanoparticles, as a rule.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Neutrons were not detected by Celani, very high Gamma flux was, because he was sat a distance and it still went off the scale with two battery powered detectors.

    62Ni + n goes to 63Ni which has a 100 year half life decaying to 63Cu via β− decay – if this was the case then there would be long term emissions from the ash and some stable 63Cu present.

    Having said that, Parkhomov has shown, in an extremely long study, that neutrino flux accelerates decays invloving β− , if there was sufficient neutrino flux, then perhaps the decay would be faster.

    At the moment we do not have evidence supporting neutrons being absorbed. Since there are a lot of protons in Hydrogen (Specifically the isotope Protium as used in Piantelli/Focardi, Rossi/Parkhomov) it is a good start point to think that protons are the key. This has been strengthened by the extensive studies of Unified Gravities 7Li + 1H research.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Well – that comes down to the quality of the disclosure in the papers / work / patents published and if, when well translated, it still is not detailed enough to replicate – then the same would be true for those reading it in the original language.

    That is precisely one of the aims of Live Open Science – to avoid seemingly trivial things that makes one an “expert” getting overlooked in the recording of the research. In addition, at the current rate of machine language conversion learning improvement – language will not be a notable barrier before long.

    Most experts can be made redundant by big data knowledge systems (that is one of the biggest resistances to such systems) – but at the moment, they are limited to making it easier to find information about past works and deriving patterns from datasets that humans would struggle to see. What they are currently less able to do is think outside of rules set for them and try what to the status quo, may look pointless or impossible – and that is why we need collective minds and free-thinkers working in research.