The New Fire MK1 (Bob Greenyer)

The following post by Bob Greenyer was posted on the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project Facebook page and is reposted here with permission.

The New Fire MK1 – A controllable reaction driven and moderated by heat, pressure, element ratios, phase states and morphology…

by Bob Greenyer

Piantelli says that Nickel must be above a pre-determined lower temperature, evidence suggest this to be Debye if Ni.

Piantelli says that you need to create H- and then use an impulsive action to force it into the Nickel. (http://goo.gl/ORrJqI) This forms the primary reaction, the “mouse” and from our Celani experiments, a COP of around 1.1. It comes from the transmutation of Ni isotopes.
By forming LiH at 250ºC from LiAlH4 in the Rossi system you create a LOT of H- (which is the first novelty) because LiH is a ionic solution (Li+ H-), all you have to do is kick it into the Nickel by raising the temperature more – which sounds a little weird, but remember you are trying to stimulate a Nuclear process from a low energy thermal one.

From wikipedia, you get the key to the Rossi process. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_aluminium_hydride
2 LiH + 2 Al → 2 LiAl + H2 (R3)
R3 is reversible with an equilibrium pressure of about 0.25 bar at 500 °C

Note that in the Industrial Heat patent application, it says you need a pressure of 0.25 bar (goo.gl/tFX6Qa) – but the actual reversible reaction is dependent on pressure and temperature as says wiki – so for Parkhomov 2cc of dead volume, 0.5 bar and a different pressure/temp regime may work.

According to Piantelli, some of the protons from H- fail to transmute Nickel and get ejected as protons from 0 up to 6.7 MeV (measured in cloud chamber and calculated). As Unified Gravity Corporation (UGC) has shown (http://goo.gl/8GKvWb) with earlier Lipinski work on same effect cited in latest Piantelli patent dating back to August 18th 2006 (http://goo.gl/jJ71mL) you only have to accelerate a proton to less than 225eV into Lithium target to yield around 15MeV and 2 He from 1H + 7Li. This is the secondary reaction – the “Cat”. In this system, only Nickel that ejects a proton (and therefore participates in the overall reaction but is unchanged) is truly catalytic – it is this authors conjecture that under the right circumstances 62Ni will be mostly catalytic – or catalytic in the sense of Carbon in the 12C carbon cycle that is to say, if it does accept a number of 1H, it ends up returning to 62Ni.

Both UGC and Piantelli in their specific embodiments, use a low pressure environment to allow the protons to travel the distance to the Lithium before the break down. The second apparent novelty in Rossi’s reactor is to have the Lithium in direct contact with the Ni as MFMP discovered following “Bang!”. However Piantelli words his patent to cover this:
“It is relevant that the secondary material faces the primary material, since, if a further material is present between the primary material and the secondary material, the protons would not go beyond this further material and would not reach the secondary material.”

This statement covers lithium in direct contact with Nickel and the patent has a priority date of Apr 26, 2011.

Therefore, UGC have shown that low energy Protons can create Fusion/Fission of 1H and 7Li. Piantelli has provided the Proton accelerator.
The third apparent novelty (inferred by this author) in Rossi’s reactor is the “inherent safety” which works over a massive range of temperatures. It is this authors suggestion that this is due to the breakdown of LiH. In part this process initiates the primary reaction by impulsively forcing H- into the Ni at the molten LiH : Ni boundary as noted above. However, at high temperatures, either caused by heat from the primary/secondary reactions or from deliberately over heating the reactor the H- is all driven out into H2 outside the Nickel with Li in between, A small amount will be in Nickel. This will subsequently allow the reactor to rapidly be cooled down and ready for re-start.

The amount of Lithium used will lower Li Al melting and LiH formation / destruction dynamics. Piantelli has also said that the secondary material must be an alloy, one embodiment suggested is Li and Al . He says that it must not be crystalline but in an amorphous state, a liquid solution of these two metals meets this need without the requirement to cool at 1000ºC per second.

So reasons for for active heating in relation to Rossi reactor is:

– Maintain Ni above the minimum temperature to enable primary reaction, assumed to be Debye of Nickel
– Maintain the secondary materials in an amorphous, (not solid/crystalline) structure – in this case, liquid
– Allow for thermally driven creation and destruction of H-
– Provide impulsive action to drive available H- into Ni clusters
– Provide active, heat driven shut down of reaction by forcibly removing H- from the Li and keeping it away from Ni

Low pressure is required to allow somewhere for the H- to be released from the LiH to make H2 reservoir that can later be used to make LiH at will.Adding extra Li will change the melting point of the mixture as well as provide more secondary fuel (See http://goo.gl/JM1UPx).
Important to the process is that Lithium has a Specific Heat Capacity of 3.56 at 25oC in J/goC and H2 has 14.267 – together, they allow for effective engineered ways of getting heat out of the systems main heat source, which is on the boundary layer between Ni and Li.

NOTE: the above may be materially wrong and is posted for education and debate purposes.

  • Gerard McEk

    Well Bob, your analysis of the different patents and obviously your knowledge and experience, may lead us to the first really succesfull and long lasting experiment. Does MFMP plan an experiment like that?

    • Bob Greenyer

      As noted above – there are many variables. It personally frightens me the permutations possible – but it is a manageable parameter space.

      What is now needed is a coordinated large scale iterative process – akin to a multi-threaded CPU testing possible variations and reporting back outcomes.

      I think with the right partners, we could arrange for 10 – 20 simultaneous experiments here in Eastern Europe – but it would take more than vision.

      • Mats002

        Great summary Bob! Time to put all those parameters in a spreadsheet and make a coordinated testplan to cover all combinations. As you said – the parameter space is manageable.

  • Adam Lepczak

    Humanity at its finest…Bob, could you also come up with the practical roadmap for the replicators? Bill of materials with links?

    • Bob Greenyer

      Yes – I have an animation job to get out of the way (have to pay the bills somehow) – but I think another collaborate is in order, get everyone in one place to pool best practices and plan the programme.

      Certainly the Li content/dead volume/pressure relationship around the reversible reaction (R3) could be characterised in GS2/3 type cells and there is no need to look for XS heat – we just need to draw up tables for when LiH is made and destroyed under the influences of materials ratios, temperature, pressure, dead space and also LiH formation promotors such as small amounts of carbon.

  • Adam Lepczak

    Humanity at its finest…Bob, could you also come up with the practical roadmap for the replicators? Bill of materials with links?

    • Bob Greenyer

      Yes – I have an animation job to get out of the way (have to pay the bills somehow) – but I think another collaborate is in order, get everyone in one place to pool best practices and plan the programme.

      Certainly the Li content/dead volume/pressure relationship around the reversible reaction (R3) could be characterised in GS2/3 type cells and there is no need to look for XS heat – we just need to draw up tables for when LiH is made and destroyed under the influences of materials ratios, temperature, pressure, dead space and also LiH formation promotors such as small amounts of carbon.

  • Herb Gillis

    When can we expect to see final confirmation of the significant isotope changes seen in the earlier MFMP trials? Something about a key being released?

    • Bob Greenyer

      Well – I don’t know what sample is what – so I can’t get too excited about that. One group should do full Nickel assay in the next 10 days – I hope one of the other parties will do both this and full elemental assay. We are at the mercy of testing labs that have heavy schedules. Then we have to wait until the commissioning parties have had a good look at the data. It is coming though – will it be conclusive – who knows – but the story will not stop there.

  • Dr. Mike

    Bob,
    Thanks for the very interesting post on LENR theory. Many of the initial replication attempts have tried to increase the internal pressure of the reactor by inserting alumina rods to fill the “dead space” at the ends of the reactor. This was not done in the Lugano reactor. In fact, the internal volume of the Lugano reactor can be estimated to be 40-50 cm3 from a calculation of the external dimensions of the reactor, the weight of the reactor, the density of alumina, and an estimate of the weight of the heater wires. Since most of the replications have used reactors with volumes of a few cm3, with as much or more fuel than the Lugano reactor, it is obvious that the replications have at least started at pressures that were an order of magnitude larger than the Lugano reactor. Will future MFMP reactors have a larger volume to fuel ratio?
    In reviewing your post, there are a few experimental observations and results that I don’t see answered by the proposed theory:
    1. What is the mechanism for the runaway reaction observed in some experiments (that is, the first independent report, rather than reactors having very high pressure hydrogen)?
    2. Is the gradual pressure drop in the replication reactors due to Ni absorbing hydrogen or is it the result of small leaks in the system? (What fraction of the hydrogen atoms in the system are actually absorbed by the Ni?)
    3. Where did all of the neutrons come from in the Lugano reactor to convert all of the Ni to Ni62?
    Do you have any ideas that might explain these observations and questions?
    Dr. Mike

    • Bob Greenyer

      – More dead volume makes it easier to achieve the lower pressures required to permit creation and destruction of LiH. I think varying the fuel area to volume ratio and reactor dead volume are key parameters to explore.

      1. Depending on the nature of those specific reactors structure, local density of fuel (area to volume ratio) ratio of LiH to Li / Al, rate of “kick” of H- into primary etc etc. there may be a multitude of parameter configurations that result in “burn out” of a reactor, not run away – note, there was never any mention of a reactor breach that resulted in the reactants continuing to react outside of the reactor, flash cooling or sublimation / instant nitration/oxidation of the Lithium would prevent that from occurring – again, making this inherently safe.

      2. Pressure drop can occur a number of ways

      a) combination of evolved H2 with O in cell to form water that may additionally condense in colder parts of the cell – say by pressure sensor which in our case is under 100ºC

      b) Al sequestering N and O from the environment in the cell and forming refractory ceramic particles.

      c) Various fuel elements reacting with SiO2 in Mullite tubes.

      d) leakage

      e) small amounts of hydride formation

      f) if all the Ni is transmuted and it is via Piantelli theory, every Ni isotope that is short of 1 or more neutron will take a proton out of the system per neutron deficit. so 1 mole of Ni will take a large number of moles of H2 (I haven’t done the math – perhaps someone would like to?)

      g) formation of rydberg matter H, if this occurs, then according to Holmlid, this will take a very small fraction of the volume of H2 gas.

      3. Neutrons come either from Proton capture and decay as per piantelli (https://goo.gl/AW1sGz) or possibly, and alternatively from bound neutron transfer from the 7Li ( 7Li + xNi > 6Li + (x+1)Ni) – this will be able to be verified by seeing if helium is produced in Bob Higgins experiment. Seeing as when we announced that we were nearly ready to run BobH’s experiment, Rossi suddenly admitted that he gets helium, there is a fair chance that the bound neutron reason for transmutation to 62Ni is not the path.

      Neutrinos in local reaction area could accelerate B+ decay as per the 2+ decade study of Alexander Parkhomov. Gamma radiation could be down converted via SPPs which should be present on the boundary layer between Ni clusters and Li, exactly where they need to be.

    • Obvious

      I believe your internal volume estimate for the Lugano device fails to take account of the air gap between the inner tube and the outer cover, wherein the coil is located. This contributes to your reaction-containment volume calculation being high by an order of magnitude.
      Approximately 3.5 cm3 is the correct value, before displacement by fuel.

      • Dr. Mike

        Obvious,
        I didn’t see anywhere in the Lugano report that stated that there was an inner tube and an outer tube. The Lugano report showed that the reactor weighed 452 gr. After subtracting the weight of the end caps and perhaps 30-40 gr for the weight of the heater coils, there just isn’t enough weight left to form a double wall reactor. Also, a double wall reactor with a large air gap would be a poor design from a standpoint of transferring heat out of the reactor. (The internal tube would be much hotter than the external tube.)
        Dr. Mike

        • Obvious

          See WO 2015127263, where there is an exploded diagram (photo) comprising the Lugano device. I have scaled the photo using dimensions from this and the Lugano report it is based on.
          Indeed the inner tube would be hotter than the external tube. However heat radiating from the inner tube to the outer would be quite effective, since the emission and absorption bands would be matched, while the outer tube has much greater area and a strong convection design. Using radiated heat for cooling allows the conducted heat from the coil wire to the inner tube to allow more efficient heating of the reaction area by reducing direct losses to the outer tube, except for radiation from the coil.

  • Justa Guy

    “you only have to accelerate a proton to less than 225eV into Lithium target to yield around 15MeV and 2 He from 1H + 7Li”

    Bob, Parkhomov [intuitively] discovered that vacuum pressures may be needed to continue the reaction. Residual [H2] Gas in the cell (at high temperatures, after the loading) may be preventing/impeding this reaction (what you define as “the Cat”) from happening or sustaining itself. This may be the counter intuitive we have been searching for in regards to the post:

    http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/08/26/mfmp-to-run-new-glowstick-test-aug-24th/#comment-2228097564

    … I’m not sure how far along Alan is in attempting this, but the better/future solution will be the ability to pump out and residual [H2] Gas at high temps after the loading process/phase and proceed with the experiment.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Alan does intend to pump out the GS4 and potentially re-heat it.

      Bob Higgins’ {Garbage Can} experiment is designed to have vac and H2 pressure abilities to control pressure regimes.

      We’ve got it covered.

      • Mats002

        And measure the voltage in the middle of the coil inbetween Null and Active side please.

        • Bob Greenyer

          hahah – yes – got that.

  • Axil Axil

    Rossi has stated in his patent that the catalyst used in his reactor is a group 10 element which includes Nickel, Palladium(1554C) and Platinum(1768C). This means that the new high temperature unit that Rossi is developing might use platinum or palladium as the catalyst. Both these metals have a melting temperature greater than nickel. Therefore, the Rossi patent might well cover his newest R&D high temperature reactor (XCat) development.

    Like almost all LENR theory developed to date, this Piantelli interpretation is very narrow to the specifics of his engineering solution that he uses to generate his nickel based LENR reaction. On the other hand, the Xcat may well use platinum as the catalyst. The high operating temperature of the Xcat over the melting temperature of nickel implies this when taken together with the Rossi patent in turn implies the use of platinum as the catalatic metal.

    The H- theory of the reaction may well be true for the specific implementation of the Piantelli reactor but it may not be true for the new Xcat reactor being developed by Rossi. The Piantelli theory may be an emergent consequence of a more fundamental LENR reaction mechanism. There may be hundreds of these theories that are restricted by the details of reactor implementation.

    This and many other experiments in LENR have identified many mechanisms that can produce LENR reactions, Ed Storms has identified one of them, Piantelli another, and Rossi yet another. Then there is Holmlid and Dr. George Miley to add…and so on and on. LENR can also occur in both the liquid, gas and plasma phases as shown in experiments done to identify LENR over the quarter century of its most resent phase of experimental history. Identifying the NAE is a process of reduction that identifies the common factor involved over these many currently identified forms of LENR and also the many more forms that are likely to be discovered in the future.

    The fundamental causation of LENR must meet a global set of connected conditions.

    These common and universal conditions include the thermalization of gamma radiation, the rapid to instantaneous stabilization of radioactive isotopes, lack of neutron emissions, and the wide variation of seemingly random transmutation results which includes fusion of light elements into heavier elements and fission of heavy elements into lighter ones, remote reaction at a distance from the location of the LENR reaction(aka NAE), and instantaneous cluster fusion involving huge numbers of sub-reactions that occur instantly and collectively.

    Even though the LENR reaction oftentimes occurs concurrent with the presence of hydrogen isotopes, hydrogen is not required as a fundamental cause of the reaction as shown in the experiments done at Proton 21 where a ball of copper is blasted with a high powered arc discharge, and the carbon dust experiments performed using microwaves conducted by George Egely, the new editor of infinite magazine. In the Proton 21 experiments, the nano-particles involved are copper based and in the Egely case the nano-particles are based on carbon. In the Papp reaction. The nano particles are based on chlorine and noble gases.

    A process of reductionism needs to be applied to the understanding of LENR theory to get to the basic atomic and indivisible essence of the LENR process.

    • Bob Greenyer

      All transition metals are covered by Piantellis patent, Platinum and Palladium included – he said he tested many – he focusses on Nickel because it is cheap and there are few outcomes from the reaction.

      That there are many ways to achieve LENR is in no doubt. Holmlid’s approach is for sure different. As has been discussed on our main site, Al itself can create epicatalytic reaction domains on a metal surface oxide like Fe2O3 and perhaps on Nickel, much experimentation needs to be done.

      In the end, experiment trumps theory every time, and Ed storms is biting the bullet to explore his concepts for better or worse – good for him.

      Energy concentration through vortices and nano-structures are part of the story also. As one scientist said to me “how do you get the energy concentration for even 225eV”

    • Obvious

      Nickel oxide has a melting point of 1955-1984 °C. Only the NiO reduced to Ni by H need be available to become involved in a reaction, (or melt at the operating temperature) so that not all the nickel cannot normally be involved in the reaction at once, preventing meltdown.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Nickel and Aluminium can also form Nickel Alumide,

        Melting Point Ni3Al = 1668 K

        Melting Point NiAl = 1955 K

        Yet another variable

        • Obvious

          The creation of nickel aluminate is highly exothermic, and should be noticeable, at least over a short period, during an experiment.

          • Bob Greenyer

            something to check

          • Axil Axil

            If the key to LENR activity is the configuration of valence electrons in a chemical compound, then a single ion of silicon oxide may be just as good as potassium or lithium as a LENR catalyst.

            The goal of LENR based chemistry might be to find what configuration of valence electrons work and how to create that configuration. Maybe this is what R. Mills has been doing all thess years.

            http://www.news.vcu.edu/article/Protecting_Groups_Go_Rogue_in_Aluminum_Superatoms

            “This work offers new intuition on what criteria allow the formation of stable clusters, and how to induce these clusters into becoming effective catalysts,” said Khanna.

            Chemistry works at a higher level than just the atom. Stable clusters of atoms act as if they were new elements. This chemical property and catalytic properties of atomic clusters involve how electrons flow around the cluster of atoms.

            This cluster active property makes LENR very confusing.

      • Axil Axil

        LENR can be supported by gold, silver, carbon, noble gases, water, and chlorine and maybe many more elements and chemical compounds. Success in LENR engineering involves matching up environmental parameters with the elements and chemical compounds used. R. Mills has identified hundreds of LENR active elements and compounds even though he does not think what he is doing is LENR…but it is.

        For example, certain frequencies of laser light produce better results with a given set of chemical compounds than another set. Temperature and pressure are important parameters. Potassium may be good at low temperatures but lithium is better at high temperature.

    • Bob Greenyer

      So here it is, we need a minimum viable product, whilst it maybe true that magnetic monopoles, SPPs, Quantum teleportation, Magnetic Vortices etc.etc.etc are fundamental to understanding the full picture of how a particular variant of LENR works – we are never going to have it work for us if

      1. we test everything at the same time
      2. we are only interested in the best of the best

      All of these aspects are interesting thought experiments or indeed may fill in theoretical gaps – however, the average experimentalist does not have the equipment – the average experimentalist is still working out how to seal a reactor and get accurate believable reactor temperature and power input readings.

      I saw some of the equipment used in surface enhanced raman spectroscopy at University of Missouri, and their Chemical Vapour Deposition equipment in a fully tooled up clean room – the price of this kit is Monstrous and could fund a wide ranging parameter sweeping experimental program across a large number of researchers. And lets not forget – Rossi, and indeed many other researchers have got where they are mostly without all of these toys.

      Plus – how do you see all these things that are at the atomic and sub atomic level when they are buried under a molten pool of Lithium+Aluminium+H ?

      I for one am quite content with a device that can be reliably varied between 250 and 600ºC – Is it of real interest to the average consumer that with a few more million and another 5 years we can get a reactor that does 1350ºC instead of 1200ºC and lasts for 7 months on a charge instead of 6?

      Minimum viable product.

      With a collective, focussed effort, such a thing could be achieved if at all possible.

      I want to heat my house without pollution and at nominal cost, but that is me.

      There are things we can practically do to test theories and as I have proposed elsewhere, If Bob Higgins sees Helium – the bound neutron theory goes out the window. We need to focus on simple tests that can help narrow the field.

      Have a think about what simple tests the average experimentalist can do to advance understanding.

      • Axil Axil

        If LENR functionality is what you want to see, I would try the Cat and Mouse configuration, where your current weakly performing reactor is supported and amplified by using a half dozen unpowered Cats that surround the Mouse around its circumference. The unpowered Cats will amplify the LENR activity in the electrically powered mouse. This should give you higher COP and detectable excess heat, and in general, the desired more pronounced LENR effect, Remember, according to Rossi the Cat and Mouse are the same reactor except that the mouse is powered and the Cats are not powered electrically.

        Like Piantelli, you can then check for muon radiation produced by Rydberg matter in a five dollar cloud chamber that is located one or two meters away from the Cat/Mouse reactor cluster.

        • Bob Greenyer

          On what basis do you make the statement that this is a configuration used?

          I favour a molten salt cascade myself – but the there is no electrostatic/magnetic influence.

          • Axil Axil

            I correlated all the info provided by Rossi describing the Cat and Mouse configuration. This reactor configuration is of utmost interest for me.

          • Bob Greenyer

            It is certainly a possibility to have 1 actively heated *GlowStick* surrounded by 5 say passive ones. I would even consider a grounded mesh around the cluster to provide some electrostatic field as per Piantelli patent.

          • builditnow

            Bob, I’d like to know what the “back yard”, “kitchen table”, experimenters can do to refine the art of getting to a useful reactor we all can use.

            It would help if the experimental variables, thought to be most promising, could be listed and then all of us can attempt to take on creating experimental setups to work through these parameters. That’s how Rossi and Parkhomov made progress.
            – I’m getting the impression that Ni62 and the ability to experimentally vary the hydrogen pressure could be relevant. Alan is a top engineer, he achieved a very good seal on the latest GS4 experiment. Perhaps the pressure needed to be taken down to .5 or .25 bar.
            – The video attached above show Russian experiments that use nickle wire and hydrogen alone (it appears). Perhaps pre-treating a largish batch nickle of nickle powder by rapid heating to 200c, as per the Rossi patent, to cause mini steam explosions, then cooking it for a considerable time in a hydrogen environment would result in a lot of Ni62. If this works, then Ni62 could become the starting fuel for further experiments.

            A listing of all the options thought worth testing voted on by the open source experimenters. I wonder if there is a way to set this up online.
            Us experimenters could look at the list, see who voted for what (you know, we will all have our personal favorites) and then pick the experiments we think we can successfully carry out.

            Some of us could dream up ways to do a large number of experiments cheaply with minimal equipment.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Alan has the best, most robust testbed to date.

            Understanding pressure vs reactant ratios vs temperature range is something that needs urgent quantification.

          • builditnow

            Bob, seems like reasonable marching orders.

            Alan’s glow stick could be modified to control pressures and could also be made more sensitive to exothermic heat. Temperature is already controlled.
            So, for a given reactant mix, explore combinations of pressure and temperature.

            A compounding factor is the order of events, i.e. starting under high pressure and step up temperature, then lower pressure and try different temperatures.

            The possibility is to have temperature and pressure under automatic control and if the cost of a glow stick setup can be brought down to a low enough level, several could be built and we could run a constant series of experiments largely unattended. We have a BeagleBone Black programmer / engineer, a small board system similar to the Raspberry Pi. The “mass production” test runs could just look for the temperature rise on the active side VS calibration to keep the cost low. A Beaglebone Black, 2 thermocouples, 2 thermocouple amplifiers, an scr power controller, data logging, could have a hardware cost less than $200. I don’t have a feel for the automated pressure control system. Each reactor could be less than $100.
            The fuel type and preparation is a whole other issue.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Quotes from Bob below:

    “As noted above – there are many variables. It personally frightens me the
    permutations possible”

    “We are at the mercy of testing labs that have heavy schedules”

    It is simply a tragedy we do not have a large scale US governmental LENR research program. It has to be one of the greatest failures of our scientific community, ever! We are talking millions of lives lost! Those responsible, including the paid skeptics, must be held accountable.

    • Bob Greenyer

      In the end – they’ll all be happy it has arrived and they’ll have received a pay check in the mean time.

      Reality is, this is now happening in Japan, China, India and Russia at the government sponsored level. If it isn’t happening in EU and US soon, it is just laughable.

      • HS61AF91

        EU and US issued the patents, quite noticeably without serious governmental attention to them. That there is a reason for this is obvious. What the reason could be though, is speculative. I speculate it is to perpetuate an oil-based financial paradigm. Experimenters and thinkers here change EU and US thinking, not government sponsorship.

  • ss dd

    Nice write up Bob! Understandable by someone like me who doesn’t have much physics background.

    My thoughts:

    Looking at the 3 reactions of thermal decomposition of LAH, if you start with 6LiAlH4, you end up with the following equilibrium:

    6LiH+6Al 6LiAl + 3H2 (R3)

    Moreover, you have an extra 9H2!

    According to your write-up, we would want to create lots of LiH. My layman understanding of chemical reactions such as AB is that if you have an equilibrium and that you want more “A”, then you can add more “B”.

    But look, H2 is already abundant so we just gotta add more lithium! Hence Rossi adding more lithium to his formula. In what form would that lithium be? How would it react with the extra H2 to form LiH? What conditions would favor that reaction?

    • Axil Axil

      The analysis of the Lugano fuel load showed that Rossi preheated and sintered his COTS nickel powder to produce 100 micron nickel particles and he added lithium to the pre-heat reaction at the fuel prep stage.

      • Jonas Matuzas
        • Mats002

          Those Russians! They do clever things with almost nothing.

          • Alain Samoun

            Except that they are Ukrainians I believe…

          • magicsnd1

            They didn’t consider the higher thermal conductivity of hydrogen vs. air. So though it looks nice, It’s flawed calorimetry.

          • Jarea

            What is the error tolerance for that flawed calorimetry?

          • magicsnd1

            The thermal conductivity of H2 is about 7 times that of air at 400 °K. To calculate how that would affect the thermal equilibrium we would need all the dimensions of the device as well as the input power and pressure data.

            Adriano Bassignana also pointed out that the glass tube and water bath are mostly transparent to IR, so the water is heated primarily by conduction through the glass tube. An opaque (black-body) container for the water bath is needed to capture the radiated portion of the heat output of the device.

      • ss dd
        • Paul

          “According to Piantelli, some of the protons from H- fail to transmute Nickel and get ejected as protons from 0 up to 6.7 MeV”. How can they reach 6.7 MeV before reactions with Ni and Li? Here there is a key passage lacking…

          • Bob Greenyer

            Well – by observation and apparently calculation based on “coulombic repulsion” apparently – but it is still a bit of a leap! That is a LOT of energy – and would pretty much react with anything it hit.

            Do we have to invoke epicatalysis, meta materials, vortices etc etc. maybe…

            actually we only have to get to <225eV – that is still quite a bit though – can't get that from any one chemical thing.

          • Axil Axil

            6.7 MeV is the binding energy created when nickel is transmuted to copper through fusion. The appearance of this energy means that nickel/hydrogen fusion has occurred but has not been thermalized by the basic LENR process.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Very good.

          • Axil Axil

            The breakdown of the basic LENR energy process is caused by a cooling that destroys the entanglement between the fusion site and the SPP. Fusion energy transfer occurs through entanglement and quantum teleportation. Entanglement is caused by heat photons or the plain terms equal temperature between the fusion site and the SPP.

            The SPP is a black hole that has its own Hawking temperature, Hawking radiation is black body radiation that is predicted to be released by black holes, due to quantum effects near the event horizon. When this temperature level is disrupted, entanglement is destroyed and LENR energy transfer does not happen. Gamma radiation is then produced.

          • Bob Greenyer

            And the way the average garage experimenter can test for this is?

          • Axil Axil

            Piantilli has done this test already. He showed that temperature level was the cause of gamma production. A tipping point temperature will mark the transition point between gamma production and radiation free LENR operation. That temperature tipping point will be common between most LENR experiments no matter how different the systems are.

            That temperature will be found to be the Hawking temperature of the SPP black hole.

          • ecatworld

            Thanks for the comment, RLittle — unfortunately there is some issue with the links you provide. Could you repost them without adding parentheses or extra formatting. Disqus will shorten them, but they should resolve fine.

          • I have heard theoretical presentation at ICCF19, starting with such assumptions (1^16 tesla sometime).

            This is huge macroscopically and would destroy everything around if static, end even worst if dynamic. Even blackhole and pulsar don’t show that kind of macroscopic field.

            however the local field inside an atom, inside a nucleus may be huge over tiny dimension.

            another reason to accept it was told by Srivastava, it is that the EM field may be caused by an evanescent wave. (NB: magnetic or electric field are dual… both have to be huge)

            http://www.prometeon.it/download/Yogi%20Srivastava.pdf

            I cannot judge if those explanation are reasonable, and I may have misunderstood some.

          • Axil Axil

            The basic LENR process usually stabilizes unstable nuclei after a fusion reaction through a energy transfer and thermalization process. When Plaintiff takes the nickel bar out of his reactor, the nickel bar cools below the temperature necessary for energy transfer to occur and the nuclei stays excited. This unstable isotope will release energy via proton ejection.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Yes, Bob Higgins and I have discussed this at length when he reviewed the Lugano data again.

    • Bob Greenyer

      All variables to try – Axil Axil suggests one approach.

      • Axil Axil

        I am not segenting this process, the fuel prep process is what Rossi did.

        • Bob Greenyer

          where was this documented.

          • Axil Axil

            It is evident from an analysis of the fuel description including micrographs of the fuel presented in the appendix from the Lugano report. Take a look.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Could it be milled together?

          • Axil Axil

            The fine nanostructure of the COTS power was not disturbed. I had to be sintered, Heat welded the 5 micron particles together.

      • ss dd

        Each LiAlH4 molecule contains 4 times as many H as Li. So if we want to maximize the LiH we’d want to add way more lithium from another source and make sure it reacts with all the extra H2.

        • Bob Greenyer

          That too.

          Bob

      • ss dd

        Also, (you probably know all this)

        2 Li3AlH6 → 6 LiH + 2 Al + 3 H2 (R2) occurs at 200 °C

        Then as you increase the temperature, that extra H2 can be used for:

        2 Li + H2 → 2 LiH

        For the above reaction, wikipedia says: “This reaction is especially rapid at temperatures above 600 °C. Addition of 0.001–0.003% carbon, or/and increasing temperature or/and pressure, increases the yield up to 98% at 2-hour residence time”

        So we’d want a few hours to form as much LiH as possible… Would carbon be a catalyst?

        Then are we saying that we want to go above LiH’s melting point (688C) so that it reaches the nickel? Or do we need to reach its decomposition point at 900-1000C?

        • Axil Axil

          A muon track could look like a proton track in a cloud chamber. How can you tell the difference?

          We can use a magnetic field to see which way the particle bends, either positive for the proton or negative for the muon. I don’t think that Piantelli has proved the the particle he is seeing is a proton. It could be any number of other subatomic particle types including mesons.

          We only see what we want to see. Just because Piantille thinks he sees a proton does not mean that the track is from a proton.

          • Bob Greenyer

            He would’t make that mistake.

            Lets assume he did though!

            The ash he has seen as a result of 100s of experiments with Focardi et al and since, the intermediaries, the decay products all come from proton interactions.

            We can say everything in the world works a different way because it displeases our view, but if you see say zinc – where oh where did it come from – did it teleport into the ash?

          • Axil Axil

            But what produces what? Muons could produce proton nuclear reactions. Protons must be involved because neutron are not. But what catalyzes the fusion of one or more protons into nickel? I say its muons. What is the cause and what is the effect?

          • Bob Greenyer

            Piantelli has a theory, it doesn’t include Muons – only that H- acts as a “virtual muon”.

            Others have other theories.

            Piantelli and Focardi checked their understanding in 100s of experiments.

            Here is a riddle for you, which are fermions, which are bosons

            H
            H-
            D

          • Axil Axil

            Piantilli came up with the H- idea because he could not imagine in his widest dreams how a muon could be created by the basic LENR process. If he knew that there were tons of muons flying around in the LENR reaction he would have assumed that the fusion was caused by muons.

          • Bob Greenyer

            So why then does Rossi’s reactor rely on a reversible process involving Li Al and H2 that creates and destroys H- and that starts to function at the first temperature that H- is formed.

            Why not get rid of the aluminium and hope for the best?

          • Axil Axil

            DGT, Holmlid, and Rossi’s low temperature reactors used potassium…no aluminum involved. You replicators are so narrowly focused on the current system you are interested in. This is a weakness in your thinking. No offence intended, just tough love.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Not sure that answers the question

          • Axil Axil

            All these systems produce Rydberg matter that generate muons as shown by Holmlid. Rydberg matter formation is a alkali metal process. LENR is centered on Alkali metals in its Rydberg matter form.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Now, being theory agnostic (you may laugh) I buy the Rydberg matter and the importance of Alkali metals from your post.

            I admire the work of Holmlid and pointed Celani to it many moons ago.

            You will see our discussion on catalysis on our main site.

          • Axil Axil

            If you buy Rydberg matter, you get muons whose formation and effect that I predicted many moons ago,

          • Bob Greenyer

            Whilst this is an interesting aside, I am still waiting for an answer to

            “So why then does Rossi’s reactor rely on a reversible process involving Li Al and H2 that creates and destroys H- and that starts to function at the first temperature that H- is formed.

            Why not get rid of the aluminium and hope for the best?”

            Additionally

            Why also does IH/Rossi want to buy Piantelli’s patents when really he should be interested in Holmlids?

            Why does he contest Piantelli’s patents if they are irrelevant?

          • Axil Axil

            The Lugano report proves that the LENR reaction does not involve H-. The nickel transmutation whent from Ni58, Ni60, Ni61 to Ni62, The Lithium transmuted from Li7 to Li6. The neutrons from the lithium were transferred into the Nickel.

            Out of the thousands of LENR experiments done, there is no rhyme or reason for the how transmutation works it is effectively a random process. Transmutation occurs in systems that don’t have hydrogen in the mix.

            The theorys of LENR that use hydrogen as the reaction activator can’t explain results where transmutation occurs when hydrogen is not involved in the system.

            What about the transmutations that involve fission of heavy elements like uranium and thorium into lighter elements. These fission reactions occur concurrently will fusion reactions.

            This is way the theories by Ed Storms, Godes, Piantelli, and Rossi are wrong…because they use hydrogen as the key factor in the reaction.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Hi Axil,

            Yes – as I have said countless times over the past few days (and even asked Tom to do the math) – there is the 7Li + xNi > 6li + (x+1)Ni potential reaction as favoured by Upsalla University – that is why it is so important for Bob Higgins to get the {Garbage Can} experiment running – the main point of which is to look for helium, which, depending on the resulting ash, would help define the underlying nuclear interchanges.

          • Bob Greenyer

            haha – just did a rough calculation – 20% of Li & 30% of LiAlH4 by WEIGHT gives you 94.1% of the atoms as Li 5.9% as Ni – which gives you a melting point of around 250ºC

            This links Rossi’s patent (example fuel ratio) with IHs application (reactor operating range).

            Note: Someone please verify

            http://pruffle.mit.edu/3.00/Lecture_36_web/img7.gif

          • Axil Axil

            Don;t you mean 5.9% as Al?

          • Bob Greenyer

            I changed that thanks – I did have it wrong in first posting – just working late again!

          • ss dd

            As opposed to 50/50 when using only LAH, which would have a melting point around 700C? Is there an advantage to having Al-Li melt at a lower temperature?

          • Bob Greenyer

            Yes. the Li needs to be molten on the Ni

          • Axil Axil

            “So the magnetic forces between the e- and p+ and the metal nucleus for very close nuclear approach of the hydride species to the nucleus of a metal atoms is on the order of 1010 X 1000 tesla or 1013 tesla. Therefore within the s orbital of the metal lattice, the e- and p+ of the hydride species would locally experience tremendous magnetic fields on the order of the magnetic fields in magnetars.”

            This is what I have been saying. But I thought I was the only person with the Cojones to say so. 10^^13 tesla was the number I had come up with as the magnitude of the magnetic field required to produce mesons from the vacuum. Congratulations. You are a great LENR pioneer. You are on the right track even though your mechanism for power concentration and magnetic projection is off.

            That magnetic magnitude is startling and because of it, I will read your patent with great interest.

            WOW, “magnetic fields in magnetars.” that is me.

          • RLittle

            Hi Axil,

            Thanks at least for not insulting me. It is usually at this point that people get mean and say things that are not courteous. I wish you well in your endeavor.

            RBL

          • Bob Greenyer

            I did say that there maybe material errors!

            Hank Mills seems to have pointed out that the reference for the pressure requirement of the R3 reaction is only in Wiki. Honest I don’t have any inside info. I just need more sleep!

            Thanks Hank for demonstrating peer review in open science debate.

          • builditnow

            RLittle, experimenters need your guidance and suggestions.

            Thanks for having the courage to express your theory. Nuclear physics is not my field, however, LENR is a multidisciplinary field requiring may participants who have more or less understanding of each other’s expertise.

            Right now, we open source experimenters are operating on tiny budgets with assembled volunteers of assorted skills. Many are geniuses in their sphere of knowledge and skill. With the resources we have, all these experimenters need ideas on the experiments that can be tried, often, by using used “junk” lying around or that can be “scavenged”. You can see the Russians are very good at this, out of necessity, but, others are too, all over the world.

            These experimenters need your guidance.
            What exactly to try.
            From reading above, 10^13 tesla is a head blowing (beyond mind blowing) magnetic field strength. Is there any possibility that externally applied magnetic fields could have “any” impact, and, if so, how strong a field and for how long? My first thought is to go for the most intense magnetic field possible by shorting a very low inductance capacitor on to a low inductance coil as often as possible. Is there any benefit in changing the field direction, or, should it be in the same direction?
            Resonance is all a thought, what kind of frequencies might achieve resonance?

            Would the magnetic field from heating elements have any impact?
            If you could find a space on the web, perhaps lenr.org where you could write up your suggestions for experiments, then come here periodically and remind the experimenters where to look, you could add you piece to the puzzle and, your theory might become the Big Little Effect 🙂

  • ss dd

    Nice write up Bob! Understandable by someone like me who doesn’t have much physics background.

    My thoughts:

    Looking at the 3 reactions of thermal decomposition of LAH, if you start with 6LiAlH4, you end up with the following equilibrium:

    6LiH+6Al 6LiAl + 3H2 (R3)

    Moreover, you have an extra 9H2!

    According to your write-up, we would want to create lots of LiH to start the process. My layman understanding of chemical reactions such as AB is that if you have an equilibrium and that you want more “A”, then you can add more “B”.

    But look, H2 is already abundant so we just gotta add more lithium! Hence Rossi adding more lithium to his formula. In what form would that lithium be? How would it react with the extra H2 to form LiH? What conditions would favor that reaction?

    • Axil Axil

      The analysis of the Lugano fuel load showed that Rossi preheated and sintered his COTS nickel powder to produce 100 micron nickel particles and he added lithium to the pre-heat reaction at the fuel prep stage. All nickel particles in the fuel mix was covered by lithium.

    • Bob Greenyer

      All variables to try – Axil Axil suggests one approach.

      • Axil Axil

        I am not segenting this process, the fuel prep process is what Rossi did.

        • Bob Greenyer

          where was this documented.

          • Axil Axil

            It is evident from an analysis of the fuel description including micrographs of the fuel presented in the appendix from the Lugano report. Take a look.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Could it be milled together?

          • Axil Axil

            The fine nanostructure of the COTS power was not disturbed. I had to be sintered, Heat welded the 5 micron particles together.

      • ss dd

        Each LiAlH4 molecule contains 4 times as many H as Li. So if we want to maximize the LiH we’d want to add way more lithium from another source and make sure it reacts with all the extra H2.

        • Bob Greenyer

          That too.

          Bob

      • ss dd

        Also, (you probably know all this)

        2 Li3AlH6 → 6 LiH + 2 Al + 3 H2 (R2) occurs at 200 °C

        Then as you increase the temperature, that extra H2 can be used for:

        2 Li + H2 → 2 LiH

        For the above reaction, wikipedia says: “This reaction is especially rapid at temperatures above 600 °C. Addition of 0.001–0.003% carbon, or/and increasing temperature or/and pressure, increases the yield up to 98% at 2-hour residence time”

        So we’d want a few hours to form as much LiH as possible… Would carbon be a catalyst?

        Then are we saying that we want to go above LiH’s melting point (688C) so that it reaches the nickel? Or do we need to reach its decomposition point at 900-1000C?

  • Jonas Matuzas
    • Mats002

      Those Russians! They do clever things with almost nothing.

      • Alain Samoun

        Except that they are Ukrainians I believe…

      • LookMoo

        Jep, show the quality of the Russian/Ukrainian education system (based on the old Soviet).

      • magicsnd1

        They didn’t consider the higher thermal conductivity of hydrogen vs. air. So though it looks nice, It’s flawed calorimetry.

        • Jarea

          What is the error tolerance for that flawed calorimetry?

          • magicsnd1

            The thermal conductivity of H2 is about 7 times that of air at 400 °K. To calculate how that would affect the thermal equilibrium we would need all the dimensions of the device as well as the input power and pressure data.

            Adriano Bassignana also pointed out that the glass tube and water bath are mostly transparent to IR, so the water is heated primarily by conduction through the glass tube. An opaque (black-body) container for the water bath is needed to capture the radiated portion of the heat output of the device.

  • Bob — I like your hypothesis, and it’s interesting how it builds on both Piantelli’s knowledge and a series of observations including the Lugano experiment and Rossi’s small talk.
    If this is close to reality, then the beauty is this — Rossi (and Piantelli and others) have spent years of hard work to find these clues and parameters, and you and MFMP have done a great job, together with your community, to lay the puzzle and reverse engineer parts of that information. Both accomplishments are impressive, and hopefully we’re now closer than ever. It will be interesting to see how things play out!

    • Bob Greenyer

      For sure. It would be good if the parties would play nice together – but hey ho.

      The coming period is going to be interesting.

  • Bob — I like your hypothesis, and it’s interesting how it builds on both Piantelli’s knowledge and a series of observations including the Lugano experiment and Rossi’s small talk.
    If this is close to reality, then the beauty is this — Rossi (and Piantelli and others) have spent years of hard work to find these clues and parameters, and you and MFMP have done a great job, together with your community, to lay the puzzle and reverse engineer parts of that information. Both accomplishments are impressive, and hopefully we’re now closer than ever. It will be interesting to see how things play out!

    • Bob Greenyer

      For sure. It would be good if the parties would play nice together – but hey ho.

      The coming period is going to be interesting.

      • RLittle

        Dear Dr. Greenyer,
        I applaud your outstanding experiments and open data concerning this matter. In writing I mean you no disrespect but congratulate and honor you. I do agree with this great assessment that you provide in the article above.
        I hope only to write to you to note a few unknowns or unacknowledged facts. 1. It by others is written that Piantelli during the early 1990s used Ni rather than Pd as Ni is cheaper and Ni is of the same family as Pd. 2. Piantelli’s patent (filed April 26, 2011) ( METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR GENERATING ENERGY BY NUCLEAR REACTIONS OF HYDROGEN ADSORBED BY ORBITAL CAPTURE ON A NANOCRYSTALLINE STRUCTURE OF A METAL) is not the first published mechanism of hydrogen (and hydride [H-]) absorbed into orbitals of a nanocrystal of a metal. 3. Such mechanism of of hydrogen (and hydride [H-]) absorbed into orbitals of a nanocrystal of a metal was first discovered, predicted and published in 2006: http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0608071 ; and later published in IJPS (2006) [below * I will quote a paragraph that exactly and explicitly note such.] 4. Rossi has done outstanding in demonstrating new effects of Ni-H-Li since 2009. 5 Such Li-H-Ni system was not first disclosed by Rossi in 2009 or 2010. 6. But such system was first published in US patent application : http://www.google.com/patents/US20140140461 ; ( April 2005) wherein it explicitly notes and develops in details the ability of electric fields, magnetic fields, electromagnetic waves and pressure to stimulate ferro-metal lattices to excite electrons in magnetic field and with the build-up extending from valence to core electrons where by external species like hydrides can become involved and electrons in general excited outward from the core with anti-symmetry of the magnetic environment preventing relaxation and the build-up of energy of such ferrometal pycno-media intensifies the energy to nuclear energies in particular of nuclear energies of smaller isotopes such that if ‘target atoms’ (H, He, Li, Be, B, C, N , O) are present then the excited magnetized core ferrometal lattice can couple with nuclei of these target atoms like H and Li and drive and organize nuclear reactions therein. 7. In the two documents referenced here, it explicitly notes that during uptake of hydride into the valence and core of the atoms of metal lattices and nanoparticles the electrons can be stripped off the hydrides to leave neutrons and protons which can collapse on the nuclei and/or the electron and proton form neutron can collapse on nuclei as well. from http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0608071: * “The mechanism based on magnetic orchestration of pycnonuclear reactions involves the following steps: 1.) under the prevailing conditions hydrogen uptake by the metal lattice and the high current density allow the formation of some amount of a hydride species (H-); 2.) the thermal and pressure fluctuations and magnetization cause the electronic rehybridization of the background Cu-Ag lattice with consequent sporadic localization and delocalization of these electrons and protons of hydride species (H-) within the Cu-Ag lattice; 3.) these protons and electrons of this hydride species exist delocalized in the 4d-like orbitals of the Cu-Ag lattice; 4.) localization of protons and electrons produces this hydride species in the metal lattice by the rehybridization of 3d, 4d, 4s, and 5s orbitals of the metal lattice; 5.) such localization by lattice rehybridization and confinement of H- within sd hybrid orbitals contribute to greater s character of the interacting electrons and protons in the form of (ea-p+eb- ) or (hydride species) within the sd hybrid orbitals within the metal lattice; 6.) within the sd hybrid orbitals the (ea-p+eb- )with its net negative charge is strongly attracted in the localization to the nucleus (M47+) of the metal atoms within the lattice; 7.) the (ea-p+eb- ) is heavier and more classical in its interactions with the nucleus; 8.) as the (ea-p+eb- ) approaches the nucleus the ea- is driven into tighter orbital correlation with the p+ in order to shield the proton from the nearby nucleus (M47+) in this confined s orbital state for the local metal nuclear compression of the ea- and p+; 9.) the spin and magnetic properties of the confined (ea-p+eb- ) state are more paramagnetic, an external magnetic field can therefore orients the nuclear spin of the metal atoms with the spin and orbital moments of the (ea-p+eb-); 10.) as the (ea-p+eb- ) approaches the nucleus (M47+), the nuclear spin torques the eb- by nuclear spin-orbit interactions for its intersystem crossing, so eb- changes correlation with the (ea- – p+), thereby driving the ea- into the p+ for even tighter orbits, this orbital compression is strengthened by the huge nearby electric field of the metal nucleus within the s orbital of the metal atom; 11.) the resulting aligned spins of the metal nucleus (M47+) and the eb- organize the steering of ea- into collapse onto the p+ for reverse beta to form neutrons, eb- may also collapse onto the metal nucleus; the p+ may collapse onto metal nucleus; the resulting neutron may also collapse on the nucleus for various rare transmutation processes. See Table 7. 12.) the proximity (less than 0.5 Angstroms) of the ea- — p+ to the eb- and the metal nucleus (M47+) within the s orbital allows huge local magnetic fields within the s orbital for extremely strong spin torque of ea- into the p+ thereby preventing gamma exchange as in isolated hydrogen thereby allowing the ea- — p+ to form a neutron. It is within the s orbital with finite nonzero probability of the ea- — p+ and eb- having very close proximity to the metal nucleus that length scales of 10-10 m such that the magnetic forces within the s orbital are on the order of 1/(10-5) 2 times the magnetic forces between lattice electrons in the domain of say a ferrometal. The magnetic forces between lattice electrons in the domain of a ferrometal of Fe are on the order of 1000 tesla. So the magnetic forces between the e- and p+ and the metal nucleus for very close nuclear approach of the hydride species to the nucleus of a metal atoms is on the order of 1010 X 1000 tesla or 1013 tesla. Therefore within the s orbital of the metal lattice, the e- and p+ of the hydride species would locally experience tremendous magnetic fields on the order of the magnetic fields in magnetars. An external magnetic field organizes (as in this work) the (ea-p+eb-) and metal nuclei for more favorable weak interactions, leading to enhanced cross-sections for fusion events. In zero applied magnetic field, the proper spin and orbital orientations for such fusion processes are much more random and less likely. The important of such left-right symmetry during weak processes has been demonstrated by Yang and Lee [40]. Yang and Lee determined that within an external magnetic field, the nuclear spin oriented such that during the beta process the release of electron has specific momentum relative to the nucleus that released it. Here on the basis of the Little Effect, it is demonstrated that an external magnetic field can orient the e and nucleus for the reverse process of reverse beta for greater probability of such rare fusion events. The external magnetic field in this way organizes the spins for such symmetry for the reverse beta process and e- or p+ capture process by the metal nucleus for greater rates and reproducibility of the pycnonuclear reactions. Without the external magnetization, the cross-section and probability are much lower. Here these still slow nuclear processes within the strong magnetic environment, high current densities, Lorentz compression and thermal fluctuations are observed due to the long period of these conditions, more than 2000 hours. Although, the rates of pycnonuclear reactions are still very slow under the conditions within the strong magnet, even greater energy input via laser irradiation of the Cu-Ag matrix can promote much greater pycnonuclear fusion rates for future practical energy sources. Large magnetic field can build up huge potential energy due to Pauli antisymmetry with faster spin torque of electrons into protons for faster neutron formation (reverse beta processes) and neutron, electron and proton captures by Ag and Pd nuclei. The greater spin torque on orbital motion and the greater nuclear induced intersystem crossing also contribute more pycnonuclear phenomena in 4d relative to 3d transition metals in strong magnetic fields.” Sir, I have admired your openness over the last few years concerning this post Fleischmann and Pons Effect. Thereby I thought it would cause no harm for me to note these truths. I hope not to ruffle any feathers , I am only about truth and decency. I know some will be offended. But to those of truth and decency in this world (if any) I thereby hope to communicate. With Kind Sincerity and Gratitude, RBL

        • Axil Axil

          “So the magnetic forces between the e- and p+ and the metal nucleus for very close nuclear approach of the hydride species to the nucleus of a metal atoms is on the order of 1010 X 1000 tesla or 1013 tesla. Therefore within the s orbital of the metal lattice, the e- and p+ of the hydride species would locally experience tremendous magnetic fields on the order of the magnetic fields in magnetars.”

          This is what I have been saying. But I thought I was the only person with the Cojones to say so. 10^^13 tesla was the number I had come up with as the magnitude of the magnetic field required to produce mesons from the vacuum. Congratulations. You are a great LENR pioneer. You are on the right track even though your mechanism for power concentration and magnetic projection is off.

          That magnetic magnitude is startling and because of it, I will read your patent with great interest.

          WOW, “magnetic fields in magnetars.” that is me.

          • RLittle

            Hi Axil,

            Thanks at least for not insulting me. It is usually at this point that people get mean and say things that are not courteous. I wish you well in your endeavor.

            RBL

          • winebuff67

            Please hang around Mr little your insites into this process is interesting and very helpful

          • RLittle

            Thanks winbuff67, I get a lot of negative comments. I appreciate your positive response. Life has for me has been a struggle, I am given crumbs, yet what positive I give and contribute with so little resources, people in return dig and dig looking for something negative to throw at me. I have a very positive life and contributions and in return this world looks for something negative. 99% on track, but some keep searching for an error? So sad. Thanks for your encouragement! RBL

          • Mark S.

            Paradigm shifting thoughts or experiments are never well accepted in science or elsewhere. They are resisted and/or ridiculed far longer than is warranted. Here is a video about confronting sciences immunity to change:

            https://youtu.be/NqaUbET15fw

          • builditnow

            RLittle, experimenters need your guidance and suggestions.

            Thanks for having the courage to express your theory. Nuclear physics is not my field, however, LENR is a multidisciplinary field requiring may participants who have more or less understanding of each other’s expertise.

            Right now, we open source experimenters are operating on tiny budgets with assembled volunteers of assorted skills. Many are geniuses in their sphere of knowledge and skill. With the resources we have, all these experimenters need ideas on the experiments that can be tried, often, by using used “junk” lying around or that can be “scavenged”. You can see the Russians are very good at this, out of necessity, but, others are too, all over the world.

            These experimenters need your guidance.
            What exactly to try.
            From reading above, 10^13 tesla is a head blowing (beyond mind blowing) magnetic field strength. Is there any possibility that externally applied magnetic fields could have “any” impact, and, if so, how strong a field and for how long? My first thought is to go for the most intense magnetic field possible by shorting a very low inductance capacitor on to a low inductance coil as often as possible. Is there any benefit in changing the field direction, or, should it be in the same direction?
            Resonance is all a thought, what kind of frequencies might achieve resonance?

            Would the magnetic field from heating elements have any impact?
            If you could find a space on the web, perhaps lenr.org where you could write up your suggestions for experiments, then come here periodically and remind the experimenters where to look, you could add you piece to the puzzle and, your theory might become the Big Little Effect 🙂

          • RLittle

            Hi, the 10^13 Tesla may be a couple of magnitudes off scale. But my points in my prior papers are 1) that these heavy elements (like these ferromagnetic transition metals) were synthesized in supernovas under conditions of these very powerful magnetic fields (10^6 – 109^ Tesla) 2) aand therefore by exciting core electrons intense enough the magnetic conditions inside the core electrons toward the nuclei during these unconventional nuclear phenomena can cause very extreme conditions of magnetism in that tiny space in core orbitals so that species like hydrides, hydrogen atoms, protons that get captured and buried in orbitals deep inside the core shells of atoms (Fe and Ni atoms) can approach such magnetic fields. When two electrons (two protons) collide with sufficient energies the magnetic field at the surface of the electrons may approach such magnitudes even momentarily; inverse beta and collisions of electrons and protons may involve such strong magnetic fields even transiently! You know that the magnetic field drops inversely (squared) with distance so magnifying outward on a macroscale such magnetic fields rapidly diminish and are rather as we may experience in iron lattice of 1000s of Tesla. I am a very creative thinker. In many instances this opens me up to personal attacks. But I mean well, I enjoy the imagination! You have to remember this work was initially done by me in 2000 and I was very young and going against the grain of advice to young investigators. But I reason very intensely and I fear and walk with GOD.

        • Mark S.

          Can you give a layman the reason for the scepticism about that huge magnetic field strength and how one responds to that scepticism?

          • I have heard theoretical presentation at ICCF19, starting with such assumptions (1^16 tesla sometime).

            This is huge macroscopically and would destroy everything around if static, end even worst if dynamic. Even blackhole and pulsar don’t show that kind of macroscopic field.

            however the local field inside an atom, inside a nucleus may be huge over tiny dimension.

            another reason to accept it was told by Srivastava, it is that the EM field may be caused by an evanescent wave. (NB: magnetic or electric field are dual… both have to be huge)

            http://www.prometeon.it/download/Yogi%20Srivastava.pdf

            I cannot judge if those explanation are reasonable, and I may have misunderstood some.

  • ss dd

    Could it be that the realization that Rossi had after Lugano is that he was wasting a lot of his H- by using Ni58/60 in his fuel, and thus switched to using Ni62 which doesn’t steal the H-‘s?

    • ss dd

      Therefore reusing Ni62 rich ash as fuel and remixing that with LiAH and Li would create a more efficient reaction than in Lugano, which would create the extended periods of SSM that Rossi’s been mentioning in 2015.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Yes.

        And that is what one of the Russian team suggests – for this reason.

    • ss dd

      I thereby submit as public knowledge the following process: do a first run in the apparatus as described in the Rossi patent from Aug 25, 2015. Reuse the fuel and mix with more LAH. This should increase the COP, SSM periods, and duration of fuel.

    • ss dd
  • ss dd

    Could it be that the realization that Rossi had after Lugano is that he was wasting a lot of his H- by using Ni58/60 in his fuel, and thus switched to using Ni62 which doesn’t steal the H-‘s?

    • ss dd

      Therefore reusing Ni62 rich ash as fuel and remixing that with LiAH and Li would create a more efficient reaction than in Lugano, which would create the extended periods of SSM that Rossi’s been mentioning in 2015.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Yes.

        And that is what one of the Russian team suggests – for this reason.

      • Frederic

        ss dd, you wrote : “reusing Ni62 rich ash as fuel”

        Is it a catalyst or a fuel or both ?

        When there is only Ni in the form of Ni62, can the reactor still run ?

        • ss dd

          By fuel here I mean whatever is put in the reactor before running it.

          The hypothesis is that Ni62 would perform better as a catalyst than Ni58/60 in the reactor. Maybe the reactor would run better if Ni is all in the form of Ni62.

          My idea is to take the ash of a working reactor, which should be high in Ni62, and mix it with more LAH and maybe more Ni; and use that as fuel in a new reactor.

          I suspect that Rossi realized this after Lugano and has seen major improvement.

    • ss dd

      I thereby submit as public knowledge the following process: do a first run in the apparatus as described in the Rossi patent from Aug 25, 2015. Reuse the fuel and mix with more LAH. This should increase the COP, SSM periods, and duration of fuel.

    • ss dd
  • Axil Axil

    A muon track could look like a proton track in a cloud chamber. How can you tell the difference?

    We can use a magnetic field to see which way the particle bends, either positive for the proton or negative for the muon. I don’t think that Piantelli has proved the the particle he is seeing in the cloud chamber is a proton. It could be any number of other subatomic particle types including mesons.

    We only see what we want to see. Just because Piantille thinks he is seeing a proton does not mean that the track is from a proton.

    Muon tracks in a cloud chamber

    http://video.mit.edu/watch/cloud-chamber-4058/

    • Bob Greenyer

      He would’t make that mistake.

      Lets assume he did though!

      The ash he has seen as a result of 100s of experiments with Focardi et al and since, the intermediaries, the decay products all come from proton interactions.

      We can say everything in the world works a different way because it displeases our view, but if you see say zinc – where oh where did it come from – did it teleport into the ash?

      • Axil Axil

        But what produces what? Muons could produce nuclear reactions involving protons. Protons must be involved because neutron are not. But what catalyzes the fusion of one or more protons into nickel through fusion? I say its muons. What is the cause and what is the effect?

        • Bob Greenyer

          Piantelli has a theory, it doesn’t include Muons – only that H- acts as a “virtual muon”.

          Others have other theories.

          Piantelli and Focardi checked their understanding in 100s of experiments.

          Here is a riddle for you, which are fermions, which are bosons

          H
          H-
          D

          • Axil Axil

            Piantilli came up with the H- idea because he could not imagine in his widest dreams how a muon could be created by the basic LENR process. If he knew that there were tons of muons flying around in the LENR reaction he would have assumed that the fusion was caused by muons.

          • Bob Greenyer

            So why then does Rossi’s reactor rely on a reversible process involving Li Al and H2 that creates and destroys H- and that starts to function at the first temperature that H- is formed.

            Why not get rid of the aluminium and hope for the best?

          • Axil Axil

            DGT, Holmlid, and Rossi’s low temperature reactors used potassium…no aluminum involved. You replicators are so narrowly focused on the current system you are interested in. This is a weakness in your thinking. No offence intended, just tough love.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Not sure that answers the question

          • Axil Axil

            All these systems produce Rydberg matter that generate muons as shown by Holmlid. Rydberg matter formation is a alkali metal process. LENR is centered on Alkali metals in its Rydberg matter form.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Now, being theory agnostic (you may laugh) I buy the Rydberg matter and the importance of Alkali metals from your post.

            I admire the work of Holmlid and pointed Celani to it many moons ago.

            You will see our discussion on catalysis on our main site.

          • Axil Axil

            If you buy Rydberg matter, you get muons whose formation and effect that I predicted many moons ago,

          • Bob Greenyer

            Whilst this is an interesting aside, I am still waiting for an answer to

            “So why then does Rossi’s reactor rely on a reversible process involving Li Al and H2 that creates and destroys H- and that starts to function at the first temperature that H- is formed.

            Why not get rid of the aluminium and hope for the best?”

            Additionally

            Why also does IH/Rossi want to buy Piantelli’s patents when really he should be interested in Holmlids?

            Why does he contest Piantelli’s patents if they are irrelevant?

          • Axil Axil

            The Lugano report proves that the LENR reaction does not involve H-. The nickel transmutation whent from Ni58, Ni60, Ni61 to Ni62, The Lithium transmuted from Li7 to Li6. The neutrons from the lithium were transferred into the Nickel.

            Out of the thousands of LENR experiments done, there is no rhyme or reason for the how transmutation works it is effectively a random process. Transmutation occurs in systems that don’t have hydrogen in the mix.

            The theorys of LENR that use hydrogen as the reaction activator can’t explain results where transmutation occurs when hydrogen is not involved in the system.

            What about the transmutations that involve fission of heavy elements like uranium and thorium into lighter elements. These fission reactions occur concurrently will fusion reactions.

            This is why the theories by Ed Storms, Godes, Piantelli, and Rossi are wrong…because they use hydrogen as the key factor in the reaction.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Hi Axil,

            Yes – as I have said countless times over the past few days (and even asked Tom to do the math) – there is the 7Li + xNi > 6li + (x+1)Ni potential reaction as favoured by Upsalla University – that is why it is so important for Bob Higgins to get the {Garbage Can} experiment running – the main point of which is to look for helium, which, depending on the resulting ash, would help define the underlying nuclear interchanges.

  • Paul

    “According to Piantelli, some of the protons from H- fail to transmute Nickel and get ejected as protons from 0 up to 6.7 MeV”. How can they reach 6.7 MeV before reactions with Ni and Li? Here there is a key passage lacking…

    • Bob Greenyer

      Well – by observation and apparently calculation based on “coulombic repulsion” apparently – but it is still a bit of a leap! That is a LOT of energy – and would pretty much react with anything it hit.

      Do we have to invoke epicatalysis, meta materials, vortices etc etc. maybe…

      actually we only have to get to <225eV – that is still quite a bit though – can't get that from any one chemical thing.

      • Axil Axil

        6.7 MeV is the binding energy created when nickel is transmuted to copper through fusion. The appearance of this energy means that nickel/hydrogen fusion has occurred but has not been thermalized by the basic LENR process.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Very good.

          • Axil Axil

            The breakdown of the basic LENR energy process is caused by a cooling that destroys the entanglement between the fusion site and the SPP. Fusion energy transfer occurs through entanglement and quantum teleportation. Entanglement is caused by heat photons or the plain terms equal temperature between the fusion site and the SPP.

            The SPP is a black hole that has its own Hawking temperature, Hawking radiation is black body radiation that is predicted to be released by black holes, due to quantum effects near the event horizon. When this temperature level is disrupted, entanglement is destroyed and LENR energy transfer does not happen. Gamma radiation is then produced.

          • Bob Greenyer

            And the way the average garage experimenter can test for this is?

          • Axil Axil

            Piantilli has done this test already. He showed that temperature level was the cause of gamma production. A tipping point temperature will mark the transition point between gamma production and radiation free LENR operation. That temperature tipping point will be common between most LENR experiments no matter how different the systems are.

            That temperature will be found to be the Hawking temperature of the SPP black hole.

    • Axil Axil

      The basic LENR process usually stabilizes unstable nuclei after a fusion reaction through a energy transfer and thermalization process. When Plaineilli takes the nickel bar out of his reactor, the nickel bar cools below the temperature necessary for energy transfer to occur and the nuclei stays excited. This unstable isotope will release energy via proton ejection.

    • ajb

      If true I wonder whether this fast charged particle could be used in the direct electricity production process that is part of the new ECatX design. LPP, a hot fusion project, is aiming to produce electricity directly by decelerating He nuclei that result from the fusion event in a Rogowski coil, which creates a current.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Un-pealing Sellotape in a vacuum creates 15 kilo-electron volt x-rays you can take an x-ray with!

    From Vortex

    http://goo.gl/9jzFNV

    First discovered by Russians in 1953 and now re-discovered, the penetrating radiation is generated by charge build up and release in the AMORPHOUS glue and there is a suggestion that it could be enough to trigger Nuclear Fusion.

    Perhaps the easiest LENR experiment is to dust a little fluorine stabilised Lithium powder on some scotch-tape, wind it up, put it on two spools in a low pressure/near vacuum H2 environment and unwind the sticky stuff.

    And we’re worried were we can get energies under 225eVs?

    Note: Could this be the first time Nature mentions cold fusion in modern times?

    • Mats002

      OK, we are on to something here, it is even possible that discussions below actually advances the LENR field, that would be something!

      Nevertheless – we must focus on the NiH GS system until LENR+ (useful energy gains) is obviously demonstrated. The gap between practical experiments and deep underlaying causes is secondary for the moment.

      Tough love Axil!

      • builditnow

        Mats002, I’m with you on focusing on the NiH GS looking for LENR+.
        However, if Axil has experimental suggestions, no harm in that, especially if it’s something we can do with our current talent and equipment.
        So, Axil, I’d especially like suggestions / enhancements around the NiH systems, things that we can do. And I do like your theories and broad overview of the field, but, I can’t do much until I get that $1 billion government contract (like that will ever happen LOL ).
        If we can get a 5 to 10 kW heater going, I might be able to heat Musk’s hot tub and then he might kick in a few million. He’s around here, along with the google boys, Zuckerberg, etc. etc.
        But, not without that 5 to 10kW.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Mats002, the purpose of the post was stimulate debate and I enjoyed the discourse with Axil and others. The real prize was R Little’s contribution.

          I think between them, if there are real things that can be practically done within simple experiments, it would be useful to have them in the roster of planned works.

          In the end, from a user point of view it matters little what the underlying process is – just is it at least as save as a gas boiler.

          A minimum viable product could be a 3kW+ heater for a few hundred $ in retail parts.

        • Axil Axil

          See my post above.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Un-pealing Sellotape in a vacuum creates 15 kilo-electron volt x-rays you can take an x-ray with!

    From Vortex

    http://goo.gl/9jzFNV

    First discovered by Russians in 1953 and now re-discovered, the penetrating radiation is generated by charge build up and release in the AMORPHOUS glue and there is a suggestion that it could be enough to trigger Nuclear Fusion.

    Perhaps the easiest LENR experiment is to dust a little fluorine stabilised Lithium powder on some scotch-tape, wind it up, put it on two spools in a low pressure/near vacuum H2 environment and unwind the sticky stuff.

    And we’re worried were we can get energies under 225eVs?

    Note: Could this be the first time Nature mentions cold fusion in modern times?

  • Bob Greenyer

    I did say that there maybe material errors!

    Hank Mills seems to have pointed out that the reference for the pressure requirement of the R3 reaction is only in Wiki. Honest I don’t have any inside info. I just need more sleep!

    Thanks Hank for demonstrating peer review in open science debate.

  • Mats002

    OK, we are on to something here, it is even possible that discussions below actually advances the LENR field, that would be something!

    Nevertheless – we must focus on the NiH GS system until LENR+ (useful energy gains) is obviously demonstrated. The gap between practical experiments and deep underlaying causes is secondary for the moment.

    Tough love Axil!

    • builditnow

      Mats002, I’m with you on focusing on the NiH GS looking for LENR+.
      However, if Axil has experimental suggestions, no harm in that, especially if it’s something we can do with our current talent and equipment.
      So, Axil, I’d especially like suggestions / enhancements around the NiH systems, things that we can do. And I do like your theories and broad overview of the field, but, I can’t do much until I get that $1 billion government contract (like that will ever happen LOL ).
      If we can get a 5 to 10 kW heater going, I might be able to heat Musk’s hot tub and then he might kick in a few million. He’s around here, along with the google boys, Zuckerberg, etc. etc.
      But, not without that 5 to 10kW.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Mats002, the purpose of the post was stimulate debate and I enjoyed the discourse with Axil and others. The real prize was R Little’s contribution.

        I think between them, if there are real things that can be practically done within simple experiments, it would be useful to have them in the roster of planned works.

        In the end, from a user point of view it matters little what the underlying process is – just is it at least as safe as a gas boiler.

        A minimum viable product could be a 3kW+ heater for a few hundred $ in retail parts.

      • Axil Axil

        See my post above.

  • ss dd

    By fuel here I mean whatever is put in the reactor before running it.

    The hypothesis is that Ni62 would perform better as a catalyst than Ni58/60 in the reactor. Maybe the reactor would run better if Ni is all in the form of Ni62.

    My idea is to take the ash of a working reactor, which should be high in Ni62, and mix it with more LAH and maybe more Ni; and use that as fuel in a new reactor.

    I suspect that Rossi realized this after Lugano and has seen major improvement.

  • RLittle

    Thanks winbuff67, I get a lot of negative comments. I appreciate your positive response. Life has for me has been a struggle, I am given crumbs, yet what positive I give and contribute with so little resources, people in return dig and dig looking for something negative to throw at me. I have a very positive life and contributions and in return this world looks for something negative. 99% on track, but some keep searching for an error? So sad. Thanks for your encouragement! RBL

  • Axil Axil

    Reference:

    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.390.4631&rep=rep1&type=pdf

    A novel model for the interpretation of the unidentified infrared (UIR)

    bands from interstellar space: deexcitation of Rydberg Matter

    I have been looking for ways to optimize production of Rydberg matter whose generation is discribed by Lief Holmlid in the reference above and except below.

    We now report on a model in

    which all UIR bands are due to electronic deexcitation in the

    condensed phase named Rydberg Matter. This type of very low density

    condensed matter is formed by condensation of Rydberg

    states of almost any type of atom or small molecule, in space

    mainly hydrogen atoms and molecules. The intial formation of

    Rydberg states is due to desorption of alkali atoms from surfaces

    of small particles, especially carbon particles. This desorption

    can be caused by radiation or moderate heat and gives long lived

    circular Rydberg states. Rydberg Matter can be produced

    in macroscopic quantities in the laboratory.

    To meet this method of rydberg matter production using carbon based generation capability as segested about, I looked for a chemical compound that would be superior to (LAH; Lithium tetrahydridoaluminate) that contained Carbon, an Alkali metal. and Hydrogen. I assumed that replacing aluminum with carbom would make a better catalyst for producing Rydberg matter. My search for a replacement led to two alkkali compounds in the same family as follows:

    lithium hydrogen acetylide Li HC2

    potassium hydrogen acetylide KHC2

    See

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetylide

    When these acetylides are heated, hydrogen is released, then the alkali metel is released from the carbon as the temperature rises. After the release of hydrogen, potassium/lithium carbide is formed. Potassium carbide was the active LENR material in the DGT reaction. This stuff was used in miners lanterns to produce illuminating gas when water was added.

    As a disclaimer, I am not a chemist, so I don’t know the toxicity and explosion risks of these compounds. Please help here.

    IMHO, to test the Rydberg matter cause of LENR, a series of tests using one or both of these Acetylide based compounds might be worth a try.

  • Axil Axil

    Reference:

    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.390.4631&rep=rep1&type=pdf

    A novel model for the interpretation of the unidentified infrared (UIR)
    bands from interstellar space: deexcitation of Rydberg Matter

    I have been looking for ways to optimize production of Rydberg matter whose generation is discribed by Lief Holmlid in the reference above and except below.

    We now report on a model in
    which all UIR bands are due to electronic deexcitation in the
    condensed phase named Rydberg Matter. This type of very low density
    condensed matter is formed by condensation of Rydberg
    states of almost any type of atom or small molecule, in space
    mainly hydrogen atoms and molecules. The intial formation of
    Rydberg states is due to desorption of alkali atoms from surfaces
    of small particles, especially carbon particles. This desorption
    can be caused by radiation or moderate heat and gives long lived
    circular Rydberg states. Rydberg Matter can be produced
    in macroscopic quantities in the laboratory.

    To meet this method of rydberg matter production using carbon based generation capability as suggested above, I looked for a chemical compound that would be superior to (LAH; Lithium tetrahydridoaluminate) that contained Carbon to enhance Rydberg matter production, an Alkali metal. and Hydrogen. I assumed that replacing aluminum with carbon would make a better catalyst for producing Rydberg matter. My search for a replacement led to two alkkali compounds in the same family as follows:

    lithium hydrogen acetylide Li HC2
    potassium hydrogen acetylide KHC2

    See
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetylide

    When these acetylides are heated, hydrogen is released, then the alkali metel is released from the carbon as the temperature rises. After the release of hydrogen, potassium/lithium carbide is formed. Potassium carbide was the active LENR material in the DGT reaction. In the old days, this stuff was used in miners lanterns to produce illuminating gas when water was added.

    As a disclaimer, I am not a chemist, so I don’t know the toxicity and explosion risks of these compounds. Please help here.

    IMHO, to test the Rydberg matter cause of LENR, a series of tests using one or both of these Acetylide based compounds might be worth a try.

  • Bob Greenyer

    haha – just did a rough calculation – 20% of Li & 30% of LiAlH4 by WEIGHT gives you 94.1% of the atoms as Li 5.9% as Al – which gives you a melting point of around 250ºC

    This links Rossi’s patent (example fuel ratio) with IHs application (reactor operating range).

    Note: Someone please verify

    http://pruffle.mit.edu/3.00/Lecture_36_web/img7.gif

    • Axil Axil

      Don’t you mean 5.9% as Al or is it Al-Li alloy?

      • Bob Greenyer

        I changed that thanks – I did have it wrong in first posting – just working late again!

    • ss dd

      As opposed to 50/50 when using only LAH, which would have a melting point around 700C? Is there an advantage to having Al-Li melt at a lower temperature?

      • Bob Greenyer

        Yes. the Li needs to be molten on the Ni