Re: [Vo]:RE: Hydrofill and LaNi5

[Jack Cole]

Thanks for your insights Bob.  I will study it further.  It seems like it
might be an interesting project to attempt.


On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> Jack,
>
> You may wish to do a little more research on Mills' technique and this
> welder before buying.  I recall (but cannot find the reference at the
> moment) that Mills claimed that at least 4.5V was needed to split the water
> into monatomic H ions.  The spec for this spot welder is 2.5V, but I don't
> imagine that is the maximum voltage - it may just be the voltage at which
> it peaks at 3200 amps.  Initially, like most welders, the voltage may be
> higher and as the plasma and melt forms, it drops to the lower voltage.
>
> I think part of Mills' technology is packaging the water in a way, that as
> the plasma forms, the resistance is such that the voltage is still greater
> than 4.5V.  That is why he is claiming he needs 5V for his apparatus.
>  Titanium may be used for keeping the voltage high enough in the arc.
>  Also, the gap and pellet size may be chosen to maintain the voltage in the
> arc high enough for the disassociation he claims is required.
>
> Bob Higgins
>
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Jack Cole  wrote:
>
>> Thanks Jones.
>>
>> Regarding Mills and titanium fuel.  Anyone have a sense the degree to
>> which he has specially prepared the particles with water?
>>
>> I'm wondering about a relatively low cost replication attempt with a
>> cheap spot welder.
>>
>>
>> http://www.ebay.com/itm/115V-Electric-Spot-Welder-Metal-Stud-Welding-Tool-Kit-1-8-Capacity-Copper-Motor-/350848798288?pt=BI_Welders&hash=item51b037ce50
>>
>> It says 8KW in the specs with 2.5 V.  So that would be 3200 amps.  This
>> would be ~1/6 the power input he is using.
>>
>> Best,
>> Jack
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:RE: Hydrofill and LaNi5

[Bob Higgins]

Jack,

You may wish to do a little more research on Mills' technique and this
welder before buying.  I recall (but cannot find the reference at the
moment) that Mills claimed that at least 4.5V was needed to split the water
into monatomic H ions.  The spec for this spot welder is 2.5V, but I don't
imagine that is the maximum voltage - it may just be the voltage at which
it peaks at 3200 amps.  Initially, like most welders, the voltage may be
higher and as the plasma and melt forms, it drops to the lower voltage.

I think part of Mills' technology is packaging the water in a way, that as
the plasma forms, the resistance is such that the voltage is still greater
than 4.5V.  That is why he is claiming he needs 5V for his apparatus.
 Titanium may be used for keeping the voltage high enough in the arc.
 Also, the gap and pellet size may be chosen to maintain the voltage in the
arc high enough for the disassociation he claims is required.

Bob Higgins

On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Jack Cole  wrote:

> Thanks Jones.
>
> Regarding Mills and titanium fuel.  Anyone have a sense the degree to
> which he has specially prepared the particles with water?
>
> I'm wondering about a relatively low cost replication attempt with a cheap
> spot welder.
>
>
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/115V-Electric-Spot-Welder-Metal-Stud-Welding-Tool-Kit-1-8-Capacity-Copper-Motor-/350848798288?pt=BI_Welders&hash=item51b037ce50
>
> It says 8KW in the specs with 2.5 V.  So that would be 3200 amps.  This
> would be ~1/6 the power input he is using.
>
> Best,
> Jack
>
>

Re: [Vo]:RE: Hydrofill and LaNi5

[Jack Cole]

Thanks Jones.

Regarding Mills and titanium fuel.  Anyone have a sense the degree to which
he has specially prepared the particles with water?

I'm wondering about a relatively low cost replication attempt with a cheap
spot welder.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/115V-Electric-Spot-Welder-Metal-Stud-Welding-Tool-Kit-1-8-Capacity-Copper-Motor-/350848798288?pt=BI_Welders&hash=item51b037ce50

It says 8KW in the specs with 2.5 V.  So that would be 3200 amps.  This
would be ~1/6 the power input he is using.

Best,
Jack



On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>  Jack,
>
>
>
> Good find. It appears they have switched to TiMn2. In the earlier
> literature, the penta-nickel alloy was mentioned. That would seem to change
> expectations. It could still be worth the effort to try this in a low
> powered experiment - since Cravens is getting good results using hydrofill.
>
>
>
> Titanium is a Mills catalyst, yet the attractive part of Lanthanum for
> LENR seemed to the fact that when alloyed with nickel – protons only are
> absorbed as a true hydride – yet with almost no binding energy. It is also
> ferromagnetic. I’m not sure about TiMn2.
>
>
>
> With most of the other good hydrogen storage materials, H2 is absorbed as
> a molecule not as a true hydride. Normally a true hydride has substantial
> binding energy. Lanthanum also has nearly identical mass energy to the
> Higgs Boson, but that is probably meaningless in this context.
>
>
>
> *From:* Jack Cole
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Jones,
>
>
>
> I was looking into the hydrostik in more detail.  It does not appear to be
> based on LaNi5, but rather TiMn2.
>
>
>
> http://www.udomi.com/downloads/UserManualHydrostikv8.pdf
>
>
>
> Would this affect your thoughts on the possible experiment you suggested?
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Jack
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
> For those who have not followed this closely – here is the HydroStik at
> Amazon
>
>
> http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=hydrostik&tag=googhydr-20&index=aps&hvadid=31836180062&hvpos=1t1&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=911050133634104149&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=e&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_8lx5y0uvt7_eWhich
> is loaded with LaNi5 – a good alloy for absorbing hydrogen. It looks like
> it costs Dennis 25 bucks per sphere refill, since the cartridge is
> sacrificed.
>
>
>
> Thanks, Bob – Do you know if he gets excess heat from H as well as D?
>
> You seem to be suggesting that the most heat (most desirable mix) comes
> from a mix of H and D, is that correct?
>
> *From:* Bob Higgins
>
> I have moved west, and Dennis Cravens is just a couple miles away.  I
> visited him recently.  In his lab he still has long term tests operating
> with his spheres (of course, along with other experiments in progress).  He
> said that he charged a HydroStik and then froze it at dry ice temperature.
>  At this temp, the hydride is not releasing any hydrogen and he cut the
> hydrostik open and added its contents to the sphere.  Dennis produces his
> own hydrogen using a PEM generator and frequently works with an H2/D2 mix
> that he produces by filling his PEM generator with the desired mix of light
> and heavy water.
>
>
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:RE: Hydrofill and LaNi5

[Jones Beene]

Jack,

 

Good find. It appears they have switched to TiMn2. In the earlier literature, 
the penta-nickel alloy was mentioned. That would seem to change expectations. 
It could still be worth the effort to try this in a low powered experiment - 
since Cravens is getting good results using hydrofill.

 

Titanium is a Mills catalyst, yet the attractive part of Lanthanum for LENR 
seemed to the fact that when alloyed with nickel – protons only are absorbed as 
a true hydride – yet with almost no binding energy. It is also ferromagnetic. 
I’m not sure about TiMn2.

 

With most of the other good hydrogen storage materials, H2 is absorbed as a 
molecule not as a true hydride. Normally a true hydride has substantial binding 
energy. Lanthanum also has nearly identical mass energy to the Higgs Boson, but 
that is probably meaningless in this context. 

 

From: Jack Cole 

 

 

Hi Jones,

 

I was looking into the hydrostik in more detail.  It does not appear to be 
based on LaNi5, but rather TiMn2.

 

http://www.udomi.com/downloads/UserManualHydrostikv8.pdf

 

Would this affect your thoughts on the possible experiment you suggested?

 

Best,

Jack

 

 

On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

For those who have not followed this closely – here is the HydroStik at Amazon

http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8 

 
&keywords=hydrostik&tag=googhydr-20&index=aps&hvadid=31836180062&hvpos=1t1&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=911050133634104149&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=e&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_8lx5y0uvt7_eWhich
 is loaded with LaNi5 – a good alloy for absorbing hydrogen. It looks like it 
costs Dennis 25 bucks per sphere refill, since the cartridge is sacrificed.

 

Thanks, Bob – Do you know if he gets excess heat from H as well as D? 

You seem to be suggesting that the most heat (most desirable mix) comes from a 
mix of H and D, is that correct?

From: Bob Higgins 

I have moved west, and Dennis Cravens is just a couple miles away.  I visited 
him recently.  In his lab he still has long term tests operating with his 
spheres (of course, along with other experiments in progress).  He said that he 
charged a HydroStik and then froze it at dry ice temperature.  At this temp, 
the hydride is not releasing any hydrogen and he cut the hydrostik open and 
added its contents to the sphere.  Dennis produces his own hydrogen using a PEM 
generator and frequently works with an H2/D2 mix that he produces by filling 
his PEM generator with the desired mix of light and heavy water.

 

 

Re: [Vo]:RE: Hydrofill and LaNi5

[Jack Cole]

Hi Jones,

I was looking into the hydrostik in more detail.  It does not appear to be
based on LaNi5, but rather TiMn2.

http://www.udomi.com/downloads/UserManualHydrostikv8.pdf

Would this affect your thoughts on the possible experiment you suggested?

Best,
Jack



On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>  For those who have not followed this closely – here is the HydroStik at
> Amazon
>
>
>
>
> http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=hydrostik&tag=googhydr-20&index=aps&hvadid=31836180062&hvpos=1t1&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=911050133634104149&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=e&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_8lx5y0uvt7_e
>
> Which is loaded with LaNi5 – a good alloy for absorbing hydrogen. It looks
> like it costs Dennis 25 bucks per sphere refill, since the cartridge is
> sacrificed.
>
>
>
> Thanks, Bob – Do you know if he gets excess heat from H as well as D?
>
>
>
> You seem to be suggesting that the most heat (most desirable mix) comes
> from a mix of H and D, is that correct?
>
>
>
> *From:* Bob Higgins
>
>
>
> I have moved west, and Dennis Cravens is just a couple miles away.  I
> visited him recently.  In his lab he still has long term tests operating
> with his spheres (of course, along with other experiments in progress).  He
> said that he charged a HydroStik and then froze it at dry ice temperature.
>  At this temp, the hydride is not releasing any hydrogen and he cut the
> hydrostik open and added its contents to the sphere.  Dennis produces his
> own hydrogen using a PEM generator and frequently works with an H2/D2 mix
> that he produces by filling his PEM generator with the desired mix of light
> and heavy water.
>
>
>

RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:RE: Hydrofill and LaNi5

[Roarty, Francis X]

Axil,
I agree but leave open the door for hybrid systems like Arata used to 
pressurize an inner reactor  and cause h2 bubbles to treat the lattice like a 
membrane. I don’t want to give up on wet cell or at least submerged reactors 
for the inherent safety and thermal transfer rate they provide. IMHO a low cost 
mass produced end item will need to embrace both plasma and wet cell 
embodiment. I predict a many layered Pem like device separated by nano 
dielectrics where plasma of Rydberg gas atoms form at the boundaries with the 
whole device suspended in a canister of heated liquid and connected to a 
thermal transfer /load to extract the energy. Perhaps your idea of microwave 
retardation of the anomaly could allow the inner device to be constructed 
closer to runaway – it would certainly allow for a faster control loop, that 
will give wet cells a better chance of fruition. Biggest issue would be keeping 
a super catalyst once constructed always retarded until thermally loaded and 
then bringing the load and the activity up evenly enough to still maintain that 
head of the pin balance between runaway and stalling – although stalling might 
be easier to overcome with a heating element or other stimulation if you know 
you can use microwave energy to stop the runaway condition.
Fran

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2014 12:42 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:RE: Hydrofill and LaNi5

I doubt that nickel will work in electrolysis because the water will keep the 
temperature of the nickel below both the Curie and the Debye temperatures, 
Palladium is paramagnetic an does not have a curie temperature and therefore 
able to handle a low temperature reaction range as occurs in electrolysis.

In a hot hydrogen gas envelope, the temperature of nickel can be pushed over 
these two critical temperatures. This higher temperature range will allow both 
magnetic and phonon processes to operate at optimum capabilities. Both these 
capabilities are essential in LENR.

On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Jed Rothwell 
mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Jack Cole mailto:jcol...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Does anyone know of any very convincing studies involving nickel and 
electrolysis?  I exclude from this Brillouin energy, which we will need to see 
some confirmation from SRI.

There is not much. Patterson's work was poorly documented. Mills has made many 
claims but there has been little follow through, and not much convincing proof 
other than Thermocore:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf

In my opinion, the best Ni-CF proof is the ELFORSK study of Rossi's device. 
That isn't much to go on. I hope their next study is more convincing. I expect 
it will be.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:RE: Hydrofill and LaNi5

[Jack Cole]

Axil and Jed,

I agree with you both.  Maybe it would work with plasma electrolysis with
very high power levels to get the temperature of the nickel up high enough.
 Otherwise, nickel maybe somewhat of a dead end with electrolysis.  But
maybe electrolysis is not much worth studying in general at this point as a
much more convincing demonstration can come from gas loaded cells.

Best regards,
Jack


On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> I doubt that nickel will work in electrolysis because the water will keep
> the temperature of the nickel below both the Curie and the Debye
> temperatures, Palladium is paramagnetic an does not have a curie
> temperature and therefore able to handle a low temperature reaction range
> as occurs in electrolysis.
>
> In a hot hydrogen gas envelope, the temperature of nickel can be pushed
> over these two critical temperatures. This higher temperature range will
> allow both magnetic and phonon processes to operate at optimum
> capabilities. Both these capabilities are essential in LENR.
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> Jack Cole  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Does anyone know of any very convincing studies involving nickel and
>>> electrolysis?  I exclude from this Brillouin energy, which we will need to
>>> see some confirmation from SRI.
>>>
>>
>> There is not much. Patterson's work was poorly documented. Mills has made
>> many claims but there has been little follow through, and not much
>> convincing proof other than Thermocore:
>>
>> http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf
>>
>> In my opinion, the best Ni-CF proof is the ELFORSK study of Rossi's
>> device. That isn't much to go on. I hope their next study is more
>> convincing. I expect it will be.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:RE: Hydrofill and LaNi5

[Axil Axil]

I doubt that nickel will work in electrolysis because the water will keep
the temperature of the nickel below both the Curie and the Debye
temperatures, Palladium is paramagnetic an does not have a curie
temperature and therefore able to handle a low temperature reaction range
as occurs in electrolysis.

In a hot hydrogen gas envelope, the temperature of nickel can be pushed
over these two critical temperatures. This higher temperature range will
allow both magnetic and phonon processes to operate at optimum
capabilities. Both these capabilities are essential in LENR.


On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Jed Rothwell 
wrote:

> Jack Cole  wrote:
>
>
>> Does anyone know of any very convincing studies involving nickel and
>> electrolysis?  I exclude from this Brillouin energy, which we will need to
>> see some confirmation from SRI.
>>
>
> There is not much. Patterson's work was poorly documented. Mills has made
> many claims but there has been little follow through, and not much
> convincing proof other than Thermocore:
>
> http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf
>
> In my opinion, the best Ni-CF proof is the ELFORSK study of Rossi's
> device. That isn't much to go on. I hope their next study is more
> convincing. I expect it will be.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:RE: Hydrofill and LaNi5

[Jed Rothwell]

Jack Cole  wrote:


> Does anyone know of any very convincing studies involving nickel and
> electrolysis?  I exclude from this Brillouin energy, which we will need to
> see some confirmation from SRI.
>

There is not much. Patterson's work was poorly documented. Mills has made
many claims but there has been little follow through, and not much
convincing proof other than Thermocore:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf

In my opinion, the best Ni-CF proof is the ELFORSK study of Rossi's device.
That isn't much to go on. I hope their next study is more convincing. I
expect it will be.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:RE: Hydrofill and LaNi5

[Jack Cole]

Further perusing of lenr-canr.org for research papers on light water
electrolysis with Nickel, I don't find much to convince me that the
electrolytic method involving nickel has been successful.  I see a few
studies claiming excess heat, but I did not find these convincing because
of low levels of excess heat and the probability of alternative
explanations.

McKubre in 2008 also stated this about efforts at SRI to replicate previous
results with nickel.
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHtheimporta.pdf

At SRI we have been unsuccessful in a number of attempts at experiment
replication. We were
not able at any time to reproduce the claims of heat from nickel – light
water electrolysis
experiments. We were able uncover one source of systematic error in the
experimental
procedures involving large area nickel – carbonate electrolyte experiments
that blunted our
interest. This inability should not be taken to mean that the claims are
wrong or an effect not real,
particularly in light of previous failures to replicate before personal,
hands-on guidance was
sought. We were not able to replicate the Patterson-CETI experiments [13].
Despite the very able3
hands on support of Dr. Dennis Cravens we were never able to observe an
excess heat effect for
this experiment in our mass flow calorimeters, although it is now
understood that an important
experimental element may have been lacking. A similar situation exists in
respect of the
Stringham [14] ultrasonically induced Pd-D2O excess heat effect using SRI
mass-flow
calorimeters, although this condition of uncertainty was exacerbated by the
complexities of input
energy measurement and coupling between the ultrasonic power source and the
transducer and
experiment.

Does anyone know of any very convincing studies involving nickel and
electrolysis?  I exclude from this Brillouin energy, which we will need to
see some confirmation from SRI.

Best regards,
Jack


On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Jack Cole  wrote:

> Hi Jones,
>
> I'm still around.  :)  I put my electrolysis experimentation on pause
> after doing something like 200 experiments with nothing to convince me I
> had found anything.  I had some hope for Brillouin Energy, but after all
> this time at SRI with no results reported, it gives me doubts about whether
> Godes had what he thought.  I decided not to pursue replicating his method
> until something more is released from him.
>
> Anyway, I'm not very hopeful for nickel-based electrolysis being able to
> produce LENR--at least nothing I have tried has convinced me.  There is a
> lot to convince me that false positives are easy to obtain when you are
> looking for lower levels of excess heating.  It needs to be the last
> conclusion you come to after considering alternatives and designing
> experiments to test the alternatives.  Time after time, the results of my
> follow up experiments supported the alternative explanation. I'm hoping the
> Rossi report comes out positive as the probability of a false positive at
> his previously-reported power levels would be nearly impossible to obtain.
>
> Just to summarize, I tried various materials (Nicrome, constantan,
> nitinol, thoriated tungsten, cuprothal, all of the above plated with
> nickel) and various types of triggering (AC, pulsed DC, alternating DC with
> pulsed AC, high frequency/high current AC alternating with DC, external
> heating, laser, permanent magnet, different electrolytes).  I tried slow
> loading over several days to a week at low current followed by active runs
> and attempts to trigger.  I tried prepping material in light acid followed
> by cleaning with acetone.
>
> Best regards,
> Jack
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> Special thanks should be accorded to Dennis Cravens for his openness and
>> the
>> great detail of information which he has provided on a most important
>> experiment. He deserves a big award for this work, even if it turns out
>> not
>> to be nuclear fusion, per se - and especially if it does turn out to be
>> LENR. Why hasn't a National Lab replicate this important work? (Rhetorical
>> question and the answer is obvious).
>>
>> For the record - here is more background on LaNi5, which is looking
>> more-and-more like the magic bullet for Ni-H thermal effects when combined
>> with a magnetic field (this combination could be in order to reach a
>> superparamagnetic state of self-resonance).
>>
>> http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/j100476a006
>>
>> I should caution that all of the analysis in this thread wrt to LaNi5 is a
>> personal and minority appraisal, and that Dennis Cravens along with almost
>> everyone else who was involved or saw the experiment, considers it to be a
>> version of the Les Case work, involving the fusion of deuterium. Why not?
>> It
>> is fully derivative of that line of experimental work and so on ... but
>> ...
>> that may not be sufficient.
>>
>> IMHO there are good reasons to suspect that there is no nuclear r

RE: [Vo]:RE: Hydrofill and LaNi5

[Jones Beene]

 

The H/D exchange reaction is similar to a form of phase-change, and a 
preferential reordering of a loaded metal matrix, and it can be seen in the 
usual one-way form (conservative) or as sequential (a thermal anomaly). It is 
surprisingly energetic but is chemical – non-nuclear.

 

OK, that does not go far enough. How can magnetism change the preferential 
ordering of a metal matrix where D has already replaced H for net chemical gain 
over time? This would be necessary if the energetic effect is to be made 
sequential and cumulative– and not a one-way affair.

 

When we look at the spin, magnetic moment and NMR properties of the two 
isotopes, there is an enormous difference. Magnetic moment alone is triple for 
protons over deuterons and NMR frequency variation is even more lopsided. In 
short, the magnetic variation is so extreme between the two isotopes that the 
small preference for deuterium in the chemical exchange reaction is easily 
modulated to the extent the near-field oscillates, and is felt more by protons 
than by deuterons. It can be noted that the B-field of samarium-cobalt can be 
.4 T at one micron, but at 10 nm spacing – its effect on protons could be 
significantly higher (if inverse square holds).

 

A magnetic Casimir force will provide that “free” oscillation in the context of 
a balance between superparamagnetism and superferromagnetism.

 

In short, this may be the key to understanding the H/D exchange reaction as a 
sequential route to thermal gain in the Cravens NI-Week experiment

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superparamagnetism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen%E2%80%93deuterium_exchange

 

… so much so - that now seems to be the appropriate time for “name that novel 
effect” … :-)

 

… hmm… we cannot name it the “Cravens effect” since he is on record as favoring 
a nuclear M.O., so how about the SPADEX effect? For superparamagnetic deuterium 
exchange? 

 

Jones

 

 

 

RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:RE: Hydrofill and LaNi5

[Roarty, Francis X]

Yes Jones,  I did miss this paper and wonder if it even has Astro implications 
wrt to the unexpected discovery of near C molecular hydrogen accelerated by 
intense magnetic field of a black hole.
Fran..  that is once again the space time being modified and local gas in a 
plasma cloud blissfully unaware of it’s velocity from our perspective just as I 
have been arguing for in the case of gas atoms inside an NAE.
Fran

From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 10:12 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:RE: Hydrofill and LaNi5

Since we are trying to cover all of the bases in looking closely at the 
(extremely important) Cravens NI-Week experiment, and since we have talked from 
time to time about the known route for chemical thermal gain, which can be 
called “H/D exchange” – then lets refocus on that route. It would be most 
relevant now that we realize that there has been a change in the gas mix to H/D 
by Cravens. This exchange reaction is similar to a form of phase change and 
preferential reordering, and it be seen in the usual one-way form 
(conservative) or as sequential (a thermal anomaly). It is surprisingly 
energetic but is chemical – non nuclear.

In papers such as those of the Colorado group - Dmitriyeva, Moddel et al. 
wherein the obvious is stated: “studies have shown that a hydrogen-deuterium 
(H/D) exchange chemical reaction can account for at least some of excess heat 
observed during gas-loading experiments…Our calculations on the energy 
available from H/D exchange show that all the excess heat observed during our 
experiment can be accounted for by this chemical reaction…” Thus the true 
message here is that we need to take a closer look at, which is what is “not 
said” and overlooked by researchers (who should not have overlooked this major 
detail).

A “chemical reaction” supplying all the energy to a reaction – that essentially 
means almost nothing negative when excess thermal gain can be documented. The 
two are not mutually exclusive. When excess heat is actually documented, one 
route to that gain can indeed be sequential “H/D exchange” which is implemented 
chemically but the source of energy gain (to reset the system) is presently 
unknown, and probably related to nanomagnetism instead of nuclear energy. For 
instance, there can be an anti-entropy “reset of the H/D ratio” within the 
experiment which is implemented by superparamagnetism.

In short, chemical routes to gain can easily suffice to produce substantial 
excess energy, which would only be permissible under LoT and CoE to the extent 
that a hidden source of energy from OUTSIDE the experiment has been harnessed.

In the case of NI-Week the proximate cause of the gain can certainly be H/D 
exchange, but that label (and over-simplification) does NOT mean there is no 
excess heat – simply that the ultimate source of thermal gain is not obvious 
and is hidden.

In fact over a decade ago, a “Magnetic Casimir Effect” was written up, and then 
languished…
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0207153
This route for bringing in outside energy is not only possible in a dynamic way 
(DCE) but could be long overdue in application to LENR, and especially relevant 
to NI-Week.

(did you miss this paper, Fran ?) It can be easily expanded to cover the 
chemical reset function of this experiment.

From: Bob Higgins

Dennis did not explicitly say that an H & D mix was required, but I believe 
that his theory and his own experiments have led him to mostly use a 50:50 mix 
in his present experiments.

This could be a new wrinkle.

At NI-Week, he was apparently using only D, and was quoted as saying that he 
thought the gain was coming from D+D fusion to Helium (as in the Les Case line 
of experiments).

A move to a HD mix would indicate something else… but I’m not sure what it 
indicates. IIRC Mitchell Swartz uses a 50:50 mix, but that experiment is 
electrolytic.

RE: [Vo]:RE: Hydrofill and LaNi5

[Jones Beene]

Since we are trying to cover all of the bases in looking closely at the 
(extremely important) Cravens NI-Week experiment, and since we have talked from 
time to time about the known route for chemical thermal gain, which can be 
called “H/D exchange” – then lets refocus on that route. It would be most 
relevant now that we realize that there has been a change in the gas mix to H/D 
by Cravens. This exchange reaction is similar to a form of phase change and 
preferential reordering, and it be seen in the usual one-way form 
(conservative) or as sequential (a thermal anomaly). It is surprisingly 
energetic but is chemical – non nuclear.

 

In papers such as those of the Colorado group - Dmitriyeva, Moddel et al. 
wherein the obvious is stated: “studies have shown that a hydrogen-deuterium 
(H/D) exchange chemical reaction can account for at least some of excess heat 
observed during gas-loading experiments…Our calculations on the energy 
available from H/D exchange show that all the excess heat observed during our 
experiment can be accounted for by this chemical reaction…” Thus the true 
message here is that we need to take a closer look at, which is what is “not 
said” and overlooked by researchers (who should not have overlooked this major 
detail).

 

A “chemical reaction” supplying all the energy to a reaction – that essentially 
means almost nothing negative when excess thermal gain can be documented. The 
two are not mutually exclusive. When excess heat is actually documented, one 
route to that gain can indeed be sequential “H/D exchange” which is implemented 
chemically but the source of energy gain (to reset the system) is presently 
unknown, and probably related to nanomagnetism instead of nuclear energy. For 
instance, there can be an anti-entropy “reset of the H/D ratio” within the 
experiment which is implemented by superparamagnetism. 

 

In short, chemical routes to gain can easily suffice to produce substantial 
excess energy, which would only be permissible under LoT and CoE to the extent 
that a hidden source of energy from OUTSIDE the experiment has been harnessed.

 

In the case of NI-Week the proximate cause of the gain can certainly be H/D 
exchange, but that label (and over-simplification) does NOT mean there is no 
excess heat – simply that the ultimate source of thermal gain is not obvious 
and is hidden.

 

In fact over a decade ago, a “Magnetic Casimir Effect” was written up, and then 
languished…

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0207153

This route for bringing in outside energy is not only possible in a dynamic way 
(DCE) but could be long overdue in application to LENR, and especially relevant 
to NI-Week. 

 

(did you miss this paper, Fran ?) It can be easily expanded to cover the 
chemical reset function of this experiment.

 

From: Bob Higgins 

 

Dennis did not explicitly say that an H & D mix was required, but I believe 
that his theory and his own experiments have led him to mostly use a 50:50 mix 
in his present experiments.  

 

This could be a new wrinkle. 

 

At NI-Week, he was apparently using only D, and was quoted as saying that he 
thought the gain was coming from D+D fusion to Helium (as in the Les Case line 
of experiments).

 

A move to a HD mix would indicate something else… but I’m not sure what it 
indicates. IIRC Mitchell Swartz uses a 50:50 mix, but that experiment is 
electrolytic.

 

 

RE: [Vo]:RE: Hydrofill and LaNi5

[Jones Beene]

From: Bob Higgins 

 

Dennis did not explicitly say that an H & D mix was required, but I believe 
that his theory and his own experiments have led him to mostly use a 50:50 mix 
in his present experiments.  

 

This could be a new wrinkle. 

 

At NI-Week, he was apparently using only D, and was quoted as saying that he 
thought the gain was coming from D+D fusion to Helium (as in the Les Case line 
of experiments).

 

A move to a HD mix would indicate something else… but I’m not sure what it 
indicates. IIRC Mitchell Swartz uses a 50:50 mix, but that experiment is 
electrolytic.

 

 

Re: [Vo]:RE: Hydrofill and LaNi5

[Bob Higgins]

Dennis did not explicitly say that an H & D mix was required, but I believe
that his theory and his own experiments have led him to mostly use a 50:50
mix in his present experiments.  He showed me a Ni based experiment that he
had setup, which he turned on while I was visiting.  Before I left, his
instrumentation was saying that the experiment had a COP of 2.  The H-D mix
is not my suggestion or assertion - it is what Dennis is using.  Dennis has
far more experience than I and he is consistently getting positive results
from Ni which he treats with his own special recipe (undisclosed).  He also
showed me his antique car modified with an electric motor, which he hopes
to drive into town and back one day under LENR derived charge.

On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>  Thanks, Bob – Do you know if he gets excess heat from H as well as D?
>
>
>
> You seem to be suggesting that the most heat (most desirable mix) comes
> from a mix of H and D, is that correct?
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:RE: Hydrofill and LaNi5

[Jones Beene]

For those who have not followed this closely – here is the HydroStik at Amazon

 

http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8 

 
&keywords=hydrostik&tag=googhydr-20&index=aps&hvadid=31836180062&hvpos=1t1&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=911050133634104149&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=e&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_8lx5y0uvt7_e

Which is loaded with LaNi5 – a good alloy for absorbing hydrogen. It looks like 
it costs Dennis 25 bucks per sphere refill, since the cartridge is sacrificed.

 

Thanks, Bob – Do you know if he gets excess heat from H as well as D? 

 

You seem to be suggesting that the most heat (most desirable mix) comes from a 
mix of H and D, is that correct?

 

From: Bob Higgins 

 

I have moved west, and Dennis Cravens is just a couple miles away.  I visited 
him recently.  In his lab he still has long term tests operating with his 
spheres (of course, along with other experiments in progress).  He said that he 
charged a HydroStik and then froze it at dry ice temperature.  At this temp, 
the hydride is not releasing any hydrogen and he cut the hydrostik open and 
added its contents to the sphere.  Dennis produces his own hydrogen using a PEM 
generator and frequently works with an H2/D2 mix that he produces by filling 
his PEM generator with the desired mix of light and heavy water.

 

RE: [Vo]:RE: Hydrofill and LaNi5

[Jones Beene]

Thanks, Bob – Do you know if he gets excess heat from H as well as D? 

 

You seem to be suggesting that the most heat (most desirable mix) comes from a 
mix of H and D, is that correct?

 

From: Bob Higgins 

 

I have moved west, and Dennis Cravens is just a couple miles away.  I visited 
him recently.  In his lab he still has long term tests operating with his 
spheres (of course, along with other experiments in progress).  He said that he 
charged a HydroStik and then froze it at dry ice temperature.  At this temp, 
the hydride is not releasing any hydrogen and he cut the hydrostik open and 
added its contents to the sphere.  Dennis produces his own hydrogen using a PEM 
generator and frequently works with an H2/D2 mix that he produces by filling 
his PEM generator with the desired mix of light and heavy water.

 

Re: [Vo]:RE: Hydrofill and LaNi5

[Bob Higgins]

I have moved west, and Dennis Cravens is just a couple miles away.  I
visited him recently.  In his lab he still has long term tests operating
with his spheres (of course, along with other experiments in progress).  He
said that he charged a HydroStik and then froze it at dry ice temperature.
 At this temp, the hydride is not releasing any hydrogen and he cut the
hydrostik open and added its contents to the sphere.  Dennis produces his
own hydrogen using a PEM generator and frequently works with an H2/D2 mix
that he produces by filling his PEM generator with the desired mix of light
and heavy water.

Re: [Vo]:RE: Hydrofill and LaNi5

[Jack Cole]

Thanks Jones.  It's okay with me that I didn't find anything convincing.
 It was a rewarding challenge.  I will resume if I discover something I
think will work.  And I think you are correct about the value of null
results.  Those are things that have been ruled out.  I am happy to find
null results so many times in one way.  If I ever find anything convincing
after ruling out alternative explanations, I will be able to trust it.  I
was also happy to develop many automated methods of doing the research.

I did also use coils with many turns of cuprothal, nichrome, and constantan
(wrapped around a glass stirring rod).  Towards the end of my work, I used
a complex automated design in which I regulated the power going into both
cells through programming and switched the power supplies supplying power
to the control vs. the experimental cells on a fixed schedule.  Power
regulation is difficult with electrolysis because the resistance changes
throughout the experiment.  The programming adjusted for this every 5
seconds.  I thank you for all your helpful suggestions--particularly the
mixed metal oxide anodes.


On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>  Jack,
>
>
>
> Sorry you got nothing to show from electrolysis - but it is sometimes
> helpful to report these negative results. Thanks for stepping forward with
> them now.
>
>
>
> There is value in null results when properly analyzed, and it can be of
> significant value when there is something positive to contrast them
> against. In the case of Ni-H, your results could actually narrow the
> possibilities and open up greater insight - when one considers Cravens
> results in contrast to yours. This assumes of course that both results are
> completely accurate for a particular parameter, and we look at the
> implications of the two types of experiments together. This seems to be the
> case here.
>
>
>
> For instance, if a modest magnetic field is required for gain (especially
> unpowered gain)– and a field intensity which is above a cutoff level is
> needed, such as Cravens provides, then electrolysis alone is not going to
> get us there unless the electrode is in the form of a coil of many turns -
> to increase the amp-turns and thereby the field intensity.
>
>
>
> Although there is a small field associated with the current flow of
> electrolysis, it is generally too low to meet any reasonable threshold. In
> contrast, samarium cobalt has substantial field, i.e. “maximum energy
> product” (BHmax) up to 32 megagauss-oersted (MGOe) with no current required
> - equivalent to nearly a Joule per mm^3. Note that Mizuno used thin nickel
> wire and many turns. He may not have realized the reason that it worked –
> but only that it did work.
>
>
>
> Secondly, a few of the many nickel alloys you tried are probably close to
> the proper combination of properties for gain, but perhaps do not meet
> another critical parameter – which is chemisorption.
>
>
>
> Chemisorption could be critical (almost certainly !) - and very small
> differences (such as 1-2% variance in the alloy ratio) could determine
> whether a particular nickel-copper alloy is active for chemisorption, or
> not. It is a feature of physical spacing. Even when the alloy absorbs
> protons instead of atoms, success could still depend on the alloy being
> active in a magnetic field of the proper intensity, and geometry. Note that
> pure Nickel is not chemisorbent at ambient but, Ni with 5% Pd is
> chemisorbent. Even pure Pd is not chemisorbent without some dopant.
>
>
>
> A new parameter which is showing up is “superparamagnetism”. Without it,
> there are no terabyte HDs – which is an interesting connection to another
> field. Superparamagnetism may open many doors of understanding in LENR.
>
>
>
> In short, if gain from Ni-H were simple to do – someone would have hit on
> the proper combination of parameters way back in the flurry of activity
> which happened between 1989 and 1993.
>
>
>
> Sadly, one problem for finding this holy grail may have been the tendency
> not to report negative results, which is exacerbated when one researcher is
> suspicious (or jealous) of positive results from another researcher in a
> similar experiment. In fact, prior to Cravens, most positive results were a
> bit more suspicious, since there were so many ways to err – most of which
> are eliminated in a side-by-side unpowered experiment.
>
>
>
> *From:* Jack Cole
>
>
>
> Hi Jones,
>
>
>
> I'm still around.  :)  I put my electrolysis experimentation on pause
> after doing something like 200 experiments with nothing to convince me I
> had found anything.  I had some hope for Brillouin Energy, but after all
> this time at SRI with no results reported, it gives me doubts about whether
> Godes had what he thought.  I decided not to pursue replicating his method
> until something more is released from him.
>
>
>
> Anyway, I'm not very hopeful for nickel-based electrolysis being able to
> produce LENR--at least nothing I h

Re: [Vo]:RE: Hydrofill and LaNi5

[Jack Cole]

Hi Jed,

Step 1 was sand paper.  Step 2 and 3 were thorough cleaning with acetone,
although I couldn't be certain of what was on there at a small scale.

Best regards,
Jack


On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Jack Cole  wrote:
>
> Axil,
>>
>> I tried fine grit sand paper and acid.
>>
>
> I think that will contaminate the material. You better clean it repeatedly
> and carefully after that.
>
> I will grant, Mizuno and Ohmori used to scratch the surface of their
> glow-discharge cathodes with glass. The cathodes ended up looking like this:
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Image09.jpg
>
> I would say that is contaminated. I would not use it for electrolysis.
>
> This is from:
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/?page_id=187#PhotosTMizuno
>
>
> Mizuno's recent experiments with glow discharge produce a rough surface in
> situ with very little contamination, as explained in the ICCF18 paper:
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTmethodofco.pdf
>
> - Jed
>
>

RE: [Vo]:RE: Hydrofill and LaNi5

[Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.]

Nickel is also magnetostrictive, I wonder if that might expand and contract 
entrained materials when excited with an AC magnetic field.





From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 11:59 AM
To: vortex-l



Dear Jack,

Please indulge me some more suggestions. The Cravens and Rossi experience 
clearly shows the importance of sizing micro particles to be black body 
temperature resonant diameter. ...



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: [Vo]:RE: Hydrofill and LaNi5

[Axil Axil]

Dear Jack,

Please indulge me some more suggestions. The Cravens and Rossi experience
clearly shows the importance of sizing micro particles to be black body
temperature resonant diameter.

At 400C, a 5 micro particle size is ideal. Cravens uses a bigger particle
size because he needs to operate at a lower (80C) temperature.

It is important to produce a rough surface on these micro particles,
ideally to form a nanowire coating.

This surface treatment is the Key to success in hydrogen based LENR. This
process is highly protected intellectual property item used by all who are
pursuing commensal LENR.

As a variation on the Mizuno process to distress the surface of these 5
micron micro particles, I wonder if a Mizuno like spark pre-treatment of
these micro particles floating on a mercury electrode bath might be a way
to produce the required distressed micro particle surface treatment? Nickel
will float on liquid mercury.

Nickel is the best material for hydrogen gas based LENR because it is an
almost perfect reflector of infrared photons.





On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Jack Cole  wrote:

> Axil,
>
> I tried fine grit sand paper and acid.  I think electrolysis is so much
> messier chemically than what Mizuno is doing, and it may not be possible to
> reach some of the parameters very easy (temperature, surface features and
> so forth).  I think I would probably start up some experiments again if I
> could get a gas loaded chamber.  I do like Mizuno's approach of essentially
> creating the nano particles through the use of electrical discharge (from a
> safety perspective).
>
> Best regards,
> Jack
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> Jack:
>>
>> Did you try to roughen the surface of the lattice substrate metal with
>> spark discharge as Mizuno has done in his experiments. A rough reaction
>> surface is the key to nanoplasmonic activity and the production of Surface
>> Plasmon Polaritons.
>>
>> All the successful LENR experiments that I know about have used roughened
>> substrate surfaces in their methods.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Jack Cole  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Jones,
>>>
>>> I'm still around.  :)  I put my electrolysis experimentation on pause
>>> after doing something like 200 experiments with nothing to convince me I
>>> had found anything.  I had some hope for Brillouin Energy, but after all
>>> this time at SRI with no results reported, it gives me doubts about whether
>>> Godes had what he thought.  I decided not to pursue replicating his method
>>> until something more is released from him.
>>>
>>> Anyway, I'm not very hopeful for nickel-based electrolysis being able to
>>> produce LENR--at least nothing I have tried has convinced me.  There is a
>>> lot to convince me that false positives are easy to obtain when you are
>>> looking for lower levels of excess heating.  It needs to be the last
>>> conclusion you come to after considering alternatives and designing
>>> experiments to test the alternatives.  Time after time, the results of my
>>> follow up experiments supported the alternative explanation. I'm hoping the
>>> Rossi report comes out positive as the probability of a false positive at
>>> his previously-reported power levels would be nearly impossible to obtain.
>>>
>>> Just to summarize, I tried various materials (Nicrome, constantan,
>>> nitinol, thoriated tungsten, cuprothal, all of the above plated with
>>> nickel) and various types of triggering (AC, pulsed DC, alternating DC with
>>> pulsed AC, high frequency/high current AC alternating with DC, external
>>> heating, laser, permanent magnet, different electrolytes).  I tried slow
>>> loading over several days to a week at low current followed by active runs
>>> and attempts to trigger.  I tried prepping material in light acid followed
>>> by cleaning with acetone.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Jack
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Jones Beene 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Special thanks should be accorded to Dennis Cravens for his openness
 and the
 great detail of information which he has provided on a most important
 experiment. He deserves a big award for this work, even if it turns out
 not
 to be nuclear fusion, per se - and especially if it does turn out to be
 LENR. Why hasn't a National Lab replicate this important work?
 (Rhetorical
 question and the answer is obvious).

 For the record - here is more background on LaNi5, which is looking
 more-and-more like the magic bullet for Ni-H thermal effects when
 combined
 with a magnetic field (this combination could be in order to reach a
 superparamagnetic state of self-resonance).

 http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/j100476a006

 I should caution that all of the analysis in this thread wrt to LaNi5
 is a
 personal and minority appraisal, and that Dennis Cravens along with
 almost
 everyone else who was involved or saw the experiment, consider

Re: [Vo]:RE: Hydrofill and LaNi5

[Jed Rothwell]

Jack Cole  wrote:

Axil,
>
> I tried fine grit sand paper and acid.
>

I think that will contaminate the material. You better clean it repeatedly
and carefully after that.

I will grant, Mizuno and Ohmori used to scratch the surface of their
glow-discharge cathodes with glass. The cathodes ended up looking like this:

http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Image09.jpg

I would say that is contaminated. I would not use it for electrolysis.

This is from:

http://lenr-canr.org/?page_id=187#PhotosTMizuno


Mizuno's recent experiments with glow discharge produce a rough surface in
situ with very little contamination, as explained in the ICCF18 paper:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTmethodofco.pdf

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:RE: Hydrofill and LaNi5

[Jack Cole]

Axil,

I tried fine grit sand paper and acid.  I think electrolysis is so much
messier chemically than what Mizuno is doing, and it may not be possible to
reach some of the parameters very easy (temperature, surface features and
so forth).  I think I would probably start up some experiments again if I
could get a gas loaded chamber.  I do like Mizuno's approach of essentially
creating the nano particles through the use of electrical discharge (from a
safety perspective).

Best regards,
Jack



On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Jack:
>
> Did you try to roughen the surface of the lattice substrate metal with
> spark discharge as Mizuno has done in his experiments. A rough reaction
> surface is the key to nanoplasmonic activity and the production of Surface
> Plasmon Polaritons.
>
> All the successful LENR experiments that I know about have used roughened
> substrate surfaces in their methods.
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Jack Cole  wrote:
>
>> Hi Jones,
>>
>> I'm still around.  :)  I put my electrolysis experimentation on pause
>> after doing something like 200 experiments with nothing to convince me I
>> had found anything.  I had some hope for Brillouin Energy, but after all
>> this time at SRI with no results reported, it gives me doubts about whether
>> Godes had what he thought.  I decided not to pursue replicating his method
>> until something more is released from him.
>>
>> Anyway, I'm not very hopeful for nickel-based electrolysis being able to
>> produce LENR--at least nothing I have tried has convinced me.  There is a
>> lot to convince me that false positives are easy to obtain when you are
>> looking for lower levels of excess heating.  It needs to be the last
>> conclusion you come to after considering alternatives and designing
>> experiments to test the alternatives.  Time after time, the results of my
>> follow up experiments supported the alternative explanation. I'm hoping the
>> Rossi report comes out positive as the probability of a false positive at
>> his previously-reported power levels would be nearly impossible to obtain.
>>
>> Just to summarize, I tried various materials (Nicrome, constantan,
>> nitinol, thoriated tungsten, cuprothal, all of the above plated with
>> nickel) and various types of triggering (AC, pulsed DC, alternating DC with
>> pulsed AC, high frequency/high current AC alternating with DC, external
>> heating, laser, permanent magnet, different electrolytes).  I tried slow
>> loading over several days to a week at low current followed by active runs
>> and attempts to trigger.  I tried prepping material in light acid followed
>> by cleaning with acetone.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Jack
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>>
>>> Special thanks should be accorded to Dennis Cravens for his openness and
>>> the
>>> great detail of information which he has provided on a most important
>>> experiment. He deserves a big award for this work, even if it turns out
>>> not
>>> to be nuclear fusion, per se - and especially if it does turn out to be
>>> LENR. Why hasn't a National Lab replicate this important work?
>>> (Rhetorical
>>> question and the answer is obvious).
>>>
>>> For the record - here is more background on LaNi5, which is looking
>>> more-and-more like the magic bullet for Ni-H thermal effects when
>>> combined
>>> with a magnetic field (this combination could be in order to reach a
>>> superparamagnetic state of self-resonance).
>>>
>>> http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/j100476a006
>>>
>>> I should caution that all of the analysis in this thread wrt to LaNi5 is
>>> a
>>> personal and minority appraisal, and that Dennis Cravens along with
>>> almost
>>> everyone else who was involved or saw the experiment, considers it to be
>>> a
>>> version of the Les Case work, involving the fusion of deuterium. Why
>>> not? It
>>> is fully derivative of that line of experimental work and so on ... but
>>> ...
>>> that may not be sufficient.
>>>
>>> IMHO there are good reasons to suspect that there is no nuclear reaction
>>> and
>>> the thermal anomaly is related to magnetic interaction with the zero
>>> point
>>> field and with ground-state redundancy, which is different from the Mills
>>> model in several important ways (but also similar in one way). LaNi5 is
>>> like
>>> few other proton conductors (or hydrogen storage alloys) in its physical
>>> properties, especially combined with magnetic properties. With or
>>> without a
>>> Casimir boost, this route should be adequate for gain. Had Jovion of
>>> Moddel
>>> realized the properties of LaNi5, we would not be having this
>>> conversation.
>>>
>>> Superparamagnetism and fluorescence show up in nanoparticles of La
>>> alloys.
>>> This alloy absorbs significantly more hydrogen than palladium through
>>> pure
>>> chemisorption at an unbelievably rapid rate. Plus, and most notably,
>>> almost
>>> 100% of the element lanthanum is high-spin (7/2) with extreme NMR
>>> prop

Re: [Vo]:RE: Hydrofill and LaNi5

[Axil Axil]

Jack:

Did you try to roughen the surface of the lattice substrate metal with
spark discharge as Mizuno has done in his experiments. A rough reaction
surface is the key to nanoplasmonic activity and the production of Surface
Plasmon Polaritons.

All the successful LENR experiments that I know about have used roughened
substrate surfaces in their methods.


On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Jack Cole  wrote:

> Hi Jones,
>
> I'm still around.  :)  I put my electrolysis experimentation on pause
> after doing something like 200 experiments with nothing to convince me I
> had found anything.  I had some hope for Brillouin Energy, but after all
> this time at SRI with no results reported, it gives me doubts about whether
> Godes had what he thought.  I decided not to pursue replicating his method
> until something more is released from him.
>
> Anyway, I'm not very hopeful for nickel-based electrolysis being able to
> produce LENR--at least nothing I have tried has convinced me.  There is a
> lot to convince me that false positives are easy to obtain when you are
> looking for lower levels of excess heating.  It needs to be the last
> conclusion you come to after considering alternatives and designing
> experiments to test the alternatives.  Time after time, the results of my
> follow up experiments supported the alternative explanation. I'm hoping the
> Rossi report comes out positive as the probability of a false positive at
> his previously-reported power levels would be nearly impossible to obtain.
>
> Just to summarize, I tried various materials (Nicrome, constantan,
> nitinol, thoriated tungsten, cuprothal, all of the above plated with
> nickel) and various types of triggering (AC, pulsed DC, alternating DC with
> pulsed AC, high frequency/high current AC alternating with DC, external
> heating, laser, permanent magnet, different electrolytes).  I tried slow
> loading over several days to a week at low current followed by active runs
> and attempts to trigger.  I tried prepping material in light acid followed
> by cleaning with acetone.
>
> Best regards,
> Jack
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> Special thanks should be accorded to Dennis Cravens for his openness and
>> the
>> great detail of information which he has provided on a most important
>> experiment. He deserves a big award for this work, even if it turns out
>> not
>> to be nuclear fusion, per se - and especially if it does turn out to be
>> LENR. Why hasn't a National Lab replicate this important work? (Rhetorical
>> question and the answer is obvious).
>>
>> For the record - here is more background on LaNi5, which is looking
>> more-and-more like the magic bullet for Ni-H thermal effects when combined
>> with a magnetic field (this combination could be in order to reach a
>> superparamagnetic state of self-resonance).
>>
>> http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/j100476a006
>>
>> I should caution that all of the analysis in this thread wrt to LaNi5 is a
>> personal and minority appraisal, and that Dennis Cravens along with almost
>> everyone else who was involved or saw the experiment, considers it to be a
>> version of the Les Case work, involving the fusion of deuterium. Why not?
>> It
>> is fully derivative of that line of experimental work and so on ... but
>> ...
>> that may not be sufficient.
>>
>> IMHO there are good reasons to suspect that there is no nuclear reaction
>> and
>> the thermal anomaly is related to magnetic interaction with the zero point
>> field and with ground-state redundancy, which is different from the Mills
>> model in several important ways (but also similar in one way). LaNi5 is
>> like
>> few other proton conductors (or hydrogen storage alloys) in its physical
>> properties, especially combined with magnetic properties. With or without
>> a
>> Casimir boost, this route should be adequate for gain. Had Jovion of
>> Moddel
>> realized the properties of LaNi5, we would not be having this
>> conversation.
>>
>> Superparamagnetism and fluorescence show up in nanoparticles of La alloys.
>> This alloy absorbs significantly more hydrogen than palladium through pure
>> chemisorption at an unbelievably rapid rate. Plus, and most notably,
>> almost
>> 100% of the element lanthanum is high-spin (7/2) with extreme NMR
>> properties. Protons are absorbed directly into the alloy, instead of as
>> atoms or molecules, and there is an huge variance (in magnetic properties)
>> between protons and atoms.
>>
>> Hyperfine structure due to spin and Rydberg states interact in a
>> mysterious
>> way, and from the perspective of Rydberg values in Mills' theory, the La
>> alloy when in a crystal unit at a ratio with nickel of 5:1, we have a
>> persistent orbital vacancy or "hole" an seemingly without ionization, due
>> only to an orbital vacancy - of enthalpy corresponding to 191.9 eV, as
>> opposed to the optimum value of 190.4 eV.
>>
>> In short, that near-perfect fit makes LaNi5 look like the real-deal for
>

RE: [Vo]:RE: Hydrofill and LaNi5

[Jones Beene]

Jack,

 

Sorry you got nothing to show from electrolysis - but it is sometimes helpful 
to report these negative results. Thanks for stepping forward with them now.

 

There is value in null results when properly analyzed, and it can be of 
significant value when there is something positive to contrast them against. In 
the case of Ni-H, your results could actually narrow the possibilities and open 
up greater insight - when one considers Cravens results in contrast to yours. 
This assumes of course that both results are completely accurate for a 
particular parameter, and we look at the implications of the two types of 
experiments together. This seems to be the case here.

 

For instance, if a modest magnetic field is required for gain (especially 
unpowered gain)– and a field intensity which is above a cutoff level is needed, 
such as Cravens provides, then electrolysis alone is not going to get us there 
unless the electrode is in the form of a coil of many turns - to increase the 
amp-turns and thereby the field intensity. 

 

Although there is a small field associated with the current flow of 
electrolysis, it is generally too low to meet any reasonable threshold. In 
contrast, samarium cobalt has substantial field, i.e. “maximum energy product” 
(BHmax) up to 32 megagauss-oersted (MGOe) with no current required - equivalent 
to nearly a Joule per mm^3. Note that Mizuno used thin nickel wire and many 
turns. He may not have realized the reason that it worked – but only that it 
did work.

 

Secondly, a few of the many nickel alloys you tried are probably close to the 
proper combination of properties for gain, but perhaps do not meet another 
critical parameter – which is chemisorption.

 

Chemisorption could be critical (almost certainly !) - and very small 
differences (such as 1-2% variance in the alloy ratio) could determine whether 
a particular nickel-copper alloy is active for chemisorption, or not. It is a 
feature of physical spacing. Even when the alloy absorbs protons instead of 
atoms, success could still depend on the alloy being active in a magnetic field 
of the proper intensity, and geometry. Note that pure Nickel is not 
chemisorbent at ambient but, Ni with 5% Pd is chemisorbent. Even pure Pd is not 
chemisorbent without some dopant.

 

A new parameter which is showing up is “superparamagnetism”. Without it, there 
are no terabyte HDs – which is an interesting connection to another field. 
Superparamagnetism may open many doors of understanding in LENR.

 

In short, if gain from Ni-H were simple to do – someone would have hit on the 
proper combination of parameters way back in the flurry of activity which 
happened between 1989 and 1993. 

 

Sadly, one problem for finding this holy grail may have been the tendency not 
to report negative results, which is exacerbated when one researcher is 
suspicious (or jealous) of positive results from another researcher in a 
similar experiment. In fact, prior to Cravens, most positive results were a bit 
more suspicious, since there were so many ways to err – most of which are 
eliminated in a side-by-side unpowered experiment.

 

From: Jack Cole 

 

Hi Jones,

 

I'm still around.  :)  I put my electrolysis experimentation on pause after 
doing something like 200 experiments with nothing to convince me I had found 
anything.  I had some hope for Brillouin Energy, but after all this time at SRI 
with no results reported, it gives me doubts about whether Godes had what he 
thought.  I decided not to pursue replicating his method until something more 
is released from him.

 

Anyway, I'm not very hopeful for nickel-based electrolysis being able to 
produce LENR--at least nothing I have tried has convinced me.  There is a lot 
to convince me that false positives are easy to obtain when you are looking for 
lower levels of excess heating.  It needs to be the last conclusion you come to 
after considering alternatives and designing experiments to test the 
alternatives.  Time after time, the results of my follow up experiments 
supported the alternative explanation. I'm hoping the Rossi report comes out 
positive as the probability of a false positive at his previously-reported 
power levels would be nearly impossible to obtain.

 

Just to summarize, I tried various materials (Nicrome, constantan, nitinol, 
thoriated tungsten, cuprothal, all of the above plated with nickel) and various 
types of triggering (AC, pulsed DC, alternating DC with pulsed AC, high 
frequency/high current AC alternating with DC, external heating, laser, 
permanent magnet, different electrolytes).  I tried slow loading over several 
days to a week at low current followed by active runs and attempts to trigger.  
I tried prepping material in light acid followed by cleaning with acetone.  

 

Best regards,

Jack

 

 

Jones Beene wrote:

For the record - here is more background on LaNi5, which is looking
more-and-more like the magic bullet for Ni-H thermal effec

Re: [Vo]:RE: Hydrofill and LaNi5

[Jack Cole]

Hi Jones,

I'm still around.  :)  I put my electrolysis experimentation on pause after
doing something like 200 experiments with nothing to convince me I had
found anything.  I had some hope for Brillouin Energy, but after all this
time at SRI with no results reported, it gives me doubts about whether
Godes had what he thought.  I decided not to pursue replicating his method
until something more is released from him.

Anyway, I'm not very hopeful for nickel-based electrolysis being able to
produce LENR--at least nothing I have tried has convinced me.  There is a
lot to convince me that false positives are easy to obtain when you are
looking for lower levels of excess heating.  It needs to be the last
conclusion you come to after considering alternatives and designing
experiments to test the alternatives.  Time after time, the results of my
follow up experiments supported the alternative explanation. I'm hoping the
Rossi report comes out positive as the probability of a false positive at
his previously-reported power levels would be nearly impossible to obtain.

Just to summarize, I tried various materials (Nicrome, constantan, nitinol,
thoriated tungsten, cuprothal, all of the above plated with nickel) and
various types of triggering (AC, pulsed DC, alternating DC with pulsed AC,
high frequency/high current AC alternating with DC, external heating,
laser, permanent magnet, different electrolytes).  I tried slow loading
over several days to a week at low current followed by active runs and
attempts to trigger.  I tried prepping material in light acid followed by
cleaning with acetone.

Best regards,
Jack



On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Special thanks should be accorded to Dennis Cravens for his openness and
> the
> great detail of information which he has provided on a most important
> experiment. He deserves a big award for this work, even if it turns out not
> to be nuclear fusion, per se - and especially if it does turn out to be
> LENR. Why hasn't a National Lab replicate this important work? (Rhetorical
> question and the answer is obvious).
>
> For the record - here is more background on LaNi5, which is looking
> more-and-more like the magic bullet for Ni-H thermal effects when combined
> with a magnetic field (this combination could be in order to reach a
> superparamagnetic state of self-resonance).
>
> http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/j100476a006
>
> I should caution that all of the analysis in this thread wrt to LaNi5 is a
> personal and minority appraisal, and that Dennis Cravens along with almost
> everyone else who was involved or saw the experiment, considers it to be a
> version of the Les Case work, involving the fusion of deuterium. Why not?
> It
> is fully derivative of that line of experimental work and so on ... but ...
> that may not be sufficient.
>
> IMHO there are good reasons to suspect that there is no nuclear reaction
> and
> the thermal anomaly is related to magnetic interaction with the zero point
> field and with ground-state redundancy, which is different from the Mills
> model in several important ways (but also similar in one way). LaNi5 is
> like
> few other proton conductors (or hydrogen storage alloys) in its physical
> properties, especially combined with magnetic properties. With or without a
> Casimir boost, this route should be adequate for gain. Had Jovion of Moddel
> realized the properties of LaNi5, we would not be having this conversation.
>
> Superparamagnetism and fluorescence show up in nanoparticles of La alloys.
> This alloy absorbs significantly more hydrogen than palladium through pure
> chemisorption at an unbelievably rapid rate. Plus, and most notably, almost
> 100% of the element lanthanum is high-spin (7/2) with extreme NMR
> properties. Protons are absorbed directly into the alloy, instead of as
> atoms or molecules, and there is an huge variance (in magnetic properties)
> between protons and atoms.
>
> Hyperfine structure due to spin and Rydberg states interact in a mysterious
> way, and from the perspective of Rydberg values in Mills' theory, the La
> alloy when in a crystal unit at a ratio with nickel of 5:1, we have a
> persistent orbital vacancy or "hole" an seemingly without ionization, due
> only to an orbital vacancy - of enthalpy corresponding to 191.9 eV, as
> opposed to the optimum value of 190.4 eV.
>
> In short, that near-perfect fit makes LaNi5 look like the real-deal for
> thermal anomalies in a modified (alternative) Millsean understanding which
> can be called "cold f/H" since the redundant state follows chemisorption
> and
> is a relic of the expulsion of labile protons from the metal matrix,
> instead
> of the opposite modality. In fact, if there is UV emission, and there could
> be none - then it could be shed resonantly inside a Casimir pit or cavity
> as
> the proton emerges from the matrix and captures an electron at the 1/7th
> orbital.
>
> The downside of this short search has been trying to find 

Re: [Vo]:RE: Hydrofill and LaNi5

[Brad Lowe]

Alibaba is a good source for overseas chemicals. The vendors are
usually happy to send smaller quantities as samples.

http://www.alibaba.com/trade/search?fsb=y&IndexArea=product_en&CatId=&SearchText=LANTHANUM+nickel

FYI: A quick google of "deuterium LaNi5" returned a paper from 1979
called  "Low-energy excitations of hydrogen and deuterium in LaNi5"
but is behind a $33.00 paywall.
http://iopscience.iop.org/0305-4608/9/7/002/pdf/0305-4608_9_7_002.pdf

Does anyone have news on Dennis' sphere experiment? New or scaled up
versions? Is he still waiting for a patent?


- Brad

Re: [Vo]:RE: Hydrofill and LaNi5

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:

Special thanks should be accorded to Dennis Cravens for his openness and the
> great detail of information which he has provided on a most important
> experiment. He deserves a big award for this work . . .


Yes! It is a fine paper. I copied it to LENR-CANR.org. Such an elegant
demonstration! This is my favorite kind of experiment: one based on first
principles without depending on instruments. Martin Fleischmann also liked
this kind of thing, such as his boil-off tests. A experiment with lots of
instruments yields more useful information, which I suppose is needed for a
theory. You need both kinds, but this is sweet.


I just read the paper again. . . . I noticed something on the first page
that relates to the Defkalion fiasco. Maybe I should let bygones be
bygones, but to keep the historical record clear, note that it says:

"Two weeks before NI Week, in conjunction with ICCF18, Defkalion did a live
Internet demonstration where they claimed they produced 4 kW of heat out
from 1 kW of electrical power. In other words, you get four times energy
savings with their device, if true. However, there seems to be questions
about some of their water flow and magnetic field measurements."

I recall hearing about that from various sources. As you see from the tone
here, Dennis thought this was an honest mistake of some sort. So did I. I
figured it was nothing to get excited about. People make mistakes during
demonstrations. The Gamberale report makes me think it was more sinister.

- Jed

[Vo]:RE: Hydrofill and LaNi5

[Jones Beene]

Special thanks should be accorded to Dennis Cravens for his openness and the
great detail of information which he has provided on a most important
experiment. He deserves a big award for this work, even if it turns out not
to be nuclear fusion, per se - and especially if it does turn out to be
LENR. Why hasn't a National Lab replicate this important work? (Rhetorical
question and the answer is obvious).

For the record - here is more background on LaNi5, which is looking
more-and-more like the magic bullet for Ni-H thermal effects when combined
with a magnetic field (this combination could be in order to reach a
superparamagnetic state of self-resonance).

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/j100476a006

I should caution that all of the analysis in this thread wrt to LaNi5 is a
personal and minority appraisal, and that Dennis Cravens along with almost
everyone else who was involved or saw the experiment, considers it to be a
version of the Les Case work, involving the fusion of deuterium. Why not? It
is fully derivative of that line of experimental work and so on ... but ...
that may not be sufficient.

IMHO there are good reasons to suspect that there is no nuclear reaction and
the thermal anomaly is related to magnetic interaction with the zero point
field and with ground-state redundancy, which is different from the Mills
model in several important ways (but also similar in one way). LaNi5 is like
few other proton conductors (or hydrogen storage alloys) in its physical
properties, especially combined with magnetic properties. With or without a
Casimir boost, this route should be adequate for gain. Had Jovion of Moddel
realized the properties of LaNi5, we would not be having this conversation.

Superparamagnetism and fluorescence show up in nanoparticles of La alloys.
This alloy absorbs significantly more hydrogen than palladium through pure
chemisorption at an unbelievably rapid rate. Plus, and most notably, almost
100% of the element lanthanum is high-spin (7/2) with extreme NMR
properties. Protons are absorbed directly into the alloy, instead of as
atoms or molecules, and there is an huge variance (in magnetic properties)
between protons and atoms.

Hyperfine structure due to spin and Rydberg states interact in a mysterious
way, and from the perspective of Rydberg values in Mills' theory, the La
alloy when in a crystal unit at a ratio with nickel of 5:1, we have a
persistent orbital vacancy or "hole" an seemingly without ionization, due
only to an orbital vacancy - of enthalpy corresponding to 191.9 eV, as
opposed to the optimum value of 190.4 eV. 

In short, that near-perfect fit makes LaNi5 look like the real-deal for
thermal anomalies in a modified (alternative) Millsean understanding which
can be called "cold f/H" since the redundant state follows chemisorption and
is a relic of the expulsion of labile protons from the metal matrix, instead
of the opposite modality. In fact, if there is UV emission, and there could
be none - then it could be shed resonantly inside a Casimir pit or cavity as
the proton emerges from the matrix and captures an electron at the 1/7th
orbital.

The downside of this short search has been trying to find an ethical
supplier of LaNi5 for experimentation. LaNi5 seems to be available from
several sources in China for $25 kg in ton quantities, but chemical supply
houses in the USA have inflated that price by a factor of 5,000 for small
quantities. If anyone finds a good supplier for small quantities, please
post the information.
_

I just noticed a curious detail about the Cravens NI-Week
demo which we have been talking about, but which many have overlooked in
importance ... and especially one particular datum of info.

http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NIWeekCravens.pdf

On page 3, Dennis explains "lnside the sphere is a hydrogen
storage material. We used material taken from a commercial fuel cell storage
metal (Hydrofil) that was loaded with deuterium."

As best I can tell from online sources, the storage metal
used in this Hydrofill cartridge is known as proprietary AB5, but in reality
is the generic hydrogen storage alloy- LaNi5 which is lanthanum
penta-nickel. 

Whoa... that rings a bell so to speak. This material was
predicted some time ago to be active on its own for thermal gain in
reversible storage situations due to one special property. That property
would be in addition to lanthanum being almost exactly the mass-energy of
the Higgs boson :-)


http://www.micromeritics.com/Repository/Files/The_Heat_of_Adsorption_of_Hydr
ogen_Gas_on_Lanthanum_Pentanickel.pdf
Here are several far-out predictions based on gut feeling
and 6th sense intuition based somewhat on Higgs and somewhat on
nanomagnetism - 

1)  Cravens device depends on the unique chemisorption properties of
LaNi5 combined