Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > Piantelli is correct in principle if not in detail. > No, he is wrong. If he or anyone else can show a way to store more energy per gram than O2 - H2 fuel, they will revolutionize energy technology. This would be a tremendous breakthrough. I am confident he has not found this.
Even as a storage medium, and not a primary source of energy, this would be revolutionary, and very useful. > The ionization process inside the Ni/H reactor is all pervasive and is not > limited to just hydrogen. > It makes no difference. Chemical bonds do not survive storing more than ~4 eV per atom by any method. No chemical, electrochemical or battery can do this. Most batteries are orders of magnitude below this. If Piantelli thinks there is a slightest possibility that the energy releases observed in cold fusion, such as 100 eV/atom or 100,000 eV/atom, might have a conventional chemical explanation, or might be caused by ionization, he does not understand the fundamentals. I hope he does not think that, and this was some sort of misunderstanding. > In Piantelli's reactor, not only hydrogen is ionized but also a > significant amount of nickel located on the surface of his bars. > Ni and other metals cannot store more energy per gram than H2. > The energy for this ionization comes from the heat that initiates the LENR > reaction during reaction startup. The dipole vibration starts out weakly > across a broad front of many elements and compounds but it accumulates over > the hours . . . > It cannot "accumulate." There is no mechanism that would allow it to accumulate or be stored. There are no supercapacitors that store far more energy per gram than chemical fuel. At best, they will eventually approach the storage capabilities of H2 + O2. Actually, in the atmosphere, you can get by with H2 only, and use O2 from the atmosphere. This is why H2 for fuel cells and airplanes engine fuel has the best ratio of energy to mass now, and the best there ever will be. We are not going to find anything lighter. If Mills is correct, that would produce far more energy than H2 chemical fuel. That's another story. I do not classify that as "chemical" in the conventional sense. It is not caused by electron bonds. - Jed
