Piantelli does have similar technology based on nickel - and actually (historically) he was the first by a few months – that is: the first to report thermal gain results without palladium - ahead of Mills in 1989 and only months after P&F.
That did not stop Mills from getting the landmark patent – the one that just recently expired - since he (Mills) developed a formal and coherent theory for “why” certain metals work (based on Rydberg energy gaps in the ionization potential) … And at least with the USPTO and with investors, there has been no real competition from Piantelli, Rossi or anyone else for Mills when it comes to raising capital to pursue anomalous thermal gain. And history is written by the winners, but in this case Mills may not be the ultimate winner. Mills has raised well over $100 million and Piantelli almost nothing. Investors could be wrong on their bets of course – as they were with Rossi, but essentially most of the money in the entire field of LENR has been raised by Mills. This is true even though Mills does not use the LENR designation for his technology. Piantelli’s company - Nichenergy – founded ten years ago, has been a notable flop. No great papers, claims or theories have come from it - and nothing presently on the horizon which even comes close to the recent Mizuno breakthrough. It could well be that in the end – the stubbornness of both Mills and Piantelli - to avoid using palladium, which was due to P&F and their major IP priority for that metal - was fatal and doomed their efforts from the start - despite being ever so close. Apparently, and as always these observations are pending replication – but it looks like even a very thin layer of palladium over a nickel substrate is one key to success along with very low internal pressure – even milligrams of Pd is enough to see kilowatts of heat if it has been applied as a nanostructure. Absolutely incredible! That this result could happen in the way that it appears to have happened, and it has baffled almost every expert. As of now, calcite inclusions may be needed, as well as nano-palladium but that should be verified soon. The main thing is that this is a fabulous time to be following the field after 30 years of controversy. Not that there isn’t going to be plenty of controversy remaining, be all the issues are now brought into clear focus based on the Mizuno breakthrough. The jury is still out on several key issues but we have to say this much – Hat’s off to Mizuno ! You da man, bro. From: Axil Axil wrote: >From the piantelli patent, just about any transition metal will support the >LENR reaction. ----------------------------------------- If one subscribes to a Millsean approach, palladium is somewhat unique In the Periodic Table in that it is relatively non-reactive with oxygen or other oxidants while having an ionization potential which is near the first Rydberg level at 27.2 eV. Nickel alone has no such “entry level” Rydberg value … The four other metal substitutes for Pd at the first Rydberg level are Mo, Zn, Cu and Cs – and all of them plus bare protons have assorted chemical reactivity problems meeting requirements for catalyzing the first drop in orbital according to Mills. This is according to my older version of his theory which may have changed. Hydrogen ions (bare protons) also qualify as self-catalytic but they are usually too reactive. Any of these metals would be interesting as a catalyst substitute for expensive palladium – but all are relatively reactive in ways which could quench the effect. The best realistic catalytic fit is molybdenum and as an inexpensive di-sulfide it would be interesting to try. It is commonly available as a lubricant and relatively unreactive. From: Nicholas Cafarelli Recent posts make me wonder if the Palladium is required. What would happen if the Nickel mesh were only burnished with a Nickel rod after the tap water treatment? Is this an example of simplication? Simplification through elimination.
