View Single Post
Old 11-22-2018, 12:24 AM
RAMSET RAMSET is online now
Gold Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NYC and Conn USA
Posts: 1,393
Dr.Jones posted some comments tonight


Hydrogen-Nickel Reactions
Let me focus on what appears to be the most promising approach right now for hydrogen-metal reactions – and that is when the metal chosen is nickel, a cheap and abundant metal. I acknowledge that when nickel is in the presence of other metals (e.g., an alloy), the reaction may be enhanced.

There are just five naturally-occuring isotopes of Nickel, these are:
58Ni 68%

60Ni 26%

61Ni 1.1%
62Ni 3.6%

64Ni 0.9%

Now the reaction that I and several others came up with, about the same time – is this: add a proton to the nucleus! The physicist will say, “But the Coulomb-barrier against the proton entering the nucleus is huge!” And I will answer:
1 – First, the proton does not need to go over the barrier; it can possibly tunnel through the barrier (a quantum-mechanical process)
2 – Recall that the surprisingly high rate of d-d fusion observed in metals, which my team first discovered & published in Nature, has been verified (references), yet is not fully understood theoretically. To me, experiments trump theory when theory is lagging behind experiments, which happens surprisingly often. (Recall that high-temp superconductivity is not well understood theoretically, yet Nature allows it to occur even though our theory lags behind!)
3 – The proposed reaction occurs in the metal-catalyzed matrix, just as low-level (so far) d-d fusion is enhanced in metals (an empirical fact). This environment for nuclear reactions is unique.

We can look up the masses of the nuclear reactants and resultant products, and we see that substantial energy is released (call it ∆E) during the hypothesized proton + Ni-nucleus reactions. We are not talking about creating energy out of nothing! Rather, we apply Einstein's equation, ∆E = ∆mc2 .

58Ni + p → 59Cu which then decays by β+ emission;

60Ni + p → 61Cu which then decays by β+ emission

61Ni + p → 62Cu which then decays by β+ emission
62Ni + p → 63Cu which is stable (does not decay)
64Ni + p → 65Cu which is stable (does not decay)

In a chart of nuclides, we find the masses involved and calculate straightforwardly the energy released in each (fusion-type nuclear) reaction, for example, 58Ni plus a proton:

M of proton = 1.007276467 u
M of 58Ni = 57.9353429 u
Adding these we find that th ue mass of reactants = 1.00727646688u + 57.9353429 = 58.942619367 u
And the mass of the resulting 59Cu (postulated) = 58.9394980 u
Then -∆m = Minitial – Mfinal = (1.00727646688 + 57.9353429) u - 58.9394980 u = 58.942619367 - 58.9394980 = 0.003121367 u
We multiply this by the speed-of-light squared, to get the energy released in the reaction, and convert to a standard unit of energy (MeV = Million-electron-Volts, and 931.5 MeV/c2 = 1 u)
and we find:
∆E = ∆mc2 = 2.908 MeV per reaction.

Turns out that is a lot of energy released, considering that many many reactions are possible per second. These reactions would in turn result in radioactive products that would release β+ emission, which don't travel far in matter. The next product would be gamma-rays mostly at 1.011 MeV, which are easy to shield against.

Since Nature has surprised us before, she may do so again. It may be that the reactions resulting in stable (non-radioactive) copper might dominate the process, so there would finally be but few gammas relative to the large heat energy released:
62Ni + p → 63Cu
64Ni + p → 65Cu
All of these isotopes are stable, that is, not radioactive at all. Only experiments will tell.

In my own experiments along these lines, I have focussed on using electrolysis to place protons in the nickel matrix. Then I measure heat production. My results are occasionally up to 1.09 of “anomalous power”. I'm still working on achieving 100% reproducibility, which is the great ELUSIVE goal in this field at the moment.

My path to HyNi came through muon-catalyzed fusion, then d-d cold fusion in metals, then learning about the Peter Davey claims of excess heat in ordinary water in the 1940's – followed by my own experiments using ordinary H2O. My results are encouraging – along with those of MANY others now, world-wide. Others have taken various paths, and several now use gas-loading of Hydrogen into nickel and other metals.

It is basically a “race for humanity” at this time, to see who can achieve:
1 – 100% reproducibility, each and every experiment.
2 – higher power yields, to make measurements more straightforward.
3 – still higher power yields, to make a useful device.
4 – release the inventions to benefit humanity.
It will be interesting to see which group in which country gets there first. It might be that our community will "crack the code" for 100% reproducibility FIRST. Groups in Italy and Japan are working on this. (Not so much in the USA for some reason.)

We should consider the alternative approaches for loading hydrogen into metals, before diving in (IMO). Some of these are:

1 - Electrolysis involving H2O, an approach which also allows for co-deposition of various metals (including lithium, one of my personal favorites) onto a metal cathode at the same time as hydrogen (protons) are introduced into the matrix. I credit Peter Davey for pioneering in this particular approach in the 1940's - not Pons &Fleischmann who used H2O for control-experiments, and who came later anyway.

2 - H2 gas-loading, with the metal heated in various ways including Joule-heating (E.g., Takhashi in Japan and Celani in Italy).

3- Chemical decomposition of hydrogen-rich compounds into metals (E.g., Parkhomov)

4- H+ ion bombardment at various beam energies, into various test-metals. (I don't know of anyone using this approach at this time).

I'm going to stick my neck out prognosticate that one of these approaches will succeed big-time in the next year or two. The FIRST to achieve 100% reproducibility in anomalous hydrogen-metal reactions will greatly benefit humanity. The lack of repeatability is the greatest bottleneck at the moment, as I see
end quote

to note
setting up the test protocol meeting ASAP


Last edited by RAMSET; 11-22-2018 at 12:27 AM.
Reply With Quote