Hydrogen + metal = surprising reactions without plasmas

[RAMSET]

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...h_temperatures
------------------------------------------------------------
Dr.Jones quote
Note that nickel metal and H2 (also D2) are used here. I believe the first to claim anomalous heat production (AHP) from metals + H2, from H2O in his case, was Peter Davey of New Zealand in the 1940's.
(We've discussed his work in a different thread).

Now the research focusses on H2 and D2 gas entering nickel (also other metals) at elevated temps (but well below plasma temps). It seems important that the metal lattice be present.

Hence, a solid lattice is needed for the (presumed nuclear) reaction to occur. That is what is so surprising, that a nuclear (not d-d fusion) reaction appears to occur at a sufficient rate for heat to be observed and measured.

Here is a photo and corresponding drawing of one of the "knots" in the Constantan wire where the reactions evidently occur:

end Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------

respectfully submitted
Chet K

[spacecase0]

I have always thought that metal is a mostly solid plasma, after all, they each have the same shared electron sate.
I wonder if the distance between the structures of that alloy they say is the same as the hot plasma the reactions would otherwise normally happen in.

[RAMSET]

I will ask about that

Sir
I always enjoy your thoughts and input on this forum
and also how your opinions are not easily swayed.

your comment here gave me pause , I am certain these fellows have theories,
but as of Yet ....
just anomalous mysterious results .

I will try to work a bit with Steve [Dr.Jones] on better understanding all the minutia
of the technique the Celani team is using as well as Parkhomov's better understood kitchen work.

Alexander Parkhomov Reports on Just-completed 225 Day Test | E-Cat World

perhaps with a few more pieces of equipment and technical support a few of our open source Labs could play here ?
and maybe a few other techniques could tickle the lattice ??

after all Parkhomov does literally work in his kitchen.....

I will ask about your thoughts .... heat does change things and perhaps this Celani potpourri ... in the oven .... ?
maybe it does mimic the attributes of plasma due to its similarities ?

to me this is mind bending stuff ...and I don't have much to bend...

thanks for your thoughts


respectfully
Chet K

[RAMSET]

just a note

a meeting with Dr.Jones tonight to discuss methods for experimenters here and elsewhere to replicate.
some members have already geared up with Data logging protocols
as well as techniques to play with this .

it is possible that all bits will be made available [at no cost] to open source experimenters here [and elsewhere] who would like to participate.

we shall see ?

respectfully
Chet

[spacecase0]

I am all for trying to replicate it.
and seems like there is enough information here to do it

measuring power in heat accurately is not the easiest thing to do.
from the PDF

Measures of thermal power were executed using an air-flow calorimetry while a calibration was made
using an internal Tungsten lamp.

they also did not say the error window they had in the measurements, or at least not that I noticed. How you build it is going to make a big difference in that possible error
I just wonder if there is not some easy way to get a more accurate measurement. or at least one where you know what your error window is

[RAMSET]

Yes not an easy task

I am trying to get the final thoughts and opinions on this assembled as quickly as possible.
But the holiday is taking much spare time here ,

will probably take until next week when things quiet down
I am chompin at the bit ,But Dr.Jones is on the road ATM .
not good talking and Driving also ruff working without his computer.

to note this issue with GOOD heat measurement protocol on a tight budget ,is directly addressing your noted point.

I sent you a Bunch of possible techniques that were considered for the Parkhomov work in a PM and will Hopefully now be amended to fit this Celani work.

One open source project Designer for the Celani test management protocol is quite confident his suggestion will be quite simple and should enable many experimenters to do quality measurements on a very small budget.

I have to admit I am very happy you are looking at this
getting a true anomaly in front of a fellow like you ,as well as
good measurement protocols

That can change the world.

once the protocol is established [the simple one] it will be posted here.

and of course any suggestions to improve or simplify ...
thats what Open source is all about...

with gratitude and respect

Chet K

[RAMSET]

Dr.Jones posted some comments tonight

Dr.Jones
Quote

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

respectfully
Chet

[spacecase0]

I have a question
can't we verify this is a working idea by detecting the radiation from it ?
gamma-rays are not that hared to detect, right ?, to low energy to be detected with low cost detectors ?
or looking for the other fusion byproducts ? maybe test for helium after it ran for a while ? bright line spectrum testing is not that hard to set up.
so why is the focus on measuring the heat out ?

[RAMSET]

I'll ask

but reading above
snip
Dr.Jones
quote
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.
end quote
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have never done this bright line testing , sounds simple enuff
.

I get the impression that they really are not certain where the energy is coming from [or some may not be telling ??]

I would imagine detectors [calibrated very sensitive detectors] are running all the time to sniff for radioactive emmisions!
(I do know anyone who plays with this on their home benches have "counters" and films which react to emissions .

The Novice "hunter" can use all the help they can get .
I will ask about your suggestion .
thx
Chet

[kenssurplus]

space and all, sorry for speaking out of turn here. As I see it, if the tests were to focus upon gamma emissions only, then a positive result may be missed as the reactions may not produce many gammas, just heat (as per Dr. Jones above quote). If we are looking for a lack of gammas as a negative sign of reactions, we might miss a true reaction. But by primarily looking for the anomalous heat, and the other possible byproducts secondarily, we end up catching any positive reaction. Secondly, heat is sale-able, radioactivity - not so much.

It appears then that 100% reproducibility is key in order to accept this as viable tech? 100% reproducible for whom? Is this arena now just for the "big boys", or are the backyard enthusiasts, the garage tinkerers and the kitchen chemists allowed to play as well?

Oh, and If I understand correctly about detecting gammas, your counter needs to be specifically designed to read gammas or it may be picking up lower energy emissions that you don't know which are which. This may be a moot point now as I don't know the capabilities of the newer counters nowadays, but the older ones had to be specific built.

[spacecase0]

ok, got it.
so we need to look for heat.
I suppose the heat is what is we need to harvest for energy anyway.

edit:
checking isotope ratios needs something like a mass spectrometer,
and is quite hard to tell the ratios even if you have one.

[RAMSET]

just a heads up

Dr.Jones is still traveling but home bound [he drives everywhere]

there's a plan to discuss this on the weekend.

just for clarity there have been some really good [IMO] measurement protocols put forward , I am hoping that Dr.Jones can give them a good going over so an appropriate test protocol can be forwarded to a few waiting open source Labs.

and of course posted here too.
for clarity these simple test protocols can be performed by a majority of open source builders here and elsewhere.

thanks for your patience .

respectfully
Chet K

[RAMSET]

just a note

Spoke with Dr.Jones again today about the problem.
to recap
we have several open source labs wanting to join in on Celani replications.
but hot air calorimetry is way too difficult ...in addition to Celani type experiments we also talked about the star in a jar work and how it could be adjusted for better measurement protocols [in light of Celani claims] to better qualify excess heat.

"they" will be working on this over the next few days to bring forward the simplest and best possible test protocols.

I believe there are half a dozen on the table ATM

will post here when sorted .

respectfully
Chet K
PS
for clarity the goal of these test protocols are the ability for members here and elsewhere to join in on this tremendous opportunity to advance the science and perhaps make that open source breakthru which will change everything.

[daemonbart]

Hi old friend!
Life stole my focus in this area, happy to read about the progress! Not updated yet but i can confirm that some setups consumed the metal slowly - some did not.. pure Ni (98%), not very good, but alloys with Ni was mostly very good! /Arnie

[RAMSET]

How Wonderful to read you here....

I will Smile for a long time [like a crazy guy on the subway], Much new stuff going on, but in my opinion here in this Topic is the most solid place to start,
since science hunts here with a passion .

You light A fire under my But ,to get this topic moving .[too many distractions ATM

Chet

================================================== ===================

ps from Dr.Jones

Quote

With this ""heat to vaporization calorimeter" in mind for our initial experiments, I propose to look first at Woopy's star-in-jar claims, which go back to 2013 and 2014.


Here are some of Woopy's basic videos which I recommend. He has several more. These describe his method with variations, and results, and are enough to get us started. Others were doing these experiments in the same time period - I did some also, but got distracted by a very serious illness (Rocky-mtn spotted fever).

woopy basic star-in-jar, cop 1.45 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1eA0u7MBz4

woopy star-in-jar variation showing magnet jumping, cop not calculated https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lre05U1Bpso

woopy insulated jar, cop 1.6 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EO1pq0h6e0g

pressurized star-in-jar, cop not calculated https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmGufAr0uoM

The beauty of this simple system is that regular water is used, not D2O, and a hydrogen-plasma is formed right at the cathode = a very good way to introduce hydrogen at high-temperature into the metal! (We do this while avoiding the complications faced by Takashi and Celani, who used H2 gas at high temperatures.)

Again, I recently asked Woopy if he found some error in his measurements with this system. He said "no"; he simply moved on to other interests.

Woopy used a tungsten-lanthanum cathode. Right soon after replicating Woopy - I would switch to a NICKEL cathode, as nickel seems to be a desirable metal to achieve anomalous heat production (AHP), based on the most recent work (described in an earlier post of mine, above).
end quote

Edit
i see your post below [now the smile hurts....]

looks like I'll be getting back in the water too....and yes its all about the measurements ....