10KW LENR Demonstrator?
Looking back on past speculations, the thing that really confuses the issue for someone who wants to understand the Rossi process is that Rossi only gives you one half of the puzzle, the nickel part. When you look at the nickel ash you only see one half of the reaction results. For example, when Levi looks at the nickel ash as he wants to do, Levi will only see the fusion portion of the reaction when he analyzes the nickel ash. This is OK with Rossi. Rossi is very clever.
Levi like everybody else will always assume a unitary causation mechanism.
When two complimentary and self reinforcing LENR reactions are combined, you need to look at both parts to see the whole picture.
What is not yet revealed is how Rossi stops a run away reaction without the injection of a LENR poison (deuterium, nitrogen) analogous to control rod insertion is a nuclear reactor.
(headslap…) Rossi has effectively said that there are two complimentary LENR mechanisms at play when he revealed the presence of other catalyzing materials involved in his process.
Levi like everybody else will always assume a unitary causation mechanism.
When two complimentary and self reinforcing LENR reactions are combined, you need to look at both parts to see the whole picture.
What is not yet revealed is how Rossi stops a run away reaction without the injection of a LENR poison (deuterium, nitrogen) analogous to control rod insertion is a nuclear reactor.
(headslap…) Rossi has effectively said that there are two complimentary LENR mechanisms at play when he revealed the presence of other catalyzing materials involved in his process.
No.Torulf2 wrote:Sorry for the miss spelling.
If all the "if" is right, can the Th be replaced by a electron gun?
A LENR experimenter told me not so long ago that the nickel LENR reaction does not produce much power:
I have found excess energy in 14 consecutive experiments with nano-nickel powders and hydrogen. However I am working at 100 milliwatts not kilowatts.
I do not know what promoter element he is suing, but I have found 0.5% palladium is too little for loading, but 1% palladium is sufficient.
It looks like the nickel/hydrogen fusion reaction is very weak at just a few MeV per reaction. At 40 times more power per event, the strong reaction might be the fission of thorium at 200 MeV per event.
I have always considered fusion to be a weak producer of power. Strong energy production is derived from fission. If fission can be catalyzed by LENR fusion without much radiation, …a fusion/fission hybrid…now how neat is that!!!
Axil,Axil wrote:Looking back on past speculations, the thing that really confuses the issue for someone who wants to understand the Rossi process is that Rossi only gives you one half of the puzzle, the nickel part. When you look at the nickel ash you only see one half of the reaction results. For example, when Levi looks at the nickel ash as he wants to do, Levi will only see the fusion portion of the reaction when he analyzes the nickel ash. This is OK with Rossi. Rossi is very clever.
Levi like everybody else will always assume a unitary causation mechanism.
When two complimentary and self reinforcing LENR reactions are combined, you need to look at both parts to see the whole picture.
What is not yet revealed is how Rossi stops a run away reaction without the injection of a LENR poison (deuterium, nitrogen) analogous to control rod insertion is a nuclear reactor.
(headslap…) Rossi has effectively said that there are two complimentary LENR mechanisms at play when he revealed the presence of other catalyzing materials involved in his process.
Here is an interesting paper for you.
Mesoscopic Catalyst and D-Cluster Fusion
http://rxiv.org/pdf/1012.0041v1.pdf
No Thorium involved here.
If I understand correctly, they get more heat produced when loading the power then is taken by the powder when unloading. I suspect there is something related to what Rossi is doing.
When they experimented with nickel-Pd alloy, they where surprised to get more heat discrepancy when using less Pd. I would suspect Rossi Nickel powder treatment is depositing his catalyst in the nanopowder surface to get a similar effect. He could very well be using Pd.
They talk about 2 Nanometer size nickel particle imbedded within ZrO nanopowder. There is only 360 atoms of nickel in these small particle! What happen to the particles when one reaction occur? Would they not evaporated, one single reaction would produce a few 1000eV per atoms? If the particle do not absorbs this energy, where does it end up?
I have more questions then answers
Cheers,
jb
On second thought fission of thorium may not be required to produce high speed electrons in the Rossi reactor.
In Widom-Larsson Theory "heavy electrons" must be somehow bound in the metal lattice to suppress the coulomb barrier for cold fusion to occur.
The case for thorium.
The key to the Rossi reactor (and to cold fusion in general) may well be the generation (or pumping) of large amounts of high speed (heavy) electrons in the immediate vicinity near the inside surface of the copper tube were the nickel powder lay.
Thorium is a metal that has a low work function and therefore can emit these large amounts of electrons.
To understand this subject, some explanations of terms follow.
Work function - In solid state physics, the work function is the minimum energy (usually measured in electron volts) needed to remove an electron from a solid to a point immediately outside the solid surface (or energy needed to move an electron from the Fermi level into vacuum). Here "immediately" means that the final electron position is far from the surface on the atomic scale but still close to the solid on the macroscopic scale.
Thorium is a element whose electron emissions are thermionic or heat generated. Here the electron gains its energy from heat.
In thermionic emission electrons escape from the heated negatively-charged filament (hot cathode)—is important in the operation of vacuum tubes. Tungsten, the common choice for vacuum tube filaments, has a work function of approximately 4.5 eV. Various coatings can substantially reduce this and thorium is such a coating.
The cathode heats to a temperature that causes electrons to be 'boiled out' of its surface into the evacuated space in the tube, a process called thermionic emission.
Note: Work function can change for crystalline elements based upon the orientation.
One common type of thermionic emmiter is an oxide-coated cathode. The earliest material used was barium oxide; it forms a monoatomic layer of barium with an extremely low work function.
More modern formulations utilize a mixture of barium oxide, strontium oxide and calcium oxide.
Another standard formulation is barium oxide, calcium oxide, and aluminium oxide in a 5:3:2 ratio. Thorium oxide is used as well. Oxide-coated cathodes operate at about 800-1000 °C, orange-hot.
Thoriated thermionic coating is a good electron emission option. Discovered in 1914 and made practical by Irving Langmuir in 1923, A small amount of thorium is added to a filament. The filament is heated and thorium atoms migrate to the surface of the filament and form the emissive layer. Heating the filament in a hydrocarbon atmosphere carburizes the surface and stabilizes the emissive layer. Throated filaments can have very long lifetimes and are resistant to high voltages and evaporation at high temperatures. They are used in nearly all big high-power vacuum tubes for radio transmitters, and in some tubes for hi-fi amplifiers. Their lifetimes tend to be far longer than those of oxide cathodes and this extended lifetime may be the reason why thorium was chosen as the electron emitter.
Although many elements can be used as a thermionic coating, evaporative contamination of the nickel powder must be avoided since purity of the reactants is paramount. Thorium does not readily evaporate and can preserve long term purity in the reaction.
In Widom-Larsson Theory "heavy electrons" must be somehow bound in the metal lattice to suppress the coulomb barrier for cold fusion to occur.
The case for thorium.
The key to the Rossi reactor (and to cold fusion in general) may well be the generation (or pumping) of large amounts of high speed (heavy) electrons in the immediate vicinity near the inside surface of the copper tube were the nickel powder lay.
Thorium is a metal that has a low work function and therefore can emit these large amounts of electrons.
To understand this subject, some explanations of terms follow.
Work function - In solid state physics, the work function is the minimum energy (usually measured in electron volts) needed to remove an electron from a solid to a point immediately outside the solid surface (or energy needed to move an electron from the Fermi level into vacuum). Here "immediately" means that the final electron position is far from the surface on the atomic scale but still close to the solid on the macroscopic scale.
Thorium is a element whose electron emissions are thermionic or heat generated. Here the electron gains its energy from heat.
In thermionic emission electrons escape from the heated negatively-charged filament (hot cathode)—is important in the operation of vacuum tubes. Tungsten, the common choice for vacuum tube filaments, has a work function of approximately 4.5 eV. Various coatings can substantially reduce this and thorium is such a coating.
The cathode heats to a temperature that causes electrons to be 'boiled out' of its surface into the evacuated space in the tube, a process called thermionic emission.
Note: Work function can change for crystalline elements based upon the orientation.
One common type of thermionic emmiter is an oxide-coated cathode. The earliest material used was barium oxide; it forms a monoatomic layer of barium with an extremely low work function.
More modern formulations utilize a mixture of barium oxide, strontium oxide and calcium oxide.
Another standard formulation is barium oxide, calcium oxide, and aluminium oxide in a 5:3:2 ratio. Thorium oxide is used as well. Oxide-coated cathodes operate at about 800-1000 °C, orange-hot.
Thoriated thermionic coating is a good electron emission option. Discovered in 1914 and made practical by Irving Langmuir in 1923, A small amount of thorium is added to a filament. The filament is heated and thorium atoms migrate to the surface of the filament and form the emissive layer. Heating the filament in a hydrocarbon atmosphere carburizes the surface and stabilizes the emissive layer. Throated filaments can have very long lifetimes and are resistant to high voltages and evaporation at high temperatures. They are used in nearly all big high-power vacuum tubes for radio transmitters, and in some tubes for hi-fi amplifiers. Their lifetimes tend to be far longer than those of oxide cathodes and this extended lifetime may be the reason why thorium was chosen as the electron emitter.
Although many elements can be used as a thermionic coating, evaporative contamination of the nickel powder must be avoided since purity of the reactants is paramount. Thorium does not readily evaporate and can preserve long term purity in the reaction.
Interesting Axil. I wonder how your theory comports with the fact that only a small portion of the Ni evidently participates in the reaction as per examination of the ash. When palladium is used in other LENR experiemnts, its purity (or other qualities unknown) seems to be responsible for the inconsistent results. It makes me wonder if the reason why Rossi may be getting better and more consistent results is the use of powdered Ni.
but it is just a NiCad
I keep looking at this process, and seeing a nickle/cadmium battery meltdown.
How are you supposed to patent something that battery engineers have been studying for decades.
Is the secret sauce in the NiCads the Cad? Seems like the nickle "nano powder" is prob just battery cathodes broken up, and using the naturally hydrolizing property of water to keep the runaway reaction from completely using up the fuel nickle.
Look up aviation battery runaway reactions. Cadmium hydroxide.
At least the fuel will be cheap and easy to access. Just open up old Nicads!
How are you supposed to patent something that battery engineers have been studying for decades.
Is the secret sauce in the NiCads the Cad? Seems like the nickle "nano powder" is prob just battery cathodes broken up, and using the naturally hydrolizing property of water to keep the runaway reaction from completely using up the fuel nickle.
Look up aviation battery runaway reactions. Cadmium hydroxide.
At least the fuel will be cheap and easy to access. Just open up old Nicads!
A natural question to ask is how did Piantelli produced excess heat using a 50% nickel/50% chrome tube if a cathode effect is required to supply fast electrons to the LENR process.
As stated before, the work function of the tube material can change based on the crystalline structure of the metal and its orientation.
Piantelli used both pure nickel and 50% nickel/50% chrome rods. The on-again off-again nature of the reaction reflects how much the rod radiates electrons when heated; this inconsistency in the surface property to the metal comprising the rod would have lead to some rods working successfully and other rods failing.
Rossi got around this inconsistency by putting a good electron radiator on the inside surface of his tube and pumping low voltage current (5 volts?) through the tub to heat it and electrically accentuate the cathode reaction.
The work function of a surface is strongly affected by the condition of the surface. The presence of minute amounts of contamination (less than a monolayer of atoms or molecules), or the occurrence of surface reactions (oxidation or similar) can change the work function substantially.
Changes of the order of 1 eV are common for metals and semiconductors, depending on the surface condition.
These changes are a result of the formation of electric dipoles at the surface, which change the energy an electron needs to leave the sample.
Due to the sensitivity of the work function to chemical changes on surfaces, its measurement can give valuable insight into the condition of a given surface.
As stated before, the work function of the tube material can change based on the crystalline structure of the metal and its orientation.
Piantelli used both pure nickel and 50% nickel/50% chrome rods. The on-again off-again nature of the reaction reflects how much the rod radiates electrons when heated; this inconsistency in the surface property to the metal comprising the rod would have lead to some rods working successfully and other rods failing.
Rossi got around this inconsistency by putting a good electron radiator on the inside surface of his tube and pumping low voltage current (5 volts?) through the tub to heat it and electrically accentuate the cathode reaction.
In metals, work function and ionization energy are the same."This is the heart of the problem," Piantelli said. "The surface treatment on the nickel rod is the secret; it's fundamental."
Actually, there are more secrets, he said. He didn't mind photographs being taken of anything in the lab. However, he said the real secrets are in his head - that is, the process of the surface preparation and what he's learned of this art in the last 19 years. Piantelli's secretiveness is no different than that of any of the other new energy researchers whom New Energy Times has met. Nobody who seems to have anything significant seems eager to be a saint and give it away.
Piantelli said that he now has the ability to look at the samples before the experiments begin and predict whether the material will work. He said that a special annealing furnace that the Piantelli-Focardi group now has is an essential part of the materials preparation process.
The work function of a surface is strongly affected by the condition of the surface. The presence of minute amounts of contamination (less than a monolayer of atoms or molecules), or the occurrence of surface reactions (oxidation or similar) can change the work function substantially.
Changes of the order of 1 eV are common for metals and semiconductors, depending on the surface condition.
These changes are a result of the formation of electric dipoles at the surface, which change the energy an electron needs to leave the sample.
Due to the sensitivity of the work function to chemical changes on surfaces, its measurement can give valuable insight into the condition of a given surface.
Last edited by Axil on Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
I had been most interested in how the control box regulates the heat production of the Rossi reactor. The cathode reaction is a clear cut answer to how this electric control is accomplished.
Like any cathode, the amount of electrons that are emitted by the inside surface of the tube is proportional to the electric current that feeds the thorium thermionic electron emitter.
The nickel in itself is not capable of sustaining a robust reaction but when catalyzed by heavy electrons derived from the thorium thermionic electron emitter, the heat production of the tube increases in proportion to the density of the heavy electrons on the inside of the tube.
I suspect that a catalytic inhibitor is used to dampen the catalytic reaction native to the nickel powder in order to keep the reaction well controlled so that runaway meltdowns are avoided.
Like any cathode, the amount of electrons that are emitted by the inside surface of the tube is proportional to the electric current that feeds the thorium thermionic electron emitter.
The nickel in itself is not capable of sustaining a robust reaction but when catalyzed by heavy electrons derived from the thorium thermionic electron emitter, the heat production of the tube increases in proportion to the density of the heavy electrons on the inside of the tube.
I suspect that a catalytic inhibitor is used to dampen the catalytic reaction native to the nickel powder in order to keep the reaction well controlled so that runaway meltdowns are avoided.
http://www.knowledgedoor.com/2/elements ... ction.html
There are a number of elements that are comparable to thorium when elemental work functions of competent thermionic electron emitters are compared. One good candidate might be Uranium but its melting point is really low.
In the meltdown case temperatures above 1500C were produced. This is a clue that thorium is the thermionic electron emitter with a melting point of 1746.85 degrees-Celsius.
I wonder if Rossi realizes that the thermionic electron emitter may be a significant source of heat energy over and above the energy produced by the nickel powder.
With all those low momentum neutrons produced by the nickel in such close proximity to the thorium cathode, significant additional LENR reactions with the thorium must also be occurring.
There are a number of elements that are comparable to thorium when elemental work functions of competent thermionic electron emitters are compared. One good candidate might be Uranium but its melting point is really low.
In the meltdown case temperatures above 1500C were produced. This is a clue that thorium is the thermionic electron emitter with a melting point of 1746.85 degrees-Celsius.
I wonder if Rossi realizes that the thermionic electron emitter may be a significant source of heat energy over and above the energy produced by the nickel powder.
With all those low momentum neutrons produced by the nickel in such close proximity to the thorium cathode, significant additional LENR reactions with the thorium must also be occurring.
Axil, It sounds to me that Rossi has a mix of NanoParticles, 1 gr of Nickle in the 2 to 20 nanometer range mis with about 1 kg of ZrO2 particles. The reactor has only 1 litre in volume, so the particle will need to be densly packed to get to 1 gr/cc. I do think that the nickle NP would be uniformle distributed within the volume, so that they are well isolated from each other.Axil wrote:... Next to produce kilowatts of power, only 1 gram of very pure nickel powder is added to a thin hollow copper tub of limited volume (one liter) is described in the Rossi patent.
....
If this is the case, woulld the particle would become electrostaicaly negatively charged by capturing these fast electrons, atracting Hydrogen ions to netralised the charge? This would increase the Hydrogen loading of the particle, causing positive feedback.
jb
Zinc oxide has most of the characteristics of a good heavy electron producer including low work function, good thermionic electron emitter behavior, and high melting point but is tends to decompose at high temperatures.
The central question remains, is the tube packed or hollow?
The fact that the nickel ash can be analyzed chemically argues against a packed tube. How could they separate the various different types of nano-powders apart to do the analysis? It is not easy to do this perfectly.
The solid tube does allow for an even distribution of nickel powder, but the power flow to the body of the copper tube is difficult without melting the nano-particles.
The two types of nano-powder cannot be packed to densely because you need some room for the hydrogen to get to the surface of the nickel. But loose packing of various types of nano-powders implies a degree of insulation and associated heat flow inefficiencies to the tube surface.
On the other hand, the hollow tube makes power transfer to the body of the copper tube straightforward and efficient, but how can you get the nickel powder to uniformly coat the inner surface of the copper tube and have the nickel powder stick there on the tube inner surface reliably over an extended timeframe and still be able to remove it easily after a extended time for analysis.
As shown in the Rossi patent, the other indication of a hollow tube is the presence of a heating element in the center of the tube. This reminds me of a vacuum tube where primary electrons from the filament produce secondary thermionic electron emissions emanating from the surface of the cathode. A packed tube cannot work in this way.
Also, the patent states that no zinc is used in the nano-powder.
Contrary to my thorium conjecture, nickel coats the copper tube.
The patent also states that the catalyzer is included in the nickel powder.
As always, the devil is in the details!
The central question remains, is the tube packed or hollow?
The fact that the nickel ash can be analyzed chemically argues against a packed tube. How could they separate the various different types of nano-powders apart to do the analysis? It is not easy to do this perfectly.
The solid tube does allow for an even distribution of nickel powder, but the power flow to the body of the copper tube is difficult without melting the nano-particles.
The two types of nano-powder cannot be packed to densely because you need some room for the hydrogen to get to the surface of the nickel. But loose packing of various types of nano-powders implies a degree of insulation and associated heat flow inefficiencies to the tube surface.
On the other hand, the hollow tube makes power transfer to the body of the copper tube straightforward and efficient, but how can you get the nickel powder to uniformly coat the inner surface of the copper tube and have the nickel powder stick there on the tube inner surface reliably over an extended timeframe and still be able to remove it easily after a extended time for analysis.
As shown in the Rossi patent, the other indication of a hollow tube is the presence of a heating element in the center of the tube. This reminds me of a vacuum tube where primary electrons from the filament produce secondary thermionic electron emissions emanating from the surface of the cathode. A packed tube cannot work in this way.
Also, the patent states that no zinc is used in the nano-powder.
Contrary to my thorium conjecture, nickel coats the copper tube.
The patent also states that the catalyzer is included in the nickel powder.
And the most puzzling variation of all, the nickel powder can be replaced with copper powder.6. An apparatus according to claim 5,
characterized in that said nickel powder contains
catalyzer materials.
This leads to the possibility that the secret catalzer is the real source of the reaction.13. An apparatus according to claim 5,
characterized in that said nickel powder is replaceable
by a copper powder.
As always, the devil is in the details!
Last edited by Axil on Sun Mar 06, 2011 12:23 am, edited 2 times in total.
Rossi has stated that one gram of nickel can produce the same power as 517 kilograms oil.
Now, 1g of nickel is 1.03e22 Ni nuclei. 517 kilograms oil is 21.65 GJ or 13.51e22 MeV, therefore this amounts to energy release of 13 MeV per nickel nuclei.
This is implausible. But nickel may not be the only power source at play here. Ohter sources of power remain unspoken.
Only a small amount of energy may be coming from the fusion of nickel. What is more plausible is that a majority of this LENR power is coming from some unknown quantity of thorium nuclei whose energy production potential is about 200MeV per reaction.
The nickel fusion might just be a source for low energy neutrons whose primary target is the thorium thermionic electron emitter. I have a growing believe that thorium is Rossi’s secret catalyst.
Now, 1g of nickel is 1.03e22 Ni nuclei. 517 kilograms oil is 21.65 GJ or 13.51e22 MeV, therefore this amounts to energy release of 13 MeV per nickel nuclei.
This is implausible. But nickel may not be the only power source at play here. Ohter sources of power remain unspoken.
Only a small amount of energy may be coming from the fusion of nickel. What is more plausible is that a majority of this LENR power is coming from some unknown quantity of thorium nuclei whose energy production potential is about 200MeV per reaction.
The nickel fusion might just be a source for low energy neutrons whose primary target is the thorium thermionic electron emitter. I have a growing believe that thorium is Rossi’s secret catalyst.