Songsheng Jiang Discovers the Forgiving Nature of the E-Cat (Hank Mills)

The following post was submitted by Hank Mills

Cold Fusion devices have long been known to be temperamental. If one variable is out of place, no excess heat may be produced. The unforgiving nature of LENR seemed to extend to the E-Cat, and recently replicators around the world have been trying – for the most part – building reactors according to fairly strict parameters based on the Lugano Report.

Now, however, Chinese test data from Songsheng Jiang seems to throw to the wind many preconceived notions of what is required to replicate the “Rossi Effect.”

Songsheng Jiang, a member of the Ni-H Research Group at the China Institute of Atomic Energy in Beijing, recently published a presentation entitled, “New result of anomalous heat production in hydrogen-loaded metals at high temperature.” In the report, he describes a test setup, reactor body, and fuel composition that strays considerably from what is considered to be optimum for the production of excess heat.

During the test that spanned several days, enormous bursts of excess heat were produced. Importantly, these bursts of heat were located specifically in the fueled innermost core of the reactor – away from the resistor. During other periods of the test, a constant temperature differential was produced in which the core maintained a much higher temperature than the area near the resistor. All evidence points to the excess heat being nuclear in origin.

The enormous amounts excess heat was produced in a system far different than many others that have been utilized by replicators. Here is a partial list of the differences.

Fuel – Instead of using carbonyl nickel (which Andrea Rossi seems to use according to Scanning Electron Microscope images provided in the Lugano Report) a non-carbonyl nickel powder was utilized. The exact type of nickel powder has not been disclosed. Additionally, the LiAlH4 (Lithium Aluminum Hydride) powder along with the nickel was not ball milled, ground with a mortar and pestle, or processed in anyway.

Supplemental Hydrogen – Throughout the test at different points, hydrogen gas was added via a tank. This increased the pressure inside the reactor. However, the excess heat continued to be produced both at positive and negative pressure.

Input – Instead of using AC current (dirty chopped up alternating current with high frequency harmonics are said to be potentially optimal) DC current was used.

Reactor Structure – Instead of using an alumina reactor tube, he designed a setup which was a little more like a Russian nesting doll. The inner most reactor was composed of a rectangular nickel box that contained the fuel. This box was inserted into a cylindrical reactor casing composed of stainless steel. Around the stainless steel, there was a ceramic tube. This is very different to the Lugano Report or Parkhomov’s replications.

These differences are very significant, and the fact that the setup produced obvious excess heat, despite all of these changes is astounding. One of the only parameters that stayed the same was the fact nickel powder and LiAlH4 were used. This makes me think that the Ni-LiAlH4 “Hot Cat” may be a much more forgiving and merciful technology than we previously imagined.

If successful replications can be made using a wider variety of materials, types of nickel powder, and power input, then we may see a diversity of replications coming in the future. Researchers will be able to use more of what they have on hand rather than having to order specialized parts. Alumina tubes, for an example, are not a requirement. A simple length of stainless steel pipe may work. Or, if a replicator doesn’t have carbonyl nickel, any type of nickel with a small particle size may work.

Another issue of flexibility when it comes to the E-Cat is how a reactor can be turned on and off – allowed to cool all the way down to room temperature and be restarted. So far, only Andrea Rossi has been capable of doing this and producing the same level of excess heat.

One possible reason for this is that the re-crystallization and solidification of the melted or gaseous fuel could somehow harm the ability of the reactor to produce excess heat when turned back on. Andrea Rossi seems to have found a way to do this without any degradation of the fuel or a reduction in excess heat. Maybe there is some small amount of additive he is using or processing method that allows the reactor to be restarted. We really do not know the answer, but we may find it with additional testing.

Could there be something truly special and almost miraculous about the combination of nickel and lithium aluminum hydride? If extremely high levels of excess heat can be obtained in systems that are totally unoptimized, I can only begin to image what Andrea Rossi may be capable of. He has had years to perfect this recipe – figuring out what factors enhance the effect and which ones do not – and his results could very well be mind boggling. If nothing else, this tells me that the Ni-LiAlH4 replication arena is wide open. Hopefully, more and more tests will take place in the days, weeks, and months to come.

Hank Mills

  • Atomic

    Maybe the whole LENR thing is not so complicated as muons, other particles and stuff.
    If we think simple about LENR the first thing that comes to mind is the atomic hydrogen and it’s recombination when in contact with a metal surface. In this case the only metal surface is nickel. This was discovered long ago by Langmuir somewhere in the 1920s and later used for atomic hydrogen welding.
    In the last decade several people proposed conceptual devices like William Lyne (the Lyne atomic hydrogen furnace), the MAHG and others but nothing that can be touched and examined like the E-cat. They had the hydrogen circulating in the system whereas Rossi delivered it via the hydride which is neat otherwise a hydrogen bottle accompanying the reactor would be potentially extremely explosive and hard to pass any certification.
    The less the pressure (in the mTor region) the more atomic hydrogen is released so according to this view the pressure inside the reactor has to be close to vacuum.

  • Obvious

    I have no thoughts about magnetism at present. Sure, maybe something to it. I think many replications are ramping power too slow. Forget chemistry, this is nuclear.

  • Albert D. Kallal

    The reactor shown was a rather ROBUST hunk of high strength steel.

    Remember, the MAIN reason why alumina was used in the test is that such system will FAIL VERY close to operating conditions.

    The goal was not to deliver some high pressure vessel, but in fact a VERY FRAGILE device in which any kind overheating would fail FOR SURE!

    The LAST THING Rossi wanted is to ship an exploding pipe bomb based on some nuclear reaction! Such an event would be much like how the Hindenburg killed airship travel. I still much believe in airships, but after the Hindenburg disaster, that ONE event killed the whole industry.

    So using a high quality and HIGH strength pressure vessel is NO DOUBT the way to go here. However, SAFETY issues then become of great concern.

    That Chinese reactor was WELL built – and not some flakily little alumina pipe. However, MUCH MUCH precaution needs to occur since if the reaction where to run away, then you have a VERY powerful bomb casing. So some type of safely value system needs to be in place.

    The ONLY real reason to use fragile alumina pipes is for safety.

    If you have a big honking pressure vessel? Then simply fill it up with darn near ANY kind of nickel powder, sprinkle in some LiAlH4, remove the air, pump in hydrogen and add heat! – you likely get LENR!

    So in a way, it is perhaps quite easy to produce LENR. You need a GOOD strong pressure chamber and not something that is SO very safe.

    Remember Rossi had years to get a working reactor – he likely had MANY explosions – the VERY weak alumina tube used for the test reactor no doubt was used for reasons of safety – it is by nature fragile.

    I have little doubt that using strong robust pressure chamber will increase the odds of success, but also increases the danger of such experiments.

    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • Axil Axil

      The pressure measuring system will blowout long before the metal reactor shell would fail. This system acts as a pressure releif for the reactor shell. A plexiglass window can also be used to stop damage from an explosion.

  • tobalt

    I was just thinking the other day about the big mystery regarding the reproducibility of LENR reactions. One factor seems to be a certain environment which requires certain elements to be present at a particular minimum pressure and temperature. Other than that not much in terms of generally accepted prerequisites have been identified.

    What about muon-catalyzed fusion to explain LENR. There are a number of advantages to this:

    1) the creation of a muon inside the fuel is a sporadical event but becomes more likely the more fuel there is. high temperature/pressure might help to increase the necessary crosssections. I think the necessary negative muon is created predominantly by muon neutrinos (very rare) or decaying negative pions from background radiation.

    2) muon catalyzed fusion is a well-studied and accepted process in the standard model. This and the word “catalyzed” have some resemblence with rossis statements and the name of his device.

    3) no free neutrons are created as in other models. This explains the lack of obvious neutron emission. Still the beta decay of new nuclei and gamma decay should release detectable radiation. Rossi once stated that gamma radiation can be detected close to the ecats.

    4) if the invoked fusion process has a quite specific energy, there might be some kind of reasonance condition for the creation of other muons. This would explain a suppresion of radiation and explain why the reaction persists once triggered. the heat release would occur through inelastic scattering of the muon inside the material in a thermalization process. Again, for this to happen an exceptionally high cross-section is needed.

    Im sorry, I didnt provide any numbering. It was just a seed idea for others to build on with time on their hands.

    • bachcole

      I like it. And couldn’t it be tested by taking a reliably working reactor deep underground?

      This also means, if it is true, that my reactor at 6,700 feet above sea level is going to work better than most other reactors. It could become a certification issue; some reactors would be built for higher altitudes, like water heaters. My newly installed (yesterday) water heater is certified for high altitude.

    • Herb Gillis

      Is it possible that the half-life of muons are increased in close proximity to heavy nuclei (ie. inside the metal lattice)?

      • tobalt

        I dont think so. µ have be studied quite extensively also in bounds states and I think such an effect would have been noticed.

        There was also a nice summary on wiki that covers a lot of the results and has many references. From this starting point, I would say that µcF can only explain LENR, if LENR was to involve some resonant production of µ-. That is however very speculative and I dont know if a solid basis exists for this assumption inside the standard model.

  • Axil Axil

    We get the most EMF simulation from an arc discharge of a sharp short durtion high voltage pulsed current. An eletrode shaped to produce a plasmoid will produce the maximum magnetic pulse. The plasmoid will direct the highly focused magnetic field directly into the fuel.

  • Job001

    One needs recognize the Arrhenius exponential heat release which will deactivate the fuel if a critical sinter temperature is exceeded. Rossi’s cat and mouse model apparently solves this issue.

    One test model would be a tube with minor heat sink followed sequentially by heater, mouse, cat, and main heat sink. The key is the locations and heat pulse to feed the time lags between heater, mouse, cat, and heat discharge.
    In this fashion, the fuel can be prevented from exceeding critical sinter temperature and the COP can be tuned to high levels by the mouse and cat multiplier, say 3 x 5 = 15. Perhaps a dog can be added, 2 x 4 x 5 = 40.
    It looks as if Engineering principles are becoming illuminated and resulting design experiments are underway.

    Simpler than hot fusion, very cool but definitely not cold!

  • Obvious

    I understand the action of the mechanism now. I appreciate Mr. Jiang’s report. I think he will soon understand, too. He is very close, closer than any of the replicators, IMO. Now I need to work out the mechanism properly. No comment on theory for a bit. Going dark.

  • Fly101

    Cannot see the point of some comments, maybe I am missiing something. A steel tube can be used? Of course, Rossi did it. Adding gaseous hydrogen? Rossi did it already. We have seen multiple embodiments of Rossi’s technology, which means that the latitude of possible implementations is indeed wide, and as you say, Rossi had the time to test many more and choose the best ones, and not necessarily presenting those publicly…

    • Axil Axil

      Most experimenters want to replicate Lagano. They confined themselves to the data presented in that report. Their goal is replication, not inovation.

  • Songsheng Jiang and Industrial Heat/Rossi should collaborate. I like the added hydrogen gas bottle to the Hot-Cat design. I would guess that with Jiang’s solid design, refueling (changing the nickel-lithium charge) might not be needed for a very long time. If they could share knowledge of the right fuel mixture, they might make major improvements.

    • Omega Z

      Rossi switched to a hydride to eliminate the hydrogen tank. A hydrogen tank would have created a lot of limitations on who & how the technology could be applied. As to the Nickel, It mutates(Isotopic shifts) and will need replaced periodically. Probably yearly.

  • Axil Axil

    The amount of fuel used in the LENR reactor may be a critical parameter in the robustness of the reaction. In the alumina tube reactor design, only a very small amount of fuel can be tolerated. If too much fuel is used, a blowout occurs. The oxide compound of the containment tube makes the alumina tube hydrogen tight. In the latest MFMP reactor design, only a .3 gram fuel load is used and no blowout occurred. But the reaction was not very vigorous.

    Songsheng Jiang used another approach. His reactor is strong. It can constrain and control far more fuel. His reaction shows bursts of power that are very vigorous. This type of reaction would blowout an alumina tube. But Jianr’s reactor is stainless steel which can resist bursts of high LENR activity. Being a metal, the realitively high heat conductivity and ductilibility of stainless steel will absorb and distribute the bursts of LENR energy more readily than a ceramic tube would thus mitigating the destructive potential of the energy bursts.

    Jianr makes his reactor hydrogen tight by using a ceramic outer container. That ceramic is probably an oxide that keeps the hydrogen that leaks through the stainless steel contained. Like in a nuclear rector, the amount of nuclear active material used is critical to keep the reaction under control. The amount of fuel used must be matched with the strength of the reactor’s ability to contain the reaction.

    But more fuel makes the reaction proportionally more viable. Like fire, a small fire is proportionally harder to manage than a large one. A large reaction will mitigate any flaws in the reactor’s design and/or management.

    A strong reactor design like the tungsten design that I have previously recommenced would be able to hold a large amount of fuel and fully able to contain the energy bursts produced by that large fuel load, A strong metal reactor is the best way to show what LENR can do.

    • builditnow

      Also, perhaps that it is contained in a box, keeping it together, might be a factor. Active areas could spawn other active area.

    • Agaricus

      I don’t really understand Songshen Jiang’s reported use of a stainless steel inner chamber (strong but relatively low MP) enclosed within an alumina shell (weak but higher MP).

      A more logical arrangement would surely be to line a sealed s/s tube with alumina to provide a refractory inner surface that was supported by the steel.

      However, assuming the reactor walls don’t take part in the reaction, tungsten would as you say, probably be a better solution.

  • Herb Gillis

    Irrespective of any doubts about the latest replications, it may be useful to look at the nature of the “first wall” of the reaction vessel. The Chinese study used nickel. The earlier attempts used alumina. The surface porosity and surface roughness of the first wall, which actually contacts the fuel, may be particularly important factors- – especially if melting of fuel ingredients is taking place. Is there any way that the surface porosity and surface roughness of the first wall material (whatever it is) can be measured and compared between different experiments?

  • Mike Henderson

    One of the beauties of the open science movement is that experiments are carried out live and in an extraordinarily accessible format.

    Against that backdrop, let’s consider the Chinese reputation for honesty in industrial, academic and scientific pursuits. This is the culture that brought us melamine tainted baby formula, drywall that outgases sulfur compounds, the coverup of the SARS disease, high incidence of plagiarism and fraud in published research, flooring labeled as compliant with CARB regulations when it reaks of formaldehyde, cheating on the SAT by impersonation using forged passports, and on and on.

    I applaud Andrea Rossi for allowing the Elforsk observations and report. Kudos to Parkhomov for inviting observers and sharing details openly. Thank you to MFMP for encouraging open and accessible science. And thanks to all of the independent researchers who share their work in real time.

    • Surveilz

      That actually makes the Chinese seem tame considering all that’s been revealed about the American Regime since 9/11. I wholeheartedly agree with your last paragraph.

  • Gerard McEk

    Yes, but if you carefully study the Songsheng results, then you will see that the huge surge of heat happens nearly immediately after increasing the DC current. If you also know that there is quite a vacuum heat gap between the coil and the reactor and it therefore should have taken some time to increase the heat in the reactor, then maybe EM influence cannot be dismissed.

    • ecatworld

      Very good point, Gerard. There will be a separate post from Hank on this very point soon.

      • MasterBlaster7

        Hank should also address the M-NANOR of Michael Swartz in this separate post. I think that is the best info –on EM influence of LENR– that I have seen.