The Mystery of Andrea Rossi’s Improved E-Cat Formula (Hank Mills)

The following post was submitted by Hank Mills

Andrea Rossi has stated on multiple occasions that the results of the Lugano test has allowed him to make improvements to the low and high temperature E-Cat. These improvements have allowed for both the COP and the periods of self sustain mode to be increased. If we can determine what changes have been made to the formula, then replicators may be able to successfully demonstrate excess heat more easily.

We know that it appears the percentage of Ni62 increased in the fuel of the Lugano reactor. The exact mechanism for this phenomena is unknown. However, it’s interesting to note that as the test continued, the excess heat produced increased. It is possible that the percentage of excess heat is correlated to the percentage of Ni62. However, buying nickel enriched in Ni62 is expensive, and pure Ni62 is even more outrageous in cost. Andrea Rossi could potentially salvage enriched nickel from reactors that have ran for long periods of time, process the metal into carbonyl nickel, and use this to fuel his reactors. But this could be a tedious process that may not be practical for a small business. Also, to build millions of units – like it wants to do for the home E-Cat – a significant amount of Ni-62 would be required. I don’t think they can produce a sufficient quantity of enriched nickel. This rules out increasing the amount of Ni-62 to improve the formula.

We know that the interaction of a proton and Li7 is claimed to be the primary source of energy in the E-Cat. If this is the case, using a form of LiAlH4 with only Li7 and no Li6 could be an option. However, I’m not sure if such a chemical exists in commercial quantities. Lithium hydroxide enriched to over 99% Li7 is available, but a small quantity costs thousands of dollars. Since 92% of ordinary lithium is already Li7, increasing the percentage may not produce a significant increase in excess heat. This rules out increasing the amount of Li7 to improve the formula.

We know that a large amount of aluminum exists in the fuel. When the lithium and aluminum in the fuel melts, it smothers the nickel particles. One theory of how the E-Cat produces excess heat is that hydrogen atoms are absorbed into the nickel. Sometimes the protons of the hydrogen atoms cause transmutations in the nickel. Other times, the protons are shot out at high speed. These protons are thought to interact with the lithium to produce alpha particles that produce massive excess heat as their kinetic energy is lost in the reactor. According to Ikegami and other researchers, it is possible to increase the expected rate of nuclear reactions between protons and lithium atoms if the lithium is in the molten form. Other researchers, such as those involved with the Unified Gravity corporation, have also produced high rates of nuclear reactions between protons and lithium atoms. Something about lithium – which a scientist such as Ikegami could explain far better than myself – seems to allow it to undergo nuclear reactions millions of times what is expected under certain conditions. Aluminum doesn’t, as far as I know, have such a rate enhancement factor.

I propose the hypothesis that the aluminum in the fuel mix undergoes far fewer nuclear reactions than lithium due to the lack of a nuclear rate enhancement factor. The main purpose of the aluminum may be to scavage oxygen and other gases from the reactor. Aluminum does have a larger “nuclear cross section” than lithium, but that would not make up for the enormous rate enhancements documented by Ikegami and other scientists. The aluminum in the fuel may simply get in the way and block protons from interacting with the lithium. The large nuclear cross section of aluminum may only make the situation worse. Protons may hit aluminum, not under go a nuclear reaction, and then lose kinetic energy.

My guess is that Andrea Rossi has reduced the amount of LiAlH4 used in his reactor and replaced a portion of it with another lithium compound that does not contain aluminum. One possible compound is lithium hydroxide. At high temperatures, the lithium in LiOH would be released along with the oxygen and hydrogen. The released hydrogen would not result in a problem – hydrogen is a fuel and the oxygen would be scavanged by the aluminum in the LiAlH4.

Although replacing some of the LiAlH4 with lithium hydroxide would reduce the amount of hydrogen in the reactor, I do not think this would be a problem. I do not think a Ni-LiAlH4 reactor utilizes even a fraction of the hydrogen that is released. The amount of LiAlH4 could be gradually reduced until the amount of Al is no longer sufficient to lock up the oxygen and other unwanted gases in the reactor. By reducing the amount of Al and increasing the amount of Li, more nuclear reactions could take place.

In my mind, this is the most obvious improvement to the fuel that could be made.

– It would not be insanely expensive like using enriched Ni62.
– It could possibly result in a much larger gain of energy than using Li7 enriched LiAlH4.
– It could be done easily at a low cost.

So what could be a good mixture of nickel, lithium aluminum hydride, and lithium hydroxide to test?

I think a comparison of 90% nickel and 10% lithium aluminum hydride to 90% nickel, 5% lithium aluminum hydride, and 5% lithium hydroxide would be interesting.

I want to warn everyone that this is pure conjecture. I have no proof to back up this hypothesis. However, I think it makes logical sense.

Hank Mills

  • pelgrim108

    Do you have a website or youtube channel or something to follow your progress?

    • wizkid

      Not yet. Hope to very soon though. Thanks for asking 😉

  • Stephen

    Does any one know what form Lithium takes in liquid state ? Is it a Li2 molecule like liquid Hydrogen H2? Star Trek coincidences aside I’m wondering if internal conversion of an excited nucleus in covalent bound lithium like this would result in an election emission or if the energy would be shared vibrationaly or kinetically between the atoms?

    • Andreas Moraitis

      It tends to form Li2 in the gaseous state. However, this “dilithium” is not the same as the fictional substance from Star Trek.

      • Stephen

        Yup its nice it appears there though… too bad its not crystals then I would feel really spooked 😉

        The question is more about if internal conversion of an excited nucleus can be transferred through a covalent bond particularly if the binding electron is in a light element such as Lithium and if the molecule is in the X ground state covalent bond state.

        In the case of a free atom Internal conversion would normally result in the emission of a K shell or M Shell electron, or possibly indirectly an Auger electron emission.

        I suppose external conversion due to the photo electric effect of gamma can also be relevant

        The excited Nucleus state would result from a Neutron or absorption of a gamma if the right states and parity conservation are maintained. In the case of beta decay electron capture or Proton absorption it would be more complex as in this case the atom would change type as well as have a higher energy state.

        Im also wondering if the change in mass of an excited nucleus can due to Neutron or Gamma absorption, and subsequent transition to ground state can impact the energy levels of the electrons via the isotope effect. And then if and electron is trapped in a low energy state lower than required for the K shell if this can stimulate internal conversion or something. But this is another matter and more speculative.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          I wonder if the lithium atoms could form clusters, in analogy to the hydrogen clusters which have been found by Santilli. Perhaps even combined lithium-hydrogen clusters are an option. The outer electrons of these clusters could reach very high energies, possibly high enough to enable electron capture by a nearby proton.

          • Stephen

            Interesting idea. There could be some interesting parallels with Hydrogen and Lithium may introduce some other properties especially as Lithium seems important in LENR somehow. Thanks for mentioning Santili as well, I need to read more about him and Hydrogen Clusters. I’m still learning a lot about all this. I also read in Wiki that larger molecule clusters of Lithium exist the most common being Li6. I suppose these are traditionally bonded and therefore different than the MagneHydrogen clusters discovered by Santilli which use a magnetic bond but I wonder if they are in fact MagneHydrogen clusters?

            • Stephen

              I found another interesting bond type on the internet that is different than the MagneHydrogen. The bond type here is based on vibration and involves a light atom trapped between 2 heavier atoms. Still it is interesting and came to mind because of Andreas’s Idea about Lithium-Hydrogen clusters.

              It also refers to an “Isotope effect” but this is different to the effect mentioned in my post above and rather refers to the different isotopes used in their test.

              http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2014/10/isotope-effect-produces-new-type-chemical-bond

          • Obvious

            Perhaps if Li9 were to capture two H atoms as orbitals in place of electrons, these could decay to two neutrons and become Li11, which could hold the pair of neutrons long enough to then be released as a pair to nickel. Not sure where the. Li9 would come from, though. Or about the rest. But the release of a pair of neutrons from Li11 is more favourable than single neutrons.

  • Axil Axil

    I believe that hydrogen Rydberg matter is important to the E Cat. How can this stuff be manufactured?

    Decompose water with a DC electric current. Separate the oxygen and the hydrogen based on polarity of the DC current. Fill a balloon with the hydrogen. Put the balloon aside until it no longer is lighter than air. The hydrogen will have all permeated through the wall of the balloon leaving the hydrogen rydberg crystals inside the balloon. Use this heavier than air gas in the reactor.

    • Stephen

      Hi Axil, would you have a good source to explain what Rydberg hydrogen is? I understood Rydberg atoms had highly excited electron states but probably I am on the wrong track in this context?

      • Axil Axil

        http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1002/1002.1570.pdf

        See the reference list

        Rydberg hydrogen is the solid crystal form of hydrogen.

        http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a6/RMclusterW.jpg

        • Stephen

          Thank for this Axil as always. You find really good information. Its really interesting. There is a lot to read here but it’s a really good explanation. Alot of good references to go through too 🙂

          I since the crystals are planar I wonder if they would stack through Santilli magnehydrogen bonds mentioned by Andreas above?

          • Axil Axil

            They stack is long strings to form a nanowire. The same is true for water clusters. These water clusters give cavitation its LENR nature.

            • Stephen

              Wow it gets more and more interesting thanks again.

  • oaklandthinktank

    Yup, yer wandering toward something. 🙂 In earlier posts, I’d recommended LiH and ammonia salts, with a set of frequencies… definitely not what Rossi is doing, but maybe he’ll read this, and try it. I was puzzling over a vortex model… much to hypothesize, and the e-cat, like newcomen’s engine, is only a first pass through the design space. I’m also still ardent that a carbon substrate is best for heat sink and phonon coherence… pyrolysis and Ni(CO)4 deposition can be fed into each other, to facilitate mass-production or DIY mini-rigs. (pyro -> CO + heat -> Ni(CO)4 -> char coated in nickel!) I am often reminded how sci-fi inspires research… we need more wild speculation, to find the wild truth!

  • LuFong

    Axil Axil,

    I’m glad to see some questions about the cat and mouse configuration. It’s been very perplexing to me and it probably has changed somewhat as well since Rossi has talked about it at length. Two additional Rossi quotes for you to consider (If not already):

    Frank Acland
    October 8th, 2014 at 11:21 AM

    Dear Andrea,
    Congratulations on another report that demonstrates the reality of your invention!

    One question: The reactor we see in the report — is this the cat, the mouse, or the cat and mouse combined?

    Many thanks,
    Frank Acland

    Andrea Rossi
    October 8th, 2014 at 12:07 PM

    Frank Acland:

    Thank you.
    All combined,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Curiosone
    October 11th, 2014 at 7:23 AM

    Dr Rossi,
    I do not know if you can answer to this question, if not please spam it.

    Does the Hot Cat like the one tested by the Independent Third Party have
    two separated charges, one for the Mouse and one for the Cat ?

    W.G.

    Andrea Rossi
    October 11th, 2014 at 6:21 PM

    Curiosone:
    No, the charge is the same, we have only one charge in that kind of reactor; by the way: if the ssm is not adopted, the distinction between Cat and Mouse vanishes.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • Axil Axil

      Since the Cat and the Mouse are the same, and the mouse has a COP just over 1, then the Cat must also have a COP that also is just over 1. If follows that all powered Dogbone reactors must have a COP just over one. To get a COP of 3 or more SSM must be invoked. It is no wonder that experimenors are having their problems getting their COP up beyond the error range.

      • LuFong

        In other posts, Rossi states that the COP of the mouse is 1.02. It difficult to believe that that Rossi would turn over a device that demonstrates excess heat that can only achieve this level of COP. Hence I believe that the Lugano device, which by the way includes both the mouse and the cat, is capable of a far higher COP than near 1 (beyond experimental error), as necessary to demonstrate excess heat, even without ssm. In typical operation, with the mouse activating ssm in the cat, it may however still be true that the COP of the mouse is only 1.02.

        The claim by Rossi that the Lugano device includes the mouse and the cat, and other statements that the mouse and cat are well separated is interesting. Is the mouse the tube and the heating wire or is the mouse some element of the fuel mixture which activates other elements in the fuel? Since the mouse is on all the time, it must be somewhat in a lower potency since it is important for the mouse not to excite the cat too much.

        This is all really perplexing to me which is why I would like to see some demonstrably working Ecat like device. Then the experiments can begin.

        • Axil Axil

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox

          Was Einstein right after all? The control of the Cat by the mouse might be and example of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) quantum mechanics steering.

          There is no measurement involved as required by the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. The mouse actually drives the Cat into a complementary quantum mechanical state, no measurement necessary. Rossi’s Cat and mouse could blow quantum mechanics apart. The Cat and mouse might share hidden local variables or the speed of entanglement might be confirmed as instantanious.. There might be a few Nobel prizes to be had in this Mouse and Cat situation.

          • Axil Axil

            Rossi might have solved the E Cat control issue by dummying down the Dogbone reactor to just above a COP of 1. The power of the mouse might be adjustable by adding more fuel to the fuel load that drives the mouse. If to much fuel is added to the mouse, it simply blows apart. In the Lagano test he added as much fuel to the fuel load as he dared. He feared that the mouse would blow out because of the heavy fuel load so he supplied a number of spear reactors to the Lagano testers.

            But Rossi found during product development that he could multiply the power of the “Mouse” by N times by adding N numbers of Cat elements as driven by a weakly powered mouse, a mouse with a weak fuel load. Rossi calls this Mouse and Cat coupling a resonance or his music. The Mouse actually becomes quantum mechanically entangled with each Cat element added to the reactor cluster. If you want a COP of 10, just add 10 non powered Cat elements to surround the mouse driver to form a Reactor Cluster. The Cat actually produces a high COP than the Mouse does and that surprised and pleased Rossi greatly.

            http://thumbs2.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/mwc9IdmzwG6sAzvSjNZbhNw.jpg

            • LuFong

              Rossi has stated elsewhere that there is one mouse per cat. Of course this could have now changed but at the time I’m sure he at least considered this obvious configuration.

              • Axil Axil

                Rossi says that his COP is 40 to 80. The only why for that to happen is if there are more Cats than mice.

                • LuFong

                  What about clustering of reactors, with mouse exciting the cat, and then additional reactors exciting other cats as well?

                • Axil Axil

                  That is where the aforementions clusture picture comes from. One or a few mice and many Cats.

                • pelgrim108

                  Axil, it just occurred to me that, as you show with the picture, if the mouse is the middle tube with 8 identical tubes around it, then, in SSM the middle tube would stay hot for longer time. You have said that something to the effect that LENR+ thrives with temperature differences. Could it be then that the mouse is just the middle one of the 9 tubes?

                • Axil Axil

                  Yes, that is the cluster configuation that I think is possible.

        • pelgrim108

          If I remember correctly, Rossi talked about the coil being doped. So my money is on the special current producing apparatus plus the special coil being the mouse. I think the mouse was born when a ordinairy coil made place for the doped coil plus special current. Is there a reason why this is contrary to earlier statements from Dr. Rossi?

          • Axil Axil

            Rossi said:

            No, the charge is the same, we have only one charge in that kind of reactor; by the way: if the ssm is not adopted, the distinction between Cat and Mouse vanishes.

            The Mouse and the Cat must be the same…they are both identical reactors

            • LuFong

              Well yes this statement by Rossi is bothersome but in the grand scheme of Rossi’s pronouncements doesn’t rule out the alternate explanation given by pelgrim108. Rossi was quite clear however that the Lugano device was the mouse and cat ‘combined.’ Again this is up to some intepretation unfortunately.

              • Axil Axil

                If the Cat is identical to the mouse, then a single reactor could be concidered as a conbined “function”. The difference arises in SSM mode where the mouse is powered and the Cat is not powered.

                • LuFong

                  You keep saying that the Cat is identical to the mouse and that they are the same, but I believe the only statement we have is that the charges are the same. And this could be interpreted that there is only one charge.

                  I’m not saying your interpretation can’t be correct, only that there are others that make more sense to me (like the mouse being the doped coil).

                • Axil Axil

                  Why would Rossi put fuel inside the coil when he has suel inside the reactor? Such a design seems overily comlicates and unworkable.

                • LuFong

                  Control and Leverage. It may be easier to control the mouse and having the mouse separate from the the cat allows the mouse to excite the cat but not too much. Moreover the mouse can be “smaller” than the cat which allows the cat’s inefficiency of COP to not hurt the overall efficiency of the reactor which would be dominated by the much larger (and in SSM) cat.

                • Axil Axil

                  Rossi said that the Cat and Mouse are the same except is SSM mode.

                • LuFong

                  Rossi said, “No, the charge is the same, we have only one charge in that kind of
                  reactor; by the way: if the ssm is not adopted, the distinction between
                  Cat and Mouse vanishes.” Distinction could be operating mode but does not to me imply they are “the same” literally.

            • pelgrim108

              Thanks for that. If the coil is doped with lithium and hydrogen, or is hollow and has a charge inside then with some effort I can see these statements not contradicting my view on what is the mouse.
              What is your view on the ridiculous 1.02 cop number ( I can only see such a number in relation to a coil.)

              • LuFong

                Just as an aside, Rossi gave the 1.02 number. The 1.02 number was repeated to Rossi in later questions and Rossi never corrected it. So we can probably state that the the mouse, in intended operation, operates just over unity. It doesn’t mean that it is limited to 1.02.

                • Axil Axil

                  Rossi adjust the power of the reactor by adjusting the amount of fuel he uses in it fuel charge.

              • Axil Axil

                I beleive that in self sustain mode that the mouse provides quantum entranglement to all Cats in irs neighborhood. This is my understanding of Rossi’s music and resonance references.

                • pelgrim108

                  So if there is no difference, as you see it, then, what makes a mouse a mouse is the focus it gets from the coil. Emf is directed to the mouse and mouse tickels the other cats in the neihgberhood.

                • Axil Axil

                  The mouse is the activator of the Cats around it.

          • LuFong

            This is my suspicion too. That the mouse is the coil/reactor tubing that excites the fuel within into a SSM. The coil/tubing is also probably much easier to control.

            I think Rossi’s statements are very difficult to understand so there is always a case that can be made that anything is consistent with or contrary to what Rossi said. Still I think this may be the best explanation.

  • http://lenr-coldfusion.com/ Jack Cole

    Hank,

    Not a bad hypothesis. I have been doing this in recent experiments (increasing the lithium load by including LiOH in addition to LAH). The good thing about this is that it is a way to increase the lithium availability without increasing the pressure in the cell.

  • Skip
    • wpj

      Form a chemist’s point of view, much more likely. There is also the hexa form of LAH, where the amount of aluminium is reduced.

  • Frederic

    Hank :
    Thanks for your reply.

    If what you say is true, so what for nickel (Ni62) would have to be recycled (Andrea Rossi said nickel can be recycled after use inside the e-cat)?
    Best wishes
    FM

  • James Andrew Rovnak

    Sounds very good to me Hank. I think the path from Ni58 to Ni62 can easily be traced, & Stephen will verify that shortly. As Larsen shows in his beautiful graphs the isotope path is understood by those who work out the decay time and path, i believe although I’ve only used their results in dynamic modeling of fission & isotope path & time constants they publish. Don’t know how they do it they just do I guess.The following by Larsen on nuclear burning of coal fascinates me so I share it here.

    https://twitter.com/JAROVNAK/status/607301327581016064

    Actually the path of all the Lugano ash back to fresh fuel should be able to be reconstructed I think as it has been done for fuel elements end of life cycle in nuclear plants decay heat process. I’ve never done it myself but have used the isotope chain reaction tree provided by experts in that area in dynamic studies years ago in my working career!

    • Stephen

      Hi Jim, thanks for confidence and its amazing to look into but I need to catch up a bit my physics to fully understand the trace. I’m definetly still learning a lot of physics from people like yourself and Axil, and Andreas and Artifact etc. I like both the neutron capture approach and the proton capture approach as outlined in BoB Greenyers Amazing spread sheet and LENR G amazing analysis.

      It seems to me that they each have advantages and disadvantages. They seem to be able to explain the isotopes but a better study would look at these decay rates and absorption rates to try and see if the abundances match. In both cases though they need to reconcile conservation of parity and nucleus status and the change in binding energy after the nucleons absorption. I suppose the conversion of gamma produced by a heavy electron or internal conversion might help explain this.

      If some of the reactions are also endothermic it might resolve some of the concerns that have been raiesd by some about the amount of observed COP.

      The temperature versus power plots for the MFMP test did seem to show some interesting fine structure power fluctuations after 200 deg C compared to the calibration run.

  • Ted-X

    My guess is that LiCO3 (lithium carbonate) and LiAlH4 were used in a ratio from about 1:5 to about 1:10. Justification: The presence of CO2 under the hot cat conditions causes creation of CO (a thermodynamic equilibrium of LiO, Li, CO2 (from LiCO3). CO and H2 (from LiAlH4) react to form CO. CO volatilizes nickel by the formation volatile nickel carbonyls and partial carbonyls (partial carbonyls on the surface of nickel, non-volatile). In the past, it was observed that a compound containing oxygen and carbon (specifically acetone) was increasing the LENR effect. LiCO3 contains carbon and oxygen and the carbon from this compound easily volatilizes as CO2.
    —————————————————————————–
    Pro publico bono.

    • Ted-X

      CO2 + H2 —> CO + H2O
      H2O —> H2 + 1/2 O2 (at high temperatures)
      All these compounds (including the carbonyls of nickel) exist in an equilibrium under conditions of a thermodynamic conditions.

  • Observer

    The conversion to Ni62 is not the main source of heat because, nearly all the Ni was converted to Ni62 while the reaction was showing no signs of reducing output power. Nowhere does Rossi state that he intentionally provided only enough fuel for 30 days. The original test was suppose to last 6 months, but the third party scientists decided there was no advantage to running the test an additional 5 months.

    • Omega Z

      No, the Original proposal by the 3rd party after the 1st test was 6 months.
      The Lugano test was predetermined to last about 30 days. I believe Rossi said the fuel charge was provide for 32 or 34 days. That might even be stated in the Lugano test report.

  • http://www.drboblog.com Doctor Bob

    What about the cross section of Aluminium?
    Irrelevant?

  • MasterBlaster7

    Hey Hank…correct me if I’m wrong….but I thought that portions of the Lugano report were held back on request of Rossi. Meaning that we do not have ALL of his secret spices. If that is true, it might be futile to try to spit ball an optimum set up for the e-cat until someone can get a-hold of a commercial version and do spectral analysis on the secret spices.

    • Omega Z

      MB
      Tho not originally intended, I believe all of the report was released.
      KEEP in Mind, That because of the spectral analysis, Rossi has changed the fuel composition to be more optimum.

      • MasterBlaster7

        Hey Omega…Do you have some link to where it says that ALL of the report was released? I seem to remember reading that Rossi requested that some things be held back so as not to give away the secret spices.

        But, do we know what Rossi changed that fuel composition too? Changes could be based on “released spices” + “still secret spices”

        I dunno…I just think it is folly to try and form conclusions with incomplete information.

        I bet Rossi is kicking back laughing at the replication attempts. He is probably thinking “if I told you about this..and this other thing…you would have no problem with replication”. It is also a good gauge for Rossi to see where his competition is. After all it is a business plan.

        I think replication is a good idea. But I also think the Lugano report (regarding replication) should be taken with a grain of salt.

        I dont see Mitchell Swartz over at Jet energy saying…”oh thank goodness Rossi showed us the missing pieces”

      • James Andrew Rovnak

        Sounds good to me, anxious for more resolution of this in the near future by MFMP testing & further ash analysis!

  • Bob Cook

    I assume the cross section discussed by Hank is for proton – Al interactions as well as proton interactions with other nuclei such as Li 6 or Li 7. These cross sections are most likely a function of the velocity (energy) of the proton interacting with any other nucleus. Al- proton cross sections would be very small IMHO given the large positive charge of the Al nucleus. However, resonant cross sections for Li-7 and a proton may be quite large. The particular resonance(s) (energy of the proton). for the Li 7-proton interaction would be interesting to know. How the local B magnetic fields change these resonances for Li and Protons aligned along the B field would also be of interest to a LENR reactor designer.

    It may be possible to design thermal, electric, magnetic and size of particles of the fuel system to create the desired resonances. Iron may be a desirable addition to act as a material to increase the local B magnetic fields that change the proton-Li resonances or alignment.

    An Al blanket surrounding the Ni fuel particle may be what is required to keep the flux of protons high within the fuel particle and hence to stimulate interaction with the Li-7. The Al would act as a reflector for the protons much like a mirror reflects photons.

    Fission reactors incorporate neutron reflectors around the entire core and sometimes wirhin core locales to reflect the neutrons and maintain a desirable flux at fissile materqals. Neutron absorbers are also used locally within a fission reactor to reduce neutron flux and the high temperatures which would otherwise happen.

    Bob Cook

    • Andreas Moraitis

      One (perhaps absurd) idea: In graphene, the energies of the conduction electrons are proportional to their momentum, instead of the square of their momentum. Could a similar effect be possible for protons on a metal surface, so that they could reach very high velocities at comparatively low energies? If so, wouldn’t that increase the likelihood of fusion reactions?

    • wizkid

      Good point.

  • Gerard McEk

    I like these speculative ideas Hank, please go on with it. It will trigger others and that will lead to multiple ideas and will narrow the development gap between Rossi and us quickly.

  • Valeriy Tarasov

    On my opinion we can speculate, that the improvement can be the usage of LiBH4 instead of LiAlH4. Why? The reason is that boron 11B (natural content – 11B (80.1%) and 10B (19.9%)) is also (as Li) the source of alpha particle in result of interaction with proton. Wiki – “11B is also a candidate as a fuel for aneutronic fusion. When struck by a proton with energy of about 500 keV, it produces three alpha particles and 8.7 MeV of energy.”

    • Omega Z

      But before trying other elements, It would be best to replicate the Lugano test first.

  • Steve H

    On a side note, but distantly related.
    Could it be possible to mathematically model some of the hypothesi’s surrounding LENR.
    This link should take you to an article in Wired magazine regarding AI modeling of complex scientific anomalies.
    http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-06/05/computer-develops-scientific-theory-independently