• Alan DeAngelis

    Just another stupid thought. There’s a lot of chromium in Parkhomov’s ash.

    http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/sochiparkhomov.jpg
    Although the Coulomb barrier in the following reaction would be huge, I wonder if there is a chance of it happening in a cavity in the nickel cavity.
    Could the aluminum have some halo nucleus behavior?

    Al(27) + Al(27) > Cr(50) + He(4) 13.4 MeV

    • Alan DeAngelis

      ..a cavity in the nickel lattice.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      and

      Al(27) + Al(27) > Ti(46) + He(4) + He(4) 4.9 MeV

      • Alan DeAngelis

        And while I’m at it, a little more nonsense:

        Al(27) + Li(7) > Si(30) + He(4) 19.7 MeV

        Al(27) + Li(6) > Si(29) + He(4) 16.4 MeV

    • Alan DeAngelis

      and

      Al(27) + Al(27) > Si(30) + Mg(24) 3.97 MeV

  • Zack Iszard

    I will soon be running a brand new NexION ICP-MS system, so if at all possible I will attempt to donate instrument time to provide additional data points for this effort.

    I would ball-park the nearest time I could handle sample material for this purpose is 3 months to be safe. I would probably need only a gram (tops) of powder packed under argon, and I would have all else needed.

    I will post periodically in chemistry-related posts with updates on the degree of my instrument access. I have been managing an LC-MS/MS recently, so I am eager to expand my MS horizons!

  • Bob Greenyer

    Analysis from “DAK” captured into the Live document

    “This is an expanded area of the SIMS data taken from the ash of the Padua sample. Note the numerous peaks at the nominal masses. The peak at m/z 57 was especially interesting. If it were Fe-57, then the ratio of Fe56/Fe57 would be very far off. However, note that the exact mass for Fe56 is very close to correct (also for Co59, indicating that the calibration was OK – blue diamonds show the expected position), whereas the exact mass for m/z 57 is too high. This indicates that it cannot be Fe57 but is more likely a complex ion of CaOH, whose calculated mass is shown. Also, note the large number of peaks with mass excess (mass greater than nominal). In this mass range this is unusual and can be attributed to hydrocarbon peaks.

    A similar analysis can be done at m/z 63-65 for copper. The ratio of nominal masses is incorrect. However, closer inspection indicates that the masses are not copper but hydrocarbons as they all show mass excess.

    Thus, just looking at nominal mass would lead one to believe that transmutation had occurred as the hydrocarbon and molecular ion peaks would provide incorrect ratios for elements in this range. That is why SIMS needs to be analyzed VERY carefully. In this case [ for this region – ed.], one is mostly looking at background with no evidence of transmutation.”

    It is therefore very important to have a null TOF-SIMS and perhaps use a substrate other than Carbon tape – and of course longer integration times. Then to do ICP-MS on it also.

  • SD

    @bobgreenyer:disqus Any plans to meet me356 this month? Thanks

    • Bob Greenyer

      I have made myself available – and he knows.

      I have also offered to arrange testing of ash from reactors where he thinks he may have seen clear signs of LENR – this would require no disclosure of process.

      I am waiting for a response.

  • Bob Greenyer

    I am no expert but I did this.

    UOM determined the Parkhomov LiAlH4 fuel component to have a 7Li/6Li ratio of 12.48 (average from five runs)

    Parkhomov’s precedent independent testing by Vernadsky Institute of the Parkhomov LiAlH4 fuel component shows it to have a 7Li/6Li ratio of 12.51

    Both of the above testing was done by ICP-MS

    The Padua Cell ash by my calculation from the raw Danish university TOF-SIMS has a 7Li/6Li ratio of 9.96

    Yes, I know they are not directly comparable.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Attached is the amount of Lithium determined by Parkomov arranged independent ICP-MS

  • Bob Greenyer

    I sampled

    6Li 6.010182 – 6.300047
    3752

    7Li 6.998976 – 7.300138
    37355

    7Li ratio
    37355/41107=0.90873

    6Li ratio
    3752/41107=0.09127

    Since we know from previous ICP-MS testing that the Lithium ratio was natural in Parkhomov LiAlH4, then the relative amount of 6Li has increased by

    0.091 / 0.075 = 1.213

    Relative 6Li proportion may have increased by over 21%

    Sputter cleaning and much longer integration times are important now, as is an expert eye to discount other potential 6 and 7 masses such as [6Li, 7Li] [H, D] and 12C++ and 14C++ and 12CH2++

  • Bob Greenyer

    Here is the data as CSV and ODS https://goo.gl/ue6DcW

  • Bob Greenyer

    Tester has made some responses in the live document which is now embedded in the blog

    http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/523-padua-cell-did-we-bake-a-cake

    Raw data as a compressed ZIP file of a TXT is now here

    https://goo.gl/1qKesR

  • bachcole

    Looking at the graphs, it is not real clear to me if we got transmutation of element or not. Can people with know their a$$e$ from third base on this subject chime in and let us who don’t know their a$$e$ from third base on this subject whether we got transmutation of elements or not.

    • Bob Greenyer

      I think we need the raw data and some questions answered from the testing party

      https://goo.gl/upTm6s

      • bachcole

        Thank you, BG. If the graphs showed greater differences, and the original material, then perhaps I wouldn’t need to ask.

  • tobalt

    without reference data of unused fuel, this data is meaningless.
    also would be good to see errorbars based on multiple portions of the same specimen.

    • kdk

      He posted below that the sample was tested already.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Actually, tobalt makes points about errors, however, what errors, Mass, count rate, ID?

  • Bob Greenyer

    A questions/suggestions/notes document has been started to capture crowd input and post to the testing party

    https://goo.gl/upTm6s

  • Bob Greenyer

    I agree, and given the data from Parkhomov, the precedent Piantelli patent drafted with Focardi and the even more precedent paper from the 2003 Vitorio Violante…

    “The situation is completely changed in the black where the most abundant copper isotope results to be 65Cu with a shift that is 1360%. Such a result reproduces the data obtained with some hours of electrolysis, when a weak emission of X rays was detected, but the effect seems to be enhanced.”

    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ViolanteVanalysisof.pdf

    …the question needs to be asked.

  • pg

    last day of test!!

  • Anon2012_2014

    Bob,

    Did you retain a small sample as the control before running it in the reactor?

    • Bob Greenyer

      We have plenty of the Parkhomov Ni + LiAlH4 held back.

      With regard to the Fuel, it is expected that the following elements at least would be present in their natural isotopic ratios.

      Hydrogen
      Lithium
      Carbon
      Oxygen
      Nitrogen
      Aluminium
      Chlorine
      Nickel
      Some trace Noble gasses

      The cell was loaded in air, hence some of the potential elements above. There was no reaction vessel – so no steel. The reactor in this case was 99.8% Coorstek Alumina (Al2O3)

      The fuel was 100% Parkhomov Ni and LiAlH4 – several analysis were conducted on this fuel and published already, one by Parkhomov, and 4 via us

      1. Ubaldo Mastromatteo (SEM EDX)

      2. Edmund Storms (SEM EDX)

      3. University of Missouri (ICPMS)

      4. Earthtech (ICPMS)

      Therefore, the fuel is very well characterised.

      The Nickel was found to be natural isotopic ratio – in some tests it showed some small carbon – but this could be from the analysis approach.

      The Lithium was found to be natural isotopic ratio and contained Chlorine which is a residue left from the production of LiAlH4.

      You can see links to tests of the fuel on our main blog.

      http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/523-padua-cell-did-we-bake-a-cake

      • Anon2012_2014

        If you have an uncooked sample it might be good to run it through the same TOF machine so as to eliminate variation in machine calibration and minor uncooked sample normal variation from the natural mean for each ion mass percentage.

        • Bob Greenyer

          yes.

  • Sam Hansson

    Not intending to comment on the transmutational data but happy to read other comments and expertise, but always grateful for the very hard effort put in by the MFMP

    Instead I would like to ask authors to elaborate on the statement “there were signs that the active side ran hotter than the null side”. Please define what is meant by that and what conclusions you draw by that.

    • Andrew

      There was indications of excess heat however it was within the margin of error.

    • nietsnie

      In case ‘active side’ and ‘null side’ seem confusing, this has to do with the way the experiment was built. There are essentially two reactor containers of the same size that are both heated and both measured for temp. One of them contains the ‘active’ fuel that is hoped will demonstrate an energy producing reaction. The other contains a ‘null’ substance, which should not exhibit a reaction. After heating both using the same heater coil, and in the event that the active side measures consistently hotter than the null side, then one way of explaining that result is that LENR occurred within the active side but not the null side – and, of course, that is the hoped for result. However, it is also possible that, in spite of all efforts, there is some other unknown variable that is different between the two sides which accounts for the difference in temp.

    • Bob Greenyer

      nietsnie gives a good overview.

      In the case of this experiment – the Optris showed live that the “active” side was running hotter, no attempt was made to determine an estimate for COP, however, the conclusion was that, despite the plan to do an isotopic analysis on the ash anyway, the case for doing so became a little stronger.