Some Thoughts on the Design and Operation of Rossi’s LENR Reactors (Michael Lammert)

The following article has been submitted by Michael Lammert

Some Thoughts on the Design and Operation of Rossi’s LENR Reactors

 Michael Lammert (AKA Dr. Mike)

7/26/2016

    It is quite an accomplishment that Andrea Rossi has already built a LENR reactor that was able to deliver 1MW of heat for a period of almost one year, whereas many scientists attempting to replicate his results are still trying to demonstrate excess heat in their reactors.  Although everyone following Rossi’s work is certainly disappointed that a report has not yet been released detailing the operation of the 1MW reactor, it appears that Rossi has designed and built a system that has accomplished two fundamental goals:

  • Extracting significant useful heat out of a LENR reactor
  • Operating a LENR reactor in a manner that achieves a high COP

This post examines some of the issues of LENR reactor design relative to useful heat extraction and possible implications on LENR reactor operation based on the achievement of a very high COP.

Heat Transfer in the Ni-H Reactor and Comparisons to Other LENR Reactors

Rossi’s earliest reactors used a fuel of Ni powder, hydrogen gas, plus some other “additives” or “catalysts”.  It is still not known exactly how these early reactors worked and exactly what fusion reactions were taking place within the reactor.  Perhaps the dominant fusion reactions were proton-proton, proton-deuterium, and proton-tritium as claimed to be the fusion reactions in Brillouin Energy’s Q-Pulse reactor, or perhaps the fusion reactions were proton-nickel reactions.  (What happened to the claim that the Ni was being converted to Cu in Rossi’s early reactors?)  Whatever fusion reaction took place in the early reactors, the heat was generated primarily within the lattice of the Ni particles. However, for this heat to be useful it has to be transferred to a reactor wall that is in contact with some medium to be heated.   One of the initial engineering problems to be solved in the design of the LENR reactor is how to extract useful heat (after first learning how to generate that heat).  Conductive heat transfer would be quite small in a Ni powder system because there is minimal contact between Ni particles, and few Ni particles would be in contact with the reactor wall.  Most of the fusion heat generated within the Ni powder will be transferred to the reactor walls through convection, although at very high temperatures radiative heat will also become a factor in heat transfer out of the Ni powder.  The question that needs to be answered is what would the temperature rise be in the center of the Ni powder (or the powder most distant from the reactor wall) relative to the temperature of the reactor outer wall when heat was being generated within the Ni powder at rates of several kilowatts per gram of Ni powder?   Although convective heat transfer would be aided by both the large surface area of the Ni particles and a hydrogen atmosphere, the hottest portion of the Ni powder seemingly could be several hundred degrees Centigrade above the temperature of the outer reactor wall.  Therefore, a basic Ni powder-hydrogen reactor is likely limited in power density and operating temperature by the ability to get heat transferred out of the Ni powder.  What about other LENR reactors?  Do they have a similar heat transfer limitation?

In the Pons-Fleischmann LENR reactor heat was generated by the fusion of deuterium within a palladium electrode that was part of a Pt-Pd heavy water electrolytic cell.  Most likely, this reactor was never commercially developed because of the cost of the materials, the time it took to load the Pd with deuterium, and the effect of trace contamination on keeping the cell operating.  However, extraction of useful heat also would have been an issue with the maximum output temperature being the boiling point of the heavy water.

In Bob Greenyer’s recent post “New Fires 100+ Year Gestation Part 1”, he discusses the patent of a LENR reactor that might be thought of as the plasma version of the Pons-Fleischmann device.  This reactor was developed by Canon Kabushiki Kaisha and is described in the European patent application #93111362.5.  In one application of this patent deuterium ions are generated in a plasma and then are attracted to a biased palladium coated substrate.  At a sufficiently high concentration of deuterium within the Pd coated substrate, deuterium ions will fuse to form He, releasing the heat to the Pd lattice.  The generated heat can be extracted from the backside of the substrate.  Since heat transfer in this reactor design would be primarily through conduction, which would be very efficient for a good thermally conducting substrate, this reactor could theoretically be ran at a temperature close to the melting point of Pd.  However, the fact that this invention has not been commercialized in the 25+ years since it was originally developed, probably indicates that it was difficult to achieve high rates of deuterium fusion within the Pd coated substrate.

One final LENR reactor that is very relevant to Rossi’s more advanced LENR reactors is the Unified Gravity Corporation’s lithium-proton reactor that is discussed on their website and in their patent # WO 2014 / 189799 A9.  In this reactor protons are accelerated to an energy of slightly more than 200eV, then collide with a plasma of lithium ions, resulting in the fusion of the proton with Li7 ions to produce two energetic He particles.  The ~16MeV of energy released in the fusion reaction can be captured by the walls of the reactor via kinetic energy transfer from the He particles.  The work on the Unified Gravity reactor resulted in a couple of important factors adding to the knowledge of LENR, the most important showing that a 200eV proton can fuse with Li7, whereas calculations using classical physics based on Coulomb repulsion would require the proton energy to be about 300KeV before it would fuse with Li7.  This system also demonstrates the potential for a large energy gain achievable in LENR reactors.  Supply a little more than 200eV to a proton and recover 16MeV of thermal energy!  Finally, this system demonstrates a new way to transmit heat to the reactor walls by having those walls directly capture the kinetic energy of energetic He particles.

 

Adding Li to the Fuel

     It is not known when Rossi first added Li to his reactor fuel, but it most likely occurred when he first made claims that only a “trace” of hydrogen was required to run his e-cat reactor.  (It is also possible that Li was one of the “additives” in fairly early reactors.)  With lithium coating the surface of the Ni particles the primary fusion reaction within the reactor becomes a proton fusing with Li7 to form two energetic He particles, releasing about 16MeV of energy per fusion.  This fusion reaction not only releases more energy per reaction than proton-proton fusion reactions or fusion reactions of protons with the Ni lattice atoms, a significant amount of the total energy generated can be directly transmitted to the outer vessel wall via the kinetic energy from the He particles similar to the Unified Gravity Corporation’s reactor.  A LENR reactor having Li as part of its fuel should be able to operate at a much higher output power density than a reactor without Li, since some portion of the generated heat is not generated within the Ni particles.  (Some portion of the He kinetic energy will be absorbed by the Ni particles.)  However, if the “ash” data from the 1MW plant data is real and is believed, there are still some of the fusion reactions converting the Ni lattice atoms to the Ni62 isotope.  The energy from these reactions directly heats the Ni lattice and therefore would still be a limiting factor in the maximum operating temperature of the reactor.

How can the maximum operating temperature of the reactor be improved?  The obvious answer is to start with a Ni fuel that is nearly 100% Ni62!  Using Ni62 in the fuel, rather than nickel with naturally occurring isotopes, could be the secret of achieving the high operating temperatures in the “hot-cat” reactor tested at Lugano.  (The reported temperatures were actually higher than actually achieved.)  When the “ash” data in the Lugano report came out showing that the ash contained much less Li7 (and a low Li7:Li6 ratio) and almost all of the Ni had been converted to Ni62, most followers of LENR were convinced that fusion had taken place within the Lugano reactor.  However, there are two factors, the number of available protons and the total energy produced by the reactor, that indicate that it was not possible to convert all of the Ni to Ni62 during the Lugano experimental runs.  The first argument for the Ni not being converted to Ni62 during the operation of the Lugano reactor is that there just weren’t enough hydrogen atoms loaded into the reactor to provide the protons necessary to convert Ni with naturally occurring isotopes all to the Ni62 isotope.  The analysis of the fuel data indicates that Li was added to the fuel in the form of LiAlH4.  Assuming this is the only source of hydrogen loaded into the reactor, there would be one hydrogen atom available to convert all of the Li to He, but the 3 remaining hydrogen atoms per LiAlH4 molecule would only be able to provide protons to convert a small percentage of the Ni to the Ni62 isotope.  Of course, it would appear to be a weak argument to claim that the fuel mixture was known by analysis to only contain LiAlH4 as a source of hydrogen when that argument is being used to claim that this fuel really wasn’t used in the reactor.  It is also possible that the Ni was pre-loaded with hydrogen, which would not have shown up in the “fuel” analysis.

An analysis of the total energy output by the Lugano “hot-cat” reactor is a much stronger argument to indicate that the Lugano reactor was loaded with Ni62 rather than the naturally occurring Ni isotopes.  Those reviewing the Lugano report had concerns about the measurement of both the input power and the output power.  The problem with the input power was that calculations of Joule heating in the copper wires connected to the reactor indicated quite high currents were supplied to the reactor heater coils during the active runs.  My belief is that the input power was probably measured correctly, even though the active runs had high heater coil currents.  However, it is not likely that the high output currents were caused by a decrease in the resistance of the Inconel wire, but rather an increase in the conductivity at high temperatures of the Al2O3 paste which covered the heater coils.  (This could easily be experimentally verified.)   An analysis of the output power form the Lugano reactor can be found on line in Thomas Clarke’s paper “Comment on the report ”Observation of abundant heat production from a reactor device and of isotropic changes in the fuel” by Levi et al”.  His output power analysis (which is certainly much more accurate than the original output power calculations by the Lugano report authors) shows that not only was the output power much less than claimed by the authors due to incorrect temperature measurements, the output power should have been many times greater than what was measured if all of the Ni had been converted to the Ni62 isotope during the Lugano experiment.   The simplest explanation that fits both the observed output power and the “ash” analysis from the Lugano reactor is that the reactor actually was loaded with Ni62, rather than a mixture of the naturally occurring isotopes.  It also makes sense from heat transfer considerations that to run a Ni-Li-H LENR reactor at the highest possible operating temperature that Ni62 should be used in the reactor to limit lattice heating from isotropic changes to the Ni in the lattice.

 

Implications of the Data from the 1MW system on Its Operating Parameters.

The COP of >50 for the 1MW system claimed by Rossi in his lawsuit against IH is the most important data available for this system.  Although the >50 COP can not be substantiated until the measurement procedures that were used are validated by peer review of a technical report on the system operation, it is surely true that Rossi believes in the >50 COP number since he has too much riding on winning the lawsuit to put forth a COP number that could be challenged in the lawsuit.

Attaining a COP of >50 is quite a remarkable accomplishment, especially considering that this is the first attempt to run a large scale system for an extended period of time.  What information about the operation of the 4 by 250KW reactor system might be inferred knowing that it operated at a COP of >50?  If each of the 250KW reactors required 70KW or less of external heat to bring them up to operating temperature, then it is possible that all 4 reactors could have been brought up simultaneously (assuming the data is correct that the facility is supplied with a maximum of just over 300KW).  It is more likely that each of the 250KW reactors was brought up to their operating temperature separately with 100KW to 200KW of external heat.  This is based on the assumption that the reactor might have a COP of 1.3-2.5 when external heat is being supplied.  As the 250KW reactor temperature is raised to the operating temperature, the water flow to the reactor would have to be raised until it reaches ¼ of the total flow for the system. At this point the reactor would supply its full 250KW of heat to the water flowing through the reactor (less any heat losses in the reactor itself).  Before the second reactor could be brought up to operating temperature the first reactor would probably have to be put into a self-sustaining mode (SSM), otherwise there would not be enough available power to provide heat for the second reactor.  (Perhaps if the external heaters only needed to supply 100KW-140KW, two reactors could be brought up at the same time.)  The third and fourth reactor would be brought on-line in a manner similar first reactor until all four reactors were operating in a self-sustaining mode with each reactor delivering its designed 250KW of heat to the inflowing water.

There are a couple of factors that indicate the reactors are operated only in the self sustaining mode after each reactor reaches its operating temperature with the proper water flow rate (with the external heaters used only if a reactor has to be shut down and re-started).  First, if a COP of >50 was really achieved, power to the external heaters could only be supplied 1-2% of the total operating time.  Why would external heat be needed for such a short fraction of the operating time?  A second argument for the reactors operating in a continuous SSM is that even if the external heater power was only turned on for 1-2% of the operating cycle, it would be possible that whatever measurement triggered the requirement for external heat, this trigger could happen simultaneously on 2, 3, or even all 4 of the reactors.  It’s most likely the simultaneous need for external heating power to two or more reactors would exceed the power capability of the facility.  (Note that each reactor could have the external power turned on for one minute of each hour of operation, at 15 minute intervals and still possibly achieve a COP of >50, but again what would be accomplished by such a short period of applied external heat?)

Did the reactors just run in SSM for the entire 350 day test with no external power applied?   Probably not!  It seems more likely that the reactors were actually run with a continuous, relatively low power (2KW or less) waveform having the frequency, shape and amplitude necessary to promote the fusion reactions within the reactors, perhaps at a resonance frequency of the Ni lattice.  It makes a lot more sense to control the rate of fusion reactions within the reactors with a temperature feedback loop controlling the amplitude of a low power, high frequency waveform, rather than turning on a high power heater for a small fraction of the operating cycle.  (Alternatively, the feedback loop on the temperature control system could be controlling the rate of applied pulses.)  Had the COP only been in the 5-10 range, it would have been more probable that the reactor temperature could have been controlled by turning on the full heating power for about 10-15% of the operating cycle.

Another big hint that Rossi’s LENR reactors are actually controlled by a secondary waveform is the statement from the “Introduction” of the Lugano report: “In addition, the resistor coils are fed with some specific electromagnetic pulses”.  This statement seems to have been ignored by most, if not all, of the scientists attempting to replicate Rossi’s results.

 

 

Conclusions

Based on the heat transfer considerations within a high temperature LENR reactor, such as the “hot-cat” used in the Lugano, it seems that the only way to limit fusion reactions within the Ni lattice, thereby permitting operation at a temperature closer to the melting point of Ni, is to use Ni that is nearly 100% Ni62, rather than use Ni with naturally occurring isotopes.  The low total output energy of the Lugano “hot-cat”, relative to the output energy expected had Ni with naturally occurring isotopes all been converted to the Ni62 isotope during the experimental runs indicates that the Lugano reactor was loaded with Ni that was close to 100% Ni62.

To achieve a COP of >50 in the 1MW system it is not likely that high power external heat was supplied to the reactors a any time other than the system start up.  It is more likely that the reactor temperature is controlled by adjusting the amplitude of a waveform that is optimized in frequency and shape to promote fusion reactions within the reactor.  If this conclusion is correct, scientists trying to replicate Rossi’s work would be more likely to achieve success by using one power source to supply heat to a reactor during start up and a separate waveform generator to supply the reactor with a range of high frequency signals that can be optimized to promote fusion reactions within the reactor.  After optimizing the waveform, the fusion reaction rate within the reactor can be controlled by feedback to the waveform generator, and the heater power supply can be turned off.

  • Fedir Mykhaylov

    An interesting article by Mr. Lammert. Very hard to believe in the manipulation of fuel – use of pure Ni62. Maybe the author did not take into account some of the energy of the reaction occurring with absorption. And surprisingly – the author is absolutely not paid attention to the design of the reactor division of mouse and cat, respectively, and control methods for energy in the reactor.

  • Valeriy Tarasov

    Just playing with words, but also describing the essence of LENR – Stable Isotopes Fission Reaction – SIFR.

  • Axil Axil

    The Quark has three energy outputs: heat, light, and electrons.

    Heat is gathered from heat radiation from the metal shield that covers the ceramic reactor.

    Light is produced when the metal shield is removed and the ceramic core is visible.

    Electrons are produced by a electronic circuit connected to the metal shield that harvests the electrons that come off of the ceramic reactor body.

    The metal shield could either be made out of a fine wire screen or a solid metal enclosure as required by the application.

    At startup, the metal enclosure could be heated by electrical resistance through the use of a current applied directly to the metal enclosure up until the temperature of the ceramic reactor body witch is enclosed by the metal shield is raised to optimum operating temperature levels.

  • Axil Axil

    As was shown in the Lugano demo, waveform stimulation produces a limited power density reaction that does not exceed at most COP=3 and some say far less. The stimulation that might be used to produce the very high COP is the electrostatic stimulation that generates the TAO effect. That is the reference to the two electrodes that can produce an EMF potential of up to 100,000 volt and is defined in an update to the Rossi patent.

    See my post: High Temperature Superconductivity and LENR

    See the patent update here:

    https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/docservicepdf_pct/id00000032278621/PDOC/WO2016018851.pdf

    If you read this patent update that references the NEW electrostatic stimulator which operates between 50 and 100 KV, Rossi says that the resistance heater is NO LONGER REQUIRED.

    Rossi also says that the reaction temperature is between 400 to 600C. This means that the update is applied to the LOW TEMPERATURE REACTOR.

    • Dr. Mike

      Axil Axil,
      The patent document is confusing in that page 7 says electric power wasn’t needed: “not bein (sic) anymore necessary the electric power”, but on page 8 the invention still includes “2- a heat source”. However, the document does show that Rossi is continuing to modify and improve the design of his reactors. I’m sure that the final patent issued for what he is trying to claim in this document will be much clearer as to the details of the invention.
      Dr. Mike

      • Axil Axil

        I read that wording to mean that the heat source is used at startup to get the reactor up to operating temperature, but once that that reactor temperature initialization is complete, then the electrostatic stimulation takes over and is then used thereafter to stimulate a continuing reaction.

        • Dr. Mike

          Axil Axil,
          That makes sense to me.
          Dr. Mike

  • Axil Axil

    Producing up to 4 neutrons takes a lot of energy, up to 4 GeV of energy. That is a lot of energy to remove from the LENR reaction for each Ni58 atom.

  • Axil Axil

    No, the Nickel wants to become Ni62 because it is the most stable isotope. Starting from Ni58, the reaction must give up 4 neutrons worth of energy to get to Ni62. I had it backwards, So sorry, please excuse me.

  • Axil Axil

    Regarding: ” One of the initial engineering problems to be solved in the design of the LENR reactor is how to extract useful heat ”

    The function of a Bose condinsate provides superfluidity to the LENR reactor. This superfluidity works to transfer heat evenly throughout the volume of the LENR reactor including the powder and the hydrogen that surrounds it. The nature of LENR is centered on superconductivity and to understand it, we must understand how superconductivity can happen at high temperatures and also consider what properties that LENR gets from it superconductive nature.

    • Dr. Mike

      Axil Axil,
      I have seen no experimental results showing that either superfluidity or superconductivity are involved in LENR. Have you run any such experiments? If so, it would be helpful to the understanding of LENR for you to publish your experimental results. I personally am trying to keep an open mind on LENR theory, and will be looking for experimental work to verify each element of a proposed theory.
      Dr. Mike

      • Axil Axil

        In the Celanti wire experiment, as the reaction begins, the resistance in the wire goes down in contradiction to heat induced resistance.

        • Mats002

          Plasma is also known to lower resistance.

          • Axil Axil

            An experimental test to find out what type of mechanism is causing the drop in resistance is to place the wire is a very strong magnetic field which would kill the BEC but would not effect the plasma. This is a test that Celanti should run,

      • Axil Axil

        http://phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/VISITING_FELLOWS&PROFESSORS/pdf/MileyClusterRydbLPBsing.pdf

        “In contrast to gases, the appearance of ultra-high density clusters in crystal
        defects in solids were observed in several experiments where such configurations of very high density hydrogen states could be detected from SQUID measurements of magnetic response and conductivity (Lipson et al. 2005) indicating as special state with superconducting properties.

        These high density clusters have a long life time and with deuterons and – in contrast to protons – as being bosons which should be in a state of Bose-Einstein-Condensation (BEC) at room temperature (Miley et al. 2009,2009a). “

      • Axil Axil
      • Axil Axil

        Superconductivity in the palladium-hydrogen and palladium-nickel-hydrogen systems
        T. Skoskiewicz†

        Article first published online: 17 FEB 2006
        DOI: 10.1002/pssa.2210110253
        Copyright © 1972 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palladium_hydride

        Superconductivity

        PdHx is a superconductor with a transition temperature Tc of about 9 K for x=1. (Pure palladium is not superconducting). Drops in resistivity vs. temperature curves were observed at higher temperatures (up to 273 K) in hydrogen-rich (x ~ 1), nonstoichiometric palladium hydride and interpreted as superconducting transitions. These results have been questioned and have not been confirmed thus far.

        • Dr. Mike

          Axil Axil,
          Thanks for citing the articles in your responses. I didn’t see any reference to attaining superconductivity at the temperatures at which Rossi’s reactors are ran. I do believe the understanding of the physics of LENR is in its infancy. Parts of the physics you have cited may be relevant in explaining the physics of LENR, but I don’t believe there is enough experimental evidence to prove any one theory..
          Dr. Mike

      • Axil Axil

        If all the kilowatts of heat were produced in the 1/2 gram of nickel powder either on the outside or the inside, there would be a huge concentration of heat in a very small volume of space. The heat produced in the reactor must be spread out relatively evenly throughout the entire volume of the reactor core which includes the hydrogen envelope. In the pictures of the LENR reactors so far released, the light produced by the shells of the those LENR reactors shows a equal light distribution along their entire length. This indicates isothermal heat distribution throughout the volume of the core. Such even power distribution is a characteristic of superfluidity and the global Bose condensation that produces it. The very fact that so much power density can be produced in such a small volume is proof that a BEC is in place throughout the volume of the core and possibly extending into the body of the containment shell.

        In the Quark reactor which generates the most extreme power density, this type of reactor does not burn out in any hot spots over months of operations even when it is air cooled.

        A 100 watt incandescent light bulb produces a heat output of 3400C in its tungsten filament which is far bigger than the diameter of the core of the Quark. There must be a isothermal heat distribution mechanism in place that gets the heat out of and from around the nickel powder/liquid into the shell of the Quark reactor.

        Consider the fact that such high power density is produced by the latest generation of LENR reactors without the production of hot spot burnthrough as proof of the existence of a BEC as a isothermal power distribution mechanism.

        In many Rossi reactor replication attempts, these replicated reactors would blowout due to a extreme heat spike in a hot spot produced at startup. For example, Parkhomov produced blowouts ten times more frequently than successful long term reactor operation. These blowouts are likely caused by the rapid onset of the LENR reaction before a global BEC is established in the core of the reactor, where he heat of the LENR reaction is more evenly distributed throughout the core.

        Chemical adjustment in the fuel mix can reduce the speed at which the LENR reaction is initiated. It also is possible that an electromagnetic blocking mechanism might be used to gradually instantiate the LENR reaction to avoid hot spot blowouts.
        axil

        • Rene

          “If all the kilowatts of heat were produced in the 1/2 gram of nickel powder either on the outside or the inside,”-Axil
          Or, a goodly amount of the energy leaves the reaction site and gets deposited on the outer parts of the reactor, as in lower energy gammas get converted to heat, or betas do something similar, or terahertz photons do something similar?

          • Axil Axil

            We are talking about the inverse square law here. In an incandescent light bulb or heater, the heat is intense near the source and goes down with distance as 1/Xe2. In an isothermal system, the inverse square law does not apply. The heat is spread evenly throughout the volume of the reactor core with no spot hotter than any another spot.

            • Rene

              Except for near-field effects.

              • Axil Axil

                Are there near field effects? How could that work?

                • Rene

                  Only if terahertz photons are produced (IR), then the near field would be 0.7-1.0mm, which for the reaction surface to casing distance seems plausible.

                • Axil Axil

                  I wonder if even energy production can be tested for. The LENR reactor produces lots of RF. The RF emanations can be checked for even power production along the entire length of the reactor by using a small wire wrap coil whose leads are connected to an oscilloscope. The voltage reading should be the same up and down the length of the reactor.

                  No input power can be applied during this test and the heater coils could distort these test readings.

                • Rene

                  At this point, without experiments and observations, theories are more like conjectures. It’s time to fund some experiments, but which ones? The LENR+ one is a seekrit, so that’s out. But, the canon art one might be useful.

                • Axil Axil

                  Theory can inspire the design of experiments to prove of disprove a critical part of a LENR theory.

                  For example, if a huge external magnetic field is applied to a LENR reactor, and that reactor switches between heat production and gamma production, then that experiment supports the posit that superconductivity and Bose condensation is involved in LENR gamma thermalization.

                • Rene

                  Agreed. There are designs even implementations that arose from theory. The laser is one good example. BTW, the LENR field seems to be in parallel with respect to patent wars as were the laser inventions.

                  https://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/laser/sections/whoinvented.html

                  Here, though we have the opposite(which often happens): an implementation exhibiting an effect touted to work and no theory that describes it (well, no theory made public).

      • hunfgerh

        See just

        http://www.google.com/patents/DE10109973A1?cl=de
        http://www.google.com/patents/DE102008047334B4?cl=de

        understand it and make your own experience to be believe it..

        • Mats002

          Hi hunfgerh,
          Your handle suggest you are the inventor of both patents Hunf Gerhard.
          I would be very happy to know more about the experiments you have done to create/verify the patents.

          • hunfgerh

            If you need further information, please contact

            Me46Forschungsgesellschaft
            56073 Koblenz
            Margaretenweg 10
            germany

            • Mats002

              Thanks for sharing.

      • Optimist

        If you take a look at the publications made by Holmlid /Kotzias (University of Gothenburg and Airbus) from May 2016 and earlier publications by Olafsson/Holmlid (University of Gothenburg and University of Iceland) from last year along with their slides from last months introduction, you will find the published experimental results showing this relationship. The fact the super dense hydrogen/deuterium clusters do show quantum fluid characteristics above room-temperature might become quite important to explaining the LENR process in general along with the mysterious detection of mesons that indeed require a quantum entangled state of the material to be explained.

        http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/07/14/everything-you-always-wanted-to-know-about-cold-fusion-but-were-afraid-to-ask-olafsson-holmlid-slideshow-july-2016/

        https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3211-Holmlid-Kotzias-Phase-transition-te
        mperatures-of-405-725-K-in-superfluid-ultra-d/

        • Dr. Mike

          Optimist,
          Thanks for citing these references.
          Dr. Mike

  • Dr. Mike

    David,
    Li7 does not become Li6. Based on the limited “ash” data that I’ve seen, my assumption is that Li7 is converted to He and Li6 has much less or no fusion reaction with the protons. Lithium starts with about 7% naturally occurring Li6 isotope. If most of the Li7 is converted to He, then the remaining Li in the “ash” will be mostly Li6.
    Dr. Mike

  • Dr. Mike

    Frederic,
    I see nothing wrong with your hypothesis. Perhaps Rossi was trying to make sure that he extracted the naturally occurring Ni isotope material at the end of the run, but accidentally got a few grains of pre-loaded Ni62? In both your hypothesis and mine, the high Ni62 content in the “ash” did not result from the conversion of nickel’s naturally occurring isotopes all to Ni62 during the experimental runs.

  • Valeriy Tarasov

    First, I would like to remind again and again advantage to use Lithium borohydride (LiBH4) instead of AlLiH: boron reacts with proton resulting in fission reaction producing alpha particles, that gives additional (to Li7 + p ) energy gain. I have asked Rossi if he used it before his Quark story (he didn’t give the clear answer). Just a speculation, may his new fuel in Quark has LiBH4.
    Second, I agree with the Gerard McEk’s idea about the direct electric current trough the fuel. Because high density of protons and electron in NiLi fuel, low voltage can give a high electric current and plasma like conditions.
    Third, if heating element is inside of inner tube and fuel is between inner and outer tube (I have suggested such design long time ago) then it is possible to make Quark like device if outer tube is made from the light transparent material like fused quartz.

    • Mats002

      Hi Valeriy,

      Your advice is almost same as Bob Greenyer told Me356 and he was successful, some videos where published but then Me356 went ‘dark’. He reported dangerous neutrons coming from that advice…

      Do you have personal experiences from this kind of setup, Valeriy?

      • Valeriy Tarasov

        I am not doing experiments (I have no facility to do the experiments, even if would like), so I don’t have this experience. What I am suggesting is the result of current data analysis based on some ideas from my quite alternative physics theory (it is not a LENR theory, but LENR is explained in the frame of this theory).

        About neutrons emission. From my point of view it is very unlikely, neutrinos yes, but not neutrons. I have asked Me356 at LENR Forum to provide his experimental data of the neutrons emission registration but he didn’t give this data.

    • Gerard McEk

      The difficult thing is to keep the lithium inside. The best material is iron, but that’s not really transparent ;). As I said somwehere below this metal should be grounded to enable currents running from the heating coil through the aluminia tubes and the fuel to ground. If only aluminia tubes are used lithium will go through the aluminia and sublime on the quartz tube, possibly not contributing to the reaction any more.

      • Valeriy Tarasov

        I dont j´know if lithium at high temperature is able to go through the fused quartz. If not, then two quartz tubes with fuel between can be a solution. The wires for current through the fuel can be mounted at ends of the tubes (of course the tubes ands should closed – by quartz melting or other way) quartz is a good dielectric. The heater (independent from the current through the fuel) can be placed inside of the inner tube.

    • Steve Savage

      I seem to remember when Rossi first talked about the quark (ecat-x) he mentioned that he needed to develop new materials which he did not have or did not exist, perhaps this is related to the outer tube of quartz like material as you suggest?

  • Mats002

    Heat after death – HAD – is a term used long before Rossi. Long HAD periods can be equal to long SSM periods. Rossi never said HAD I think, he use SSM instead.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    So, by getting rid of the nuclear reactions that involve nickel (by using pure nickel-62), the lattice may be more analogous to a heterogeneous catalyst in a chemical reaction and only provide the environment (the cavities) for other nuclear reactions to take place (p+ Li-7 > 2 He ?) and the reaction rate would be limited by the rate of the reactants going in and out of the finite number of cavities?

    • Dr. Mike

      Alan,
      My primary argument for using Ni62 is to have fusion reaction you stated above (p + Li7) take place on the Ni surface with no competing fusion reactions within the Ni lattice that will directly heat up the lattice. This would permit a reactor to operate at the highest temperature and at a maximum power density. If protons can pick up enough energy by applying an optimum emf signal to the Ni lattice. fusion may not be limited to special cavities on the Ni surface. I think a lot more experimental work needs done (with functioning reactors) before LENR theory gets clarified. I also believe the the proton-Li7 fusion reaction shows the most promise for commercializing LENR.
      Dr. Mike

  • LuFong

    At one time Rossi claimed that the primary source of heat was from gamma rays absorbed by the lead.

    • Frank Acland

      My impression is that during the 1 year test, Rossi was not constantly intervening to keep the COP up. There were times when he reported that the plant was stable enough for long periods of time where he could concentrate on studying, or writing his article with Norman Cook. He was also working on the QuarkX for part of the time during the test in a different location (although it was close by, he said). However there were also times when it sounded like he had to drop everything to deal with an issue that came up.

      • LuFong

        Yes, I don’t know where I read that today. I thought it was mentioned in Dr Mike’s post. I’ll figure it out.

      • Axil Axil

        Rossi said he had to adjust the electromagnetics.

    • Dr. Mike

      LuFong,
      Gamma ray absorption in lead may have been the primary source of heat generation in one of Rossi’s early reactors. He has made tremendous advances since his early reactors.
      I don’t think Rossi was twiddling the controls. A temperature feedback loop should have provided adequate control to the emf signal actually driving the reactors. I believe the reactors were continuously powered with a 5KW-10KW emf signal and another 10KW was used to supply the rest of the control system. If I had to guess, I would say that Rossi’s biggest concern was that none of the reactors developed hot spots that could lead to a localized thermal run away.
      Dr. Mike

      • Engineer48

        Hi Dr. Mike,

        The individual control boxes for both the 51 20kW backup reactors and for the 4 250kW prime reactors are visible and contain 2 large relays, a small power supply and a small enbedded control CPU board. One relay controls the reactor heater and the other the topping up reactor fluid control pump.

        There are no visible emf signal generators nor triacs. Just plain old tech relays.

        While Rossi maybe did use some sort of emf excitation in the past, there is no visual evidence of it in the trail reactors nor in the reactor control schematics. Just relays.

        • Dr. Mike

          Engineer48,
          I can see where Rossi would release photos showing basic electronic components, but not showing the critical features of his system. My guess is the same goes for the electrical schematic of the system. However, my hypothesis of controlling the reactors with a low power special emf signal can easily be wrong if the 250KW reactors can be powered up with less than 70KW of external power, and reactors are extremely stable in their output power, rarely needing the external power turned on.
          I just don’t see a fusion reaction rate stable enough to maintain a constant value without some driving force being controlled by a feedback loop. Perhaps LENR theory will show an extremely stable fusion reaction rate is possible???
          Dr. Mike

          • Engineer48

            Hi DrMike,

            Mats did leak an utility electricity account which showed an averaged 22kWh/hr usage, which supports the COP > 50 claim as that usafe included the pumps.

            The photos of the 51 cubish backup reactors do show the 6 sides and the only electronics are the boxes with 2 relays, small power supply and cpu board.

            BTW SSM means a duty cycle of 2% on and 98% off. What we don’t know is the width of the cycle. Could be 50 seconds being 1 second on, 49 seconds off, with variable fluid flow doing the reactor temp control during the 49 seconds of no heater current.

            I don’t believe, from the data I’ve seen, long term SSM can be achieved without a very stable thermal load on the reactor.
            .

            • Dr. Mike

              Engineer48,
              I agree with your statement that long term SSM would be difficult with a varying load. The 2% duty cycle is a possibility as I indicated in my post, I just can’t see the purpose of such a short duty cycle. Perhaps someone has a suggestion on how such a short duty cycle could maintain control of the reactors?
              Dr. Mike

              • Engineer48

                Hi Dr. Mike,

                During the power off periods, reactor temp can be controlled by the, individual to each reactor, fluid level control pumps that can:

                1) reduce reactor temp by increasing the fluid level

                2) increase reactor temp by decreasing the fluid level
                .

                • Dr. Mike

                  Engineer48,
                  I agree. Would the water flow control provide a fast enough control to maintain the reactor temperature? What happens that requires the external heat to have to be turned back on for a <2% cycle time?
                  Dr. Mike

                • Engineer48

                  Hi Dr.Mike,

                  Unknown why it needs the pulse of heat?

                  Maybe too much fluid flow drops reactor temp too low and it needs boosted back up via the heaters?

                  Might be that SSM can go much longer than 20:1 if the heat load is very constant. COP 50 may be being conservative and hiding very high COPs such as QuarkX’s 200.

                  Maybe as SSM temp margins are widened, ie higher thermal load change capability, SSM could approach infinite, or almost always in SSM.

              • GiveADogABone

                ‘maintain control of the reactors’
                That gave me a flashback to my nuclear engineering course.
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_criticality might be a good read.

                In a supercritical assembly the number of fissions per unit time, N, along with the power production, increases exponentially with time. How fast it grows depends on the average time it takes, T, for the neutrons released in a fission event to cause another fission’

                It is the cause and effect between successive generations that sets up the equations. What happens in the Rossi Effect that keeps the successive generations at the same level? Could the RE be described as a chain reaction?

                A fission reactor is only controllable because of the existence of ‘delayed neutrons’. Without any contribution from delayed neutrons a ‘prompt criticality’ occurs and your reactor goes bang. That is the reason that nuclear fission reactors have a rate of change of neutron flux trip as well as a maximum flux trip. Are there delayed reactions in the Rossi Effect?

                This could all turn out to be standard reactor control theory.

                • Dr. Mike

                  GiveADogABone,
                  It is a very interesting idea that there may be similarities between a nuclear fission reactor and a LENR reactor. Perhaps, some of the energetic He particles created from a p + Li reaction could enhance additional p + Li reactions?
                  Dr. Mike

                • GiveADogABone

                  I considered p+Li and I could find no delays as in half-life decay of Copper nucleii and He, although it carries away energy, does not seem to go back into any reaction chain. We all know He is very stable!

                  I am trying to work this up as a hypothesis that neutron flux in a fission reactor is the analogue of the NAS (Nuclear Active Sites) count in the Rossi Effect. e.g. double the neutron flux and you double the reactor power. Double the number of NAS and you double the power of the Rossi Effect. This makes the presumption that NAS have a narrow heat output spread while in good health.

                  If you want to increase Rossi Effect power you must create new NAS. If you stop heating and supplying stimulation the NAS count slowly drops as fuel in each NAS is exhausted. That is the HAD(Heat After Death) or maybe SSM.

                  You cannot overdo the NAS creation rate or you get a prompt criticality. That is the analogue of a fission reactor trip on rate of change of flux to prevent a prompt criticality (like Chernobyl).

                  The SSM 2% duty cycle looks like a 1 second burst of NAS creation, followed by 49 seconds of slow NAS death of the same number of sites.

          • Axil Axil

            Rossi provide a 100,000 volt electrostatic potential that aggregates superconductive nanoparticles using the TAO effect. When the potential is in the aggregation zone, the LENR reactor is stimulated.

            See

            https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3526-High-Temperature-Superconductivity-and-LENR/

          • Roland

            There is some merit in looking backwards from the current state of the art to gather clues on the earlier iterations.

            The Quark employs a ‘driver’ that consumes .5W continuous to control and modulate 100W of output at COP 200.

            That there is almost instant on with the Quark strongly suggests that the ‘driver’ also initiates the reaction.

            I posit that the ‘driver’ is an evolutionary iteration of earlier forms of EMF stimulation present in E-cats from inception and that this is the edge that Rossi’s designs have over replication attempts and earlier forms of LENR.

            Me356 might offer up a yes or no on your hypothesis based on his recent experiences.

            • Dr. Mike

              Roland,
              Thanks for your thoughts. I would assume that Rossi will continue to improve his reactors. I anxiously await some real technical information on his “Quark” reactor., but it would really be great if he could start up the reactor with a “driver” signal rather than an external heater.

              Dr. Mike

          • GiveADogABone

            ‘I just don’t see a fusion reaction rate stable enough to maintain a constant value without some driving force being controlled by a feedback loop.’

            The Rossi Effect reactor power temperature coefficient is positive and that makes the reactor unstable. What is needed is a negative reactor power coefficient that reacts faster. It turns out that that is supplied by copper formation reducing the reactivity. Cu nucleii temporarily replace Nickel nucleii in the crystal lattice until 62Ni (which is permanently unreactive) is formed and that reduces the reactivity.

            The same thing happens in fission reactors with the like of Xenon-135 poisoning : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_poison
            Poisoning generates its own set of transient curves because its production rate is power dependent and is powerful enough to keep a reactor shutdown for a while.

            It is Copper that stabilizes the Rossi Effect.

      • LuFong

        Thanks for your reply. I’m not sure where I got the idea that your post mentioned Rossi actively managing the COP. Must have read it somewhere else today…

        The rest was just background information related to your post.

        Good quality post.

      • Axil Axil

        Hot spots could develop before superfluidity is established in the LENR reactor. Lack of this superfluidity causes localized blowouts.

  • Alain Samoun

    The scenario developed here: Heating up to start the fusion reaction and using small high frequency energy to sustain SSM seems to make sens. Reading the latest interview of Rossi by Frank it says that Rossi has to be “inside the container 16- 18 hours per day” to control “manually” the SSM process to obtain the 50 COP. To me it’s still a shame that Rossi doesn’t publish/share his knowledge, all for a supposed future financial profit via patent licensing, when the humanity is in need of a new energy if it wants to survive. Sharing his knowledge would allow solving quickly his technical problems with the help of others, and be a base to develop the technology for the good of all.

    • cashmemorz

      Also gives competitors a free chance to outcompete Rossi and take much of the profit that is rightfully Rossi’s. So take your pick of injustices: either allow those most in need of low cost energy to wait a little longer for Rossi to ramp up production, or let Rossi inform everyone which will almost certainly allow someone else to put it in the market sooner via the big corporate entities which will let other big corporate entities a big competitive edge in power and some time later someone will supply those most in need.

      • atanguy

        Well,you still thinking in the framework of 19-20th centuries, we are on the 21st century and profit should not be the basis of the society, especially when survival of the specie is in play.

        • cashmemorz

          Sure, but reality is what one has to be reminded of. This is why I stated what would happen if Rossi was to simply release all of his data for a working device. Saying it should be otherwise accomplishes nothing other than stating ones wishes. I wish to win a lottery. It won’t happen until 1) I buy a lottery ticket 2) the random number generator at the lottery headquarters produces a number that is on my ticket 3) I compare the number generated and the number on my ticket 4) I decide to take my ticket to the lottery corp for my check 5) I take the check to a bank for deposit 6) I withdraw some money from the account where the winning ticket was deposited 7) I go to a merchant that has the goods I wish to purchase 8) etc. If 2 happens I win, most of the time I don’t win. That is reality. Wishing to win does nothing. Same with what will happen with the data if Rossi were to release. It should be used for good. But reality is it won’t be used for good. At least not right away. First someone will try to make money from the data.

          • Alain Samoun

            “But reality is it won’t be used for good”
            When I read here all the speculations about what Rossi does and doesn’t do, made by knowledgeable people; I think that if Rossi was telling what he really does, we could, in no time, reproduce and improve his method and disperse the knowledge to have real products in the hands of all. What does a few millions or billions do to someone who could instead save humanity by sharing his experience?

  • Steve Usary

    But the fuel analysis of the Lugano test showed a natural distribution of Ni isotopes. How could it have only been loaded with Ni62?

    • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

      my fear is that there was something unanalysed inside the reactor before the test.

      put a carrot in a hat, wait half an hour, and all you have is a fat rabbit. that is transmutation.

      this is why third party replication based on a good patent is required.

      • Dr. Mike

        AlainCo,
        I agree on both counts. There is no guarantee the Lugano reactor was empty prior to Rossi’s loading. I believe Rossi’s issued patent would be that “good patent” you are talking about. The device in this patent needs replicated! If this device can not be replicated because Rossi failed to fully disclose the invention, the patent will be worthless.
        Dr. Mike

    • Dr. Mike

      Steve,
      Rossi provided one sample for the fuel analysis and loaded the Lugano reactor with a different sample.
      Dr. Mike

      • Steve Usary

        So you’re accusing Rossi of intentionally misleading the Lugano investigators. For what reason? To hide the real formula of the fuel? Where would he get pure Ni62?

        • Dr. Mike

          Steve,
          Rossi had no patent protection at the time the Lugano test was run. There is still much of his intellectual property that is not yet protected by patents. He has the right not to disclose information and mislead people about what he has developed. This is a good strategy for slowing down the competition!
          Ni62 can be purchased, although it is quite expensive.
          Dr. Mike

        • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

          possible, it is a possible and possibly repeated scheme.

          enriched ni62 is sold, expensive but less than the price of a license.

          • atanguy

            Also,if I am not wrong, I remember that Rossi had a method to separate the Ni isotopes?

      • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

        you don’t need that risky trick, as what was inside is unknown.

  • Gerard McEk

    Interesting thoughts Lammert! Some supporting remarks:
    I doe believe that Bob Greenyer also argues for only Ni62 this the Lugano test, but for other reasons.
    I support your thought about the changing conductivity of the Lugano coil that it is due to the Al2O3 conductivity change at high temeratures. Clarke and Mills assume a normal relation of the nichrome coil vs temperature and based on that they calculate a much lower temperature. That may be wrong if the total conductivity of the coil is being influenced by the changing conductivity of the aluminia.
    (Short-pulsed) Currents running through the fuel may be used to contol the LENR reaction and I think thy are much lower than what is needed to heat-up the reactor to temperatures where SSM kicks in. I believe that for the Lugano reactor the three phase coil provided through the conducting aluminia wall the required current into the fuel.

    • Dr. Mike

      Gerard,
      The pulsed currents from the heater power supply may have been the only power applied to the Lugano reactor. With this reactor being run in a “no load” mode it should not have been very difficult to control the reactor operating temperature, which is quite different from trying to maintain equilibrium in a reactor delivering 1MW of heat to slightly varying load. I still believe that it is highly probable that the Lugano reactor was supplied with other pulses that were part of the temperature feedback loop. However, it is a certainty that the 1MW reactor was controlled by a pulsed current or high frequency waveform after the main heater power was turned off, or it would have been impossible to maintain temperature control.
      Dr. Mike

      • Gerard McEk

        Dr. Mike, I agree, but see also my answer to US_Citizen71 above. Once aluminia at high temperature has sufficient conductivity to run currents through it with only small voltage peaks (using 3 phase heating coils), it can also be used to run currents through the fuel and controlling the reaction. It is not unlikely that also the 1MW plant uses aluminia tubes inside the steal tubes. If a 1-phase system is used then the configuration must be different: Inside a small tube with the single heating coil and the wire embedded in aluminia and a second tube around it. That is placed into a steal tube and the fuel is distributed between the outer aluminia tube and the steal tube. The steal tube is grounded and at sufficient high temperatures ‘control’ currents from the coil will run from the coil through the outer aluminia tube and the fuel to the steal tube.

        • Gerard McEk

          Edit: It is better to use 2 phases instead of 1 to cause a more evenly distributed current to ground.

    • US_Citizen71

      Although the resistance of the Al2O3 drops at high temperature it is still in parallel with the resistance wire. Less than one percent of the total input power would be flowing through the Al2O3. I don’t believe that is enough power for the control.

      • Gerard McEk

        There were three coils in the Lugano reactor, switched in delta. The voltage between the coils must have been (depending on the opening angle of the triacs) between 1-400 V (over less than 5 mm’s! between the coil turns). More than enough to cause a considerable current to flow through the aluminia tube and also through the fuel.
        Now while writing this down, I realize that this configuration may have caused considerable resistance heat directly generated in the aluminia tube also, even considerably more than in the coils. That alone may explain the well known picture that shows the darker coils in the red glowing aluminia. This aspect sheds a new light on this test!

        • Mars002

          Hi Gerard,

          Is it possible that the cables did not carry a three phase AC but instead that each feed had different purposes like (examples only)

          – heater for chemical reactions
          – DC potential to drive ions in one direction
          – Q-pulse to get electron avalanches as in a discharge between clusters if NiH

          ?

          • Gerard McEk

            I do not believe so, Mars. If you look to the above mentioned picture, than you see that all wires running into the dog bone reactor are glowing orange equally. That means they are all conducting a similar current. See:

            • Gerard McEk

              I was referring to this picture:

              • Mats002

                How to know you see all three in this picture? Maybe the coil is one single wire and the other two is going into other places in the dogbone?

                • Gerard McEk

                  You have to look into the Lugano report. There you see also the wiring diagram which leaves no doubt about my assessment.

    • Dr. Mike

      Gerald,
      I believe the Al2O3 paste covering the wires may have had a high enough conductivity to lower the effective resistance of the heater wires. The Al2O3 ceramic tube on which the coils were wound should have remained a good insulator at the maximum temperature of the experimental runs. This is a hypothesis, but easily verifiable experimentally.
      Dr. Mike

  • Mats002

    Nice summary, SSM should be an equilibrium state where heat produced is equal to heat taken away at all times.

    Loosing that balance will cause either a) a runaway (meltdown or stop) or b) the new fire is choked (stop)

    Rossi have special skills to handle the balance, both in startup (Lugano reactor was started by him) and overheat (Lugano did not use SSM, probably to manage without Rossi).

    I guess 1Y1MW needed attention for startups. How many startups was done during the year? Why is startups so hard to balance?

    • https://fr.wikiversity.org/wiki/Recherche:Transmutations_biologiques/E-Cat RicalWikis

      In the 2013 Arxiv V3 report, p 25, we see a thermal cycle with a divergent curve that Rossi can use to compute the divergence and maintain SSM state.
      http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.3913v3.pdf

      • Mats002

        From what I can see it shows up to about T=305 and the behaviour at higher Temp is unknown to us.

        Maybe SSM operation include taking care of fast T increase but the average T is still ‘low’ for the LT Cat. If so that was never done in the Lugano test because they did not run in SSM.

    • Dr. Mike

      Mats002,
      Rossi mentioned a few problems during the year run of the 1MW reactor so I would guess that one or more reactors had to be shut down and re-started a couple of times. I see two issues that requires a careful balance during startup. First the water flow rate must be adjusted as the temperature is increased in the reactor to dissipate excess heat, allowing the reactor temperature to be raised slowly. The second balancing issue would be in switching to SSM. Suppose that the reactor was started up with a 100KW heater. This heater would have to have its power decreased at the same rate as the fusion heat rate was increased by the real reactor control system to maintain the reactor’s temperature equilibrium.
      Dr. Mike

      • David Fojt

        Dear Dr Mike, good job therefore how you could explain that Li7 becomes Li6 ?