The Role of the Hydride-ion (Gerhard Hunf)

The following post has been submitted by Gerhard Hunf

The Role of the Hydride-ion

The elements palladium, nickel, lithium and hydrogen play a decisive role in LENR / cold fusion systems.

Palladium and nickel are used primarily as hydrogen solvents. Irrespective of whether the hydrogen is atomically or molecularly dissolved, no nuclear reactions have been described in the two-element systems palladium / hydrogen or nickel / hydrogen.

Only after addition of lithium, to the systems palladium / hydrogen or nickel /hydrogen about nuclease reactions could be reported..

The role of lithium is remarkable in two respects.
1. The system of palladium / hydrogen becomes the RT superconductor only by the presence of lithium, to be the location of high current densities
2. By the presence of lithium, the possibility exists of the formation of LiH in palladium / hydrogen or nickel / hydrogen systems.

The hydride ion plays the role of a catalyst by decisively lowering the energy for neutron formation (e-capture). According to the definition of the catalyst: it reduces the activation energy of the reaction and emerges unused from the reaction.

E-capture on hydrogen H = (p+ + e-) is described by the following reaction
(p+ + e-) + Ex = n + ν
E-capture on hydride-ion H- = (p+ + 2e-)- can be described as follows
(p+ + 2e-)- + Ey = n + e – + ν

Here are two things to note:
1. Ey <Ex
2. The hydride-electron emerges unused from the reaction.

The conditions for a catalyst are fulfilled.

  • artefact

    Hi LION,
    is today your day? Enjoy!

  • LION

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/851aa9bbd36d5bdb6915e962cd5e517fe70dcbe54717a3c0e0ce89a5f15512aa.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/763ad49186e3bd5d07becb519f5c550cbb9b35ea03127937fdfc9283d7b19e80.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/45b93981f6e9bc14a433da9d40687dfce85729dab49e93509911981813beab4b.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5b8fe9ee87e594fc8a7c0afe4a3db428d8aa0caa417502bd438628bb5da21e44.jpg

    I am sure all of you will remember this video

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDu4hnHF_28

    and that Klee is involved with–
    UK based company called LENR Ltd

    This project is a collaboration between Sam Hansson from Cold Fusion Sales, Alan Smith from Leap Forward Labs and Klee Irwin from Quantum Gravity Research.

    The pictures below show changes in one of Looking for heats tubes as a result of a Cold Fusion experiment, the outside in picture 4 looks like GOLD, however only proper investigation can reveal the Truth. These are being sent to Alan at lookingforheat.com in the next few days. He may decide to send them on to Klee Irwin of Quantum Gravity Research for further detailed study. Alan has a free hand to do what ever he thinks is best, I have placed no conditions on him and he and Klee are free to make public whatever they find.

    • artefact

      If it is what it looks like, will you share your ingredients?

      • LION

        Hi artefact, my fuel has been BREWED, over and over, I suspect like Andrea Rossi LUGANO fuel, it is not a simple shake and bake. However at some point this year i.e. 2017, I hope to provide sealed tubes containing my fuel to a few Science labs for Independent TESTING. It is my Hope that the first will be the Nobel Laureate Professor Brian Josephson Head of the Condensed Matter Group at the Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge, England, UK. However, that is a conversation that I have yet to have with the good Professor. The next item on my agenda is to provide data-logger data, which I will do with Alan’s help, hopefully before the end of May. You may have seen today on LENR Forum that Alan and Sam are off to Italy in June. I hope this goes some way to answering your question. It has always been my hope through my work to re-engage the mainstream scientific community in serious LENR research. I believe that is a duty we all carry.

        • artefact

          Hello LION. Sounds good. I wonder if you also have seen a heat differential? What did you to detect the tracks below?

          • LION

            Hi artefact, yes I have seen a heat differential. The tracks were recorded using dental x ray film.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ogeFeyU25Y

            and subsequently I discovered by accident that inkjet Paper can also do it.

            • artefact

              🙂

            • Goodrice

              Inkjet paper?

        • Gerard McEk

          Hi LION, did you do any tests yourself and if so, can you tell what the results were? (I would expect that you would only want to send your fuel to Professor Josephson if you have had positive results).

          • LION

            Hi Gerard, the results you see are as a result of an excess heat event, prudence says-wait for data logger results. These will in time be uploaded to the internet by Alan, when I have run my experiments and recorded the data I will then return the card to Alan to post. Complete transparency.

        • Max Temple

          Not considering your results, my opinion is that fuel preparation (baking/oxidizing, hard vacuum degassing, flushing with hydrogen, and repeating) in some combination for each and every different type/size/brand of nickel is probably critical for excess heat. Me356’s statements seem to confirm this. Now, perhaps, your results do as well. The good news, I hope, is that you seem very willing to share the knowledge you have gained with complete openness. That spirit of sharing is critical right now as we try to make this technology capable of being replicated.

          I’ll be looking forward to learning how you processed your fuel. Your results could help countless others prove the reality of the NiH effect.

          Thank you so much for sharing this news with the community.

          • LION

            Max, thanks for your kind words, I have made a commitment to an unfolding process with proper checks and balances.

        • Goodrice

          What do you mean with brewed? Do prepare your LFH tubes by an impregnation method, perhaps over a spongy ceramic support and done multiple times?

          • LION

            Hi Goodrice, please see my post below to Alan about Videos and standing on the shoulders of giants, when posted I believe it will answer your questions.

  • LION

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/224e7501f2313dc2cb730d141196e8769f35e5b1bf77b5ebf85a7d08f76d8d47.jpg

    Particle Tracks from LENR experiment, using a Friendly Robot LENR Test Kit bought from Alan at Looking For Heat.

    • Alan Smith

      Hi LION. Delighted to see you posting some results- excellent! If you can tell me a little more about it I would love to post in ‘the other place’ (LENR-Forum.

      • LION

        Thanks Alan I have sent you an email about address. When You receive the parcel, let me know then we can talk, THANKS again.

        • Alan Smith

          My pleasure.

        • Alan Smith

          Hi Lion. Parcel arrived today. Many thanks for the information. I’ll check the data on the card you sent, but since you think it ‘not useful’ may not release it. I will also check the logger for faults- this can happen sometimes -but in my experience not in a way to create false hopes- more likely a way to lose real ones.

          • LION

            Hi Alan, thanks for letting me know the parcel arrived safely, I am looking forward to seeing your own microscope pictures of the broken tube shards, Thanks for your email and kind offer , much appreciated.

            • Alan Smith

              Hi. I’ll tackle the Microscopy this weekend. Just thought you would like to know I checked the shards of ceramic fuel tube for residual radioactivity – both Alphas and more penetrating beta/gammas etc. Nothing found, no increase over background averaged over 60 minutes exposure.

              • Alan Smith

                Also, I showed your particle track data sheets to a real expert in the field. He was impressed- they look VERY real he said. Which translated means ‘How did you do that!?’

                • LION

                  Hi Alan, Thanks for going to so much trouble. Great news.

                • LION

                  Hi Alan, My gut instinct is that these particles are obliquely related to the Gravitational field of the Earth, in a similar way as the Cosmic Ray is related to the shower of particles produced by its passage through the atmosphere.
                  I know you may be giving a presentation in about 3 weeks time so I will be spending the next two weeks trying to produce denser particle tracks in X Ray film that you can put up on a screen with an overhead projector. With FRANKS help 2 short movies will be posted in the coming week. I believe they might cause quite a stir, we shall see. Thanks once again for all your help.

                  https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/21bdebc1d92fe37db04daaa222145a988269564fed559113339b3f7f862a0ff9.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/13a6db1c97144563f2aaababfa2dc0e9c35f1042bb843ad8cbdb65f2ce7ffbd6.jpg

                • Alan Smith

                  I would really like to host the video on LFH’s You-Tube channel if possible. As well as here, not instead. You have email btw.

                • LION

                  Thanks Alan.

                • LION

                  Hi Alan, after all the pressure of the last few weeks I am having a lazy day, but will respond to email before the end of tomorrow. As for putting the 2 videos on LFH’s You-Tube channel, sure no problem, but first I want them posted here on ECW. I would like to post them this Thursday, but it may take a few days more simply because I am writing a contextual piece to accompany them, called Standing on the shoulders of giants. All will become clear.

                • Alan Smith

                  Jolly good. I’ll wait to hear from you. I have some good news for you, too.

                • Alan Smith

                  Been taking a long look on video at the inside of your fuel-tube shards. Photography comes next. Particle tracks -perhaps. One of the problems is that there are parallel machine-ing marks in the tube, and of course I am working on the inside of the curved surface which limits the depth of field.
                  What is apparent is that there are quite a few highly reflective spots in there. Time to drag out the trusty Canon 400D

                • LION

                  Thanks for all your hard work Alan, I have posted the parcel to you this evening, but apparently it won’t leave the shop till morning, so you will receive it Wednesday. I am tracking it as usual.

              • LION

                Hi Alan, GOOD it has the signature of CLASSIC LENR.

  • Hi all

    A little bit of history to consider:
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0368204880800417

    Kind Regards walker

  • artefact

    On JONP:

    “Andrea Rossi March 6, 2017 at 4:30 PM
    L.E.:
    Very well, we are approaching the mythical Sigma 5, I am very satisfied about what I saw today.
    Important events I can see in the horizon.
    Warm Regards, A.R.”

  • Max Temple

    Cleaned/Vacuumed Nickel + Hydrogen + Heat/Pressure: This is all that’s required to produce

    excess heat. Lithium and palladium is not required. Focardi and Piantelli performed many such experiments with nickel in the form of rods and wire. Here is a link.

    http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSlargeexces.pdf

    If you do additional reading of other papers, they were able to achieve a COP of 2 (maybe a touch higher in some tests) repeatedly with only nickel and hydrogen. And, importantly, the total excess heat in watts was significant — although not super high. The COP of 2 wasn’t just from massive thermal insulation.

    Now, consider these three facts.

    1) Nickel bar/wire has a very limited surface area (probably a hundred to a thousand times less) than micron sized nickel powder.

    2) Hydrogen will only penetrate nickel for a few microns. The bulk of their nickel did NOT participate in the reaction. The NAE formed are just blow the surface in dislocations/defects in the lattice produced by vacuuming or the stress produced from hydrogen loading.

    3) They used NO source of atomic hydrogen.

    Rossi’s first gigantic improvement was utilizing a powder with a much higher surface area. Just doing so should multiply the excess heat in a massive way. However, he probably would not achieve a gain directly proportional and matching that of the increased surface area. This is because hydrogen permeation through nickel powder is not perfect and really clean nickel tends to sinter together easily into one mass, reducing hydrogen permeation. So even if he achieved a thousand fold increase in surface area, his resulting increase in excess heat will be a fraction of that. To be extremely conservative, let’s say 10%.

    If you multiply the results of Piantelli and Focardi, per gram of nickel, by one hundred you will achieve a very high production of energy. However, making this work would be tricky, because even Focardi and PIantelli had to carefully anneal, vacuum, and flush their nickel with hydrogen repeatedly. Doing this effectively to powder might be a bit more difficult than bar/rod.

    So Rossi, from the start, added methods of enhancing hydrogenation. For example, the use of a nano-palladium spillover catalyst is likely according to all the clues floating around. Copper nano powder would also function as a spillover catalyst. If they worked their way into the surface features of the carbonyl nickel powder, they would accelerating the dissociation of molecular hydrogen into atomic hydrogen.

    Then Rossi took things even further by adding even more sources of atomic hydrogen. For example, perhaps a hot tungsten filament and/or a source of RF frequencies to dissociate molecular hydrogen. Since atomic hydrogen rapidly penetrates the nickel, this would have accelerated the loading process.

    So, in review, although lithium can boost an E-Cat reaction (I’ve explained this in my articles) either as being a source of atomic hydrogen (during decomposition) that can be cycled repeated by forming LiH and decomposing again or as a secondary fuel, lithium is not required to produce excess heat.

    • Goodrice

      From the ’90s papers and patent by Piantelli and Focardi it’s apparent that they not only degassed their bars but also chemically altered them, in addition of electrodepositing (electroplating) relatively thick layers of nickel. Done properly (i.e. not to obtain a shiny finish as normally done), this would cause a substantial increase in surface area in a 3d fashion, creating not just surface features but also internal pores. Later on Piantelli moved onto physical vapor deposition which does about the same thing. Deposition/Co-deposition in electrolytic experiments has also been shown to work with good reproducibility.

      From “Large excess heat production in Ni-H systems” (1998)

      In order to compare samples having the same surface but different bulks, the metal
      rods used in the experiments described here (stainless steel for cell A and nickel for cell B) were coated with a thick ( ~0.1 mm) nickel layer by the usual nickel-plating bath [7] containing the following components: Nickel Ammonium Sulphate, Citric Acid, Ammonium Hydroxide, Sodium Disulfite (purity RPE-ACS)

      • Max Temple

        Remember that they ran many different tests. They got similar results with just nickel wire that had not been electroplated. I do think that having defects or tiny spaces inside the nickel where hydrogen can pool is important. Some of these are created by the actual loading process. Another way of doing this is to take nickel that has already been oxidized on the surface and has probably absorbed oxygen into the lattice and vacuum the nickel under heat. These trapped oxygen atoms are then removed (if you apply vacuum for long enough under adequate heat) leaving empty spaces just below the surface. These could very well be NAE.

        • Max Temple

          One method of pre-processing could be exposing the nickel to an enriched oxygen environment at lower temperatures — below the sintering temperature of the nickel — at potentially above atmospheric pressure. Since nickel has a very high affinity for oxygen, the oxygen should be absorbed. Then the vacuum/degassing stage could remove this trapped oxygen producing an abundance of NAE.

    • RLittle

      Hi Mr Temple,

      Please do not get made and go on a tirade. This is a discussion of facts as record by science and patent literature. And I do not know you so I do not know if you will do such but in general I say this as from most interactions this is what I have to deal with when I attempt to interact.

      I would like to mention that you are right. Some effects are observed with no Li (substances that I in 2005 called target elements) and larger macro-micro size Ni (which I called in 2005 pycnomedia) and without sufficient magnetic and/or electric stimulation; these ‘some’ effects are smaller, harder to reproduce and not accelerated for industrial applications. Furthermore Piantelli observed such during the 90s without a question. But such small, irreducible and not applicable effects of Piantelli tho important were not sufficient to convince the scientific community. What Mr. Hunf is noting here is that the Li accelerates, makes more reproducible, makes more applicable this tiny spurious effect of Piantelli from 90s and such acceleration is what catalysts by definition do. And Piantelli deserves credit for this work of the 90s. But RBL discovered and documented (in patent literature) this acceleration in early 2000 as by seeking ways to accelerate this effect using target elements that catalyze the effect as by RBL and nano-size and strong magnetic (and or electric stimulation). Piantelli deserves credit for his great work during the 90s but it is not just to give him credit for what other younger researchers did later that accelerated the phenomena and caused the renewed interests after 2007 and the current industry and reproducibility after 2010. Piantelli is extremely important to LENR and he is very famous, ect…; but in all fairness he did not discover everything by himself.

      • Max Temple

        I’m not angry at all. However, you are mistaken to call the pure Ni-H effects small.

        The simple undisputable fact (nothing to do with LENR research) is that hydrogen will only migrate a few MICRONS into a bulk nickel sample. So in Piantelli and Focardi’s bulk samples, 99.9% or more of the fuel had ZERO chance of being “active.” That is why Andrea Rossi switched to micron sized powders. Two to three micron size powder ensures that none of the nickel is wasted. If you use larger particles (lets say even 20 microns) a significant portion of the core will be wasted.

        So by enhancing the amount of nickel that can react by using powder, Andrea Rossi was able to multiply the effect by a huge degree. To get hundreds to a thousand watts per gram of fuel does not require lithium. All you need is to optimally prepare the fuel (so it can breathe hydrogen easily) and then have a method of producing atomic hydrogen at a much faster rate than H2 can dissociate on a nickel surface. This accelerates the breathing and accelerates the excess heat production.

        I totally agree that lithium can boost the output dramatically — especially if you apply it to an already active system. There are probably multiple ways lithium can help. But I think the maximization of the quantity of nickel capable of being hydrogenated is what explains 90% of the Rossi Effect. He just makes the hydrogenation happen much faster and much more efficiently with atomic hydrogen sources.

        • Goodrice

          What’s your source that hydrogen indisputably only diffuses a few microns in a nickel sample? As far as I know there isn’t a diffusion depth limit for hydrogen in metals, it only takes time depending on temperature and their permeability (after all it’s one of the reasons why hydrogen embrittlement is a feared problem in some fields beyond scientific research). MFMP too found this out in certain experiments where at a high enough temperature hydrogen would quickly permeate though mm-thick stainless steel tubes almost as if it they were acting as a membrane.

          http://www.rebresearch.com/H2perm2.htm

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Hydrogen can penetrate into the Ni lattice, but it needs some help:

            “In order to dissolve inside the nickel, hydrogen must migrate from on the surface through the face of a nickel crystal. This does not take place in a vacuum, but can take place when the hydrogen coated nickel surface is impacted by other molecules. The molecules do not have to be hydrogen, but they appear to work like hammers punching the hydrogen atoms through the nickel surface to the subsurface. An activation energy of 100 kJ/mol is required to penetrate the surface.”

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

            One might think of Rossi’s technique to boot his reactors, which has been described as a fairly complicated procedure involving multiple pressure changes, at least in the early E-Cats. That way (only speculation, of course) the hydrogen could have been forced to enter the lattice. Maybe absorption works better if lithium is present, but this is speculation as well.

            • Max Temple

              Also, an H1 atom created by the dissociation of H2 by the clean nickel surface has already lost energy via the dissociation process. An H1 atom in the atmosphere that is attracted to the surface but DOESN’T NEED TO DISSOCIATE will be able to use all the attractive force to impact the surface and penetrate. That is why I think it is important to create atomic hydrogen either on a spillover catalyst like palladium OR in the enviornment via a hot filament or RF frequencies or emission from a metal hydride. The absorption of hydrogen that takes place on the nickel surface is EXTREMELY slow. Having even a weak plasma in the reactor to dissociate H2 to even a low degree should help tremendously.

          • Max Temple

            I’ve read it in non-LENR papers about the hydrogenation of nickel. I do not recall the actual paper, and it would probably take me a few hours to look up.

            First of all, hydrogen does not diffuse through all metals equally. Palladium is a metal through which hydrogen diffuses easily. If you place a block of palladium (lets say one inch by one inch) and apply hydrogen and pressure, hydrogen will migrate through the entire bulk.

            Secondly, stainless steel is NOT a pure metal. The carbon and other elements allow for hydrogen migration through the bulk via a number of different processes.

            Finally, with nickel, from what I read, when a bulk sample (lets say a cube of the same size as mentioned above) is exposed to hydrogen and pressure, hydrogen will permeate a few microns and then stop. This is because a layer of “beta-phase” (in simple term an area of high loading) is created near the surface that produces a barrier for additional hydrogen absorption deeper into the sample.

            Now, there are exceptions to EVERY rule. However, the papers I’ve read (more than one on this issue) made this pretty clear. So I’m assuming it applies to most cases, but not all.

            If this is correct — I’m 99% sure the paper was accurate — the micron sized nickel powder is perfect because if you go any larger you start wasting nickel. If you go much smaller, you will only accelerate the sintering process which you do NOT want to take place.

        • RLittle

          Thank you for professional and sincere response. Your comments are well taken. And they point out more why the 90s work of Piantelli had limited spurious, irreproducible, not applicable industrial outcomes as such issues with hydrogen absorption limited Piantelli’s 90 results and hence the inability to convince other LENR supporters and the larger community. But I just ask you in all sincerity to consider that just because hydrogen does not permeate micro-size or larger size very well (UNDER SOME CONDITIONS), it does not totally follow that under differing conditions the hydrogen would be similarly limited. Please, please put emotions aside and just focus on the physics and chemistry and not the person. On the basis of such this why RBL in 2000 proposed novel effects by using nano-size for single domain magnetism rather than multidomain with such possible skin effects. And this is the further basis of why RBL reasoned surface effects driving spin currents and spin waves to drive diffusion of hydrogen and carbon within single domain nano-size ferrometals nonclassically for novel effects under the diferent conditions: such effects as pycnonuclear phenomena, superfluidity of hydrogen and carbon and other target atoms, and liquid crystalline and supersolid behaviors as first discovered by RBL in 2000. Moreover under such different conditions {the key here is different conditions relative to the limited hydrogen mobility as in the papers you note}, RBL successfully discovered and disclosed in 2000 the driving of such time crystallization of the motion of the hydrogen and carbon in a Floquet manner by driving by external dynamics and static magnetic field to maintain the out of equilibria. On such basis in 2000 RBL proposed the superfluid pumped convection of carbon and hydrogen in such nanoferrometals under the novel conditions of nano-size, dynamics and static strong magnetic driving disequilibria and consequent liquid crystallinity of the motions in a nonclassical manner. Such nonclassical dynamics would not manifest in micro-size and macro-size Nickel and hence the differing hydrogen motion and penetration in such larger systems due to the classical behavior rather than the quantum behavior. So you are right in limited hydrogen mobility in Ni under some conditions but such should not be extended to different conditions as noted here on such Ni/H. It is further on this basis that work on macroscopic Ni/H during the 90s by Piantelli does not embrace new conditions and dynamics discovered by me and others later in 2000s, hence the priority does not (should not) back date to the 90s.

        • Ted-Z

          my 2 cents agaìn…
          acetone or alcohol in trace qyantities will form carbon monoxide and volatile nickel carbonyls…
          even traces of hydrocarbons with traces of water will form carbon monoxide and the VOLATILE NICKEL CARBONYLS
          … nickel carbonyls form nano-particles of nickel in any thermal cycles….
          This might be difficult to understand to non-chemists… sorry… but nickel can be made Very VOLATILE…. Many other transition metals form volatile carbonyls…. the LENR might be a DUSTY PLASMA reaction involving mostly nanoparticles

  • Alan DeAngelis
  • sam
  • Hi all

    This along with the comments by Andreas Moraitis and Zephir are the most convincing theoretical description for LENR I have so far seen. The theory fits the work of F&P Piantelli, Focardi and Rossi.

    It also explains the failures seen in several of those trying to repeat F&P with a different electrolyte.

    Kind Regards Walker

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Ian, the discussion on this page involves two fundamentally different theories, electron capture (see Gerhard’s post) and Piantelli’s model. At present, nobody can say if one of them, or any other of the numerous existing LENR theories, is correct – even if some of them may appear plausible at first sight. Only a long, iterative process of developing hypotheses and testing them experimentally could provide an answer (and this answer would remain provisional, though).

    • Max Temple

      Lithium is NOT required to produce excess heat. Focardi and Piantelli were able to get significant excess heat at a COP of 2 with only nickel wire/bar, hydrogen, and heat/pressure. The only factor that is required is to achieve adequate absorption of hydrogen at a quick enough rate to stress the lattice into forming defects/dislocations/cavities or other “spaces” where hydrogen can form exotic species that are susceptible to nuclear reactions. Although lithium can be very useful as an atomic hydrogen source (LiH decomposing and reforming repeatedly) OR as a secondary fuel (the emissions from the Ni-H reaction hitting it and producing more excess heat) it is not critical at all.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    The bond between the lithium and hydride may have some
    covalent character by DFT (density functional theory). http://disq.us/p/16j7thj

    • Ted-Z

      For the covalent bonds there are so called orbitals of electrons. The covalent irbitals often show electrobs as passing through the nucleus!!!

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Yeah Ted, unlike the brute force hot fusion plasma approach,
        the participation of the electrons lowers the Coulomb barrier.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    I am not sure if I would label the mass-energy difference between the reaction product and the reactants as “activation energy”. As far as I understand it, the activation energy and the energy balance of a reaction are different concepts. The problem here is not activation but the mass difference between the reaction product and the reactants. Of course, one could modify the energy balance by increasing the kinetic energy, and therefore the mass, of the latter. That would require a fast proton or a very fast (‘heavy’) electron. What would be the role of the hydride ion in this regard?

    • hunfgerh
      • hunfgerh

        The relationship between activation energy (E a {displaystyle E_{a}} ) and enthalpy of formation (ΔH) with and without a catalyst, plotted against the reaction coordinate. The highest energy position (peak position) represents the transition state. With the catalyst, the energy required to enter transition state decreases, thereby decreasing the energy required to initiate the reaction.

        • RLittle

          Hi Sir, I agree with you. Please allow me to note that this hydride theory and Li, Be, C catalyst was first discovered by RBL in 2005. Piantelli intentionally (or unintentionally) re-used similar idea/theory later in 2008 and it was later called Piantelli hypothesis. But clearly the idea is dated in patent literature in 2005 by RBL as RBL presented this idea in 2005.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        In this article they are talking about reactions between equally charged particles (e.g. nuclear fusion), which require indeed activation energy to overcome the Coulomb barrier. But since protons and electrons have opposite charges, this model is not applicable here. Of course, you have to provide energy in order to compensate the mass difference, but IMHO this is not “activation energy” in the usual sense.

        • hunfgerh

          I talk also about particles of equell charges to overcome the Coulomb barrier. Repulsion of shell elecrons and electrons from the electric field.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            OK.

  • Zephir

    /* The hydride ion plays the role of a catalyst by decisively lowering the energy for neutron formation (e-capture). */

    It’s actually quite simple – the hydride ion is anion in fact, it has negative charge and as such it gets closer to atom nuclei than another forms of hydrogen. This is classical explanation of prof. Focardi and the above “explanation” is bogus based on circular reasoning.

    http://www.e-catworld.com/2017/02/19/sergio-focardi-on-the-need-for-atomic-hydrogen-in-the-e-cat/

    • Andreas Moraitis

      This is rather Piantalli’s theory. Maybe Focardi has partly adapted it, but that would be new to me.

      • Zephir

        Could you prove it? I already linked my source. Piantelli was much smarter.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          See https://www.google.com/patents/WO2010058288A8?cl=en

          BTW: Sorry for the typos – I’m apparently somewhat distracted this morning…

          • Zephir

            OK, you’re right, the Focardi’s theory is similar. According to Piantelli’s hypothesis, under the right conditions a H−
            ion can replace an electron of a transition metal atom, just as a muon
            replaces an electron in muon-catalyzed fusion. Due to its relatively
            large mass, the H− ion continually falls to lower electron levels, causing the emission of X-rays and Auger electrons. As it has a net negative charge, there is no Coulomb repulsion to hinder its progress toward the transition metal nucleus. At the lowest level the H− ion is close enough to be captured by the nucleus. After capturing the H− ion, the unstable nucleus releases energy and eventually expels the anion in the form of a proton.

            • Andreas Moraitis

              If I recall it correctly, Piantelli considers two different cases:

              1) The proton of the hydride anion fuses with the target nucleus.

              2) The fusion fails and the proton is expelled with high energy.

              • Pekka Janhunen

                Yes and it was (2) that I had a problem with (where would the energy come from since no nuclear reaction).

                • Gerard McEk

                  How I think (2) works when I first read it: The H- is very near ~3 pm of a Ni atom. Somehow it looses one of its electrons due to which the nuclei are not screened so much to each other any more. The coulomb force strongly repels the much lighter hydrogen nucleus, which is then expelled with high speed. Its energy can be nearly as large as the energy needed to fuse.

                • Stephen

                  Yes but the over all interaction would still need to meet conservation of energy constraints somehow. I’m also curious how that works.

                • Gerard McEk

                  True, thanks Stephen. Now I understand Pekka’s remark. When an anion would be able to spiral down to the Ni nucleus, it’s energy (speed?) would increase dramatically, wouldn’t it?

                • Pekka Janhunen

                  Yes.
                  If one could imagine that the hydrogen anion is compact (which it is not), it could catalyse fusion similarly to the muon (sink to low orbit, get close to nucleus). However, the resulting fusion would be of the ordinary kind i.e. would produce radiation.
                  If the sinking particle would be a compact H2- molecule (2 protons, 3 electrons), the third nucleus could take over the momentum and avoid producing radiation. The compactness question remains, but one might hope that QM could somehow take care of it…

                  Recently, however, I have relooked into Fisher’s polyneutron theory. The theory avoids the Coulomb barrier problem. It is unclear to me if it could also avoid radiation and radioactive remnants.

                • Stephen

                  Yes I was wondering about the QM aspect too. I’m sure Piantelli would have considered the implications when absorbing an anion.

                  Would the election orbitals in Hydrogen anion become some how compressed as it descends into the potential well of a heavier nucleus?

                  Or would the election orbitals be transferred to some common state around a compound nucleus once the nucleus of the anion is brought closer to the heavy nucleus by its kinetic energy than its S1 orbital?

                  Well I’m not enough knowledgeable about the field to know that but maybe someone here knows.

                • Andreas Moraitis

                  Piantelli does not claim a net gain in case (2). One might expect that the kinetic energy is withdrawn from the system (minus the accelerated proton), although it is difficult to imagine how that could work. That the observed protons are expelled from heavier nuclei seems plausible, since (according to Piantelli) the measured energies are compatible with the calculated ones:

                  “More in detail, if the transformation of H- ions 35 into protons 1H+ 35′ is carried out at a distance longer than the distance that allows the nuclear capture, i.e. at a distance longer than about 10″14 m, protons 1H+ 35″ are expelled at a predetermined energy, which can be measured by a cloud chamber measurement. This depends upon the Coulomb repulsion between protons 1H+ 35′ and nucleus 38′. The energy of expelled protons 35″ is about 6.7 MeV, as it can be calculated, and as it is confirmed by tests according to the above indicated technique.“

                  https://www.google.com/patents/EP2754156A2?cl=en

        • Pekka Janhunen

          I never understood Piantelli’s theory which was described in his patent. It looked to me that the theory just broke energy conservation.

          • Max Temple

            Forget complex nuclear theory. Look at what produced results. Focardi and Piantelli used properly prepared (annealed, vacuumed, flushed with hydrogen) nickel and hydrogen gas to produce excess heat. If you realize that the bulk of their nickel contributed nothing because hydrogen only migrates a few microns into the surface in the BEST case, then it becomes obvious that enhancing the surface area by using powder will result in a massive increase in excess heat.

            Then, if you utilize a source of atomic hydrogen (spillover catalyst such as palladium or copper, a hot tungsten filament, RF frequencies to dissociation the H2, etc) you can accelerate the process RAPIDLY.

  • Leonard Weinstein

    Where was the Lithium for Pons and Flishman?

    • Alan DeAngelis

      LiOD was the electrolyte for F&P but you’re right in that D2SO4 was the electrolyte in John Dash’s version of F&P’s experiment.

  • atanguy

    What about:
    Muon+ Proton -> Gamma + Neutron
    or
    Muon+ (12)C -> Gamma + (12)B*

    • Pekka Janhunen

      If there would be muons involved, there should be also muon-catalysed (hot) fusion reactions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion ), but they would produce radiation, which is not seen. Your reaction would also produce free neutrons, which are (hardly) not seen. Plus, where would the muons be generated from: their rest mass (105MeV) is clearly larger than the energy that any ordinary fusion reaction can produce. Only uranium etc. fission reactions produce ~200MeV per event.

      • atanguy

        “where would the muons be generated”
        There are plenty of muons around (cosmic rays on atmosphere)?
        This could explain the random success/failures of CF…

        • Pekka Janhunen

          Seed muon yes, energetically important amount obviously not.
          The random success/failure is a good point. But many possible reasons, lack of seed one of them.

      • Axil Axil

        Don’t forget that the muons may be entangled with the Ultra dense hydrogen that produced the proton decay that generated the muon to begin with.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          You mean proton decay like in GUT?

          • Axil Axil

            According to Holmlid, the decay of two protons produces three mesons and 340 MeV of energy. Yes the proton decay is based on changes in the action of the fundamental forces, but not GUT which is invalid.

            • Pekka Janhunen

              I’m sceptical of such claim. In SM without GUT, the proton is a stable particle, that is, two protons should be the minimum energy state for those six quarks.