71 posts
· 11 threads started · 319 more in threads this archive does not carry
· writing between May 2009
and Sep 2020
An identity on Energetic Forum as it was harvested, not an account on this site.
Nobody here has claimed it, and nothing connects it to a person by name.
Dr.Jones is still traveling but home bound [he drives everywhere]
there's a plan to discuss this on the weekend.
just for clarity there have been some really good [IMO] measurement protocols put forward , I am hoping that Dr.Jones can give them a good going over so an appropriate test protocol can be forwarded to a few waiting open source Labs.
and of course posted here too.
for clarity these simple test protocols can be performed by a majority of open source builders here and elsewhere.
but reading above
snip
Dr.Jones
quote
Turns out that is a lot of energy released, considering that many many reactions are possible per second. These reactions would in turn result in radioactive products that would release β+ emission, which don't travel far in matter. The next product would be gamma-rays mostly at 1.011 MeV, which are easy to shield against.
Since Nature has surprised us before, she may do so again. It may be that the reactions resulting in stable (non-radioactive) copper might dominate the process, so there would finally be but few gammas relative to the large heat energy released:
62Ni + p → 63Cu
64Ni + p → 65Cu
All of these isotopes are stable, that is, not radioactive at all. Only experiments will tell.
end quote
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have never done this bright line testing , sounds simple enuff
.
I get the impression that they really are not certain where the energy is coming from [or some may not be telling ??]
I would imagine detectors [calibrated very sensitive detectors] are running all the time to sniff for radioactive emmisions!
(I do know anyone who plays with this on their home benches have "counters" and films which react to emissions .
The Novice "hunter" can use all the help they can get .
I will ask about your suggestion .
thx
Chet
Hydrogen-Nickel Reactions
Let me focus on what appears to be the most promising approach right now for hydrogen-metal reactions – and that is when the metal chosen is nickel, a cheap and abundant metal. I acknowledge that when nickel is in the presence of other metals (e.g., an alloy), the reaction may be enhanced.
There are just five naturally-occuring isotopes of Nickel, these are:
58Ni 68%
60Ni 26%
61Ni 1.1%
62Ni 3.6%
64Ni 0.9%
Now the reaction that I and several others came up with, about the same time – is this: add a proton to the nucleus! The physicist will say, “But the Coulomb-barrier against the proton entering the nucleus is huge!” And I will answer:
1 – First, the proton does not need to go over the barrier; it can possibly tunnel through the barrier (a quantum-mechanical process)
2 – Recall that the surprisingly high rate of d-d fusion observed in metals, which my team first discovered & published in Nature, has been verified (references), yet is not fully understood theoretically. To me, experiments trump theory when theory is lagging behind experiments, which happens surprisingly often. (Recall that high-temp superconductivity is not well understood theoretically, yet Nature allows it to occur even though our theory lags behind!)
3 – The proposed reaction occurs in the metal-catalyzed matrix, just as low-level (so far) d-d fusion is enhanced in metals (an empirical fact). This environment for nuclear reactions is unique.
We can look up the masses of the nuclear reactants and resultant products, and we see that substantial energy is released (call it ∆E) during the hypothesized proton + Ni-nucleus reactions. We are not talking about creating energy out of nothing! Rather, we apply Einstein's equation, ∆E = ∆mc2 .
58Ni + p → 59Cu which then decays by β+ emission;
60Ni + p → 61Cu which then decays by β+ emission
61Ni + p → 62Cu which then decays by β+ emission
62Ni + p → 63Cu which is stable (does not decay)
64Ni + p → 65Cu which is stable (does not decay)
In a chart of nuclides, we find the masses involved and calculate straightforwardly the energy released in each (fusion-type nuclear) reaction, for example, 58Ni plus a proton:
M of proton = 1.007276467 u
M of 58Ni = 57.9353429 u
Adding these we find that th ue mass of reactants = 1.00727646688u + 57.9353429 = 58.942619367 u
And the mass of the resulting 59Cu (postulated) = 58.9394980 u
Then -∆m = Minitial – Mfinal = (1.00727646688 + 57.9353429) u - 58.9394980 u = 58.942619367 - 58.9394980 = 0.003121367 u
We multiply this by the speed-of-light squared, to get the energy released in the reaction, and convert to a standard unit of energy (MeV = Million-electron-Volts, and 931.5 MeV/c2 = 1 u)
and we find:
∆E = ∆mc2 = 2.908 MeV per reaction.
Turns out that is a lot of energy released, considering that many many reactions are possible per second. These reactions would in turn result in radioactive products that would release β+ emission, which don't travel far in matter. The next product would be gamma-rays mostly at 1.011 MeV, which are easy to shield against.
Since Nature has surprised us before, she may do so again. It may be that the reactions resulting in stable (non-radioactive) copper might dominate the process, so there would finally be but few gammas relative to the large heat energy released:
62Ni + p → 63Cu
64Ni + p → 65Cu
All of these isotopes are stable, that is, not radioactive at all. Only experiments will tell.
In my own experiments along these lines, I have focussed on using electrolysis to place protons in the nickel matrix. Then I measure heat production. My results are occasionally up to 1.09 of “anomalous power”. I'm still working on achieving 100% reproducibility, which is the great ELUSIVE goal in this field at the moment.
My path to HyNi came through muon-catalyzed fusion, then d-d cold fusion in metals, then learning about the Peter Davey claims of excess heat in ordinary water in the 1940's – followed by my own experiments using ordinary H2O. My results are encouraging – along with those of MANY others now, world-wide. Others have taken various paths, and several now use gas-loading of Hydrogen into nickel and other metals.
It is basically a “race for humanity” at this time, to see who can achieve:
1 – 100% reproducibility, each and every experiment.
2 – higher power yields, to make measurements more straightforward.
3 – still higher power yields, to make a useful device.
4 – release the inventions to benefit humanity.
It will be interesting to see which group in which country gets there first. It might be that our community will "crack the code" for 100% reproducibility FIRST. Groups in Italy and Japan are working on this. (Not so much in the USA for some reason.)
We should consider the alternative approaches for loading hydrogen into metals, before diving in (IMO). Some of these are:
1 - Electrolysis involving H2O, an approach which also allows for co-deposition of various metals (including lithium, one of my personal favorites) onto a metal cathode at the same time as hydrogen (protons) are introduced into the matrix. I credit Peter Davey for pioneering in this particular approach in the 1940's - not Pons &Fleischmann who used H2O for control-experiments, and who came later anyway.
2 - H2 gas-loading, with the metal heated in various ways including Joule-heating (E.g., Takhashi in Japan and Celani in Italy).
3- Chemical decomposition of hydrogen-rich compounds into metals (E.g., Parkhomov)
4- H+ ion bombardment at various beam energies, into various test-metals. (I don't know of anyone using this approach at this time).
I'm going to stick my neck out prognosticate that one of these approaches will succeed big-time in the next year or two. The FIRST to achieve 100% reproducibility in anomalous hydrogen-metal reactions will greatly benefit humanity. The lack of repeatability is the greatest bottleneck at the moment, as I see
end quote
I am trying to get the final thoughts and opinions on this assembled as quickly as possible.
But the holiday is taking much spare time here ,
will probably take until next week when things quiet down
I am chompin at the bit ,But Dr.Jones is on the road ATM .
not good talking and Driving also ruff working without his computer.
to note this issue with GOOD heat measurement protocol on a tight budget ,is directly addressing your noted point.
I sent you a Bunch of possible techniques that were considered for the Parkhomov work in a PM and will Hopefully now be amended to fit this Celani work.
One open source project Designer for the Celani test management protocol is quite confident his suggestion will be quite simple and should enable many experimenters to do quality measurements on a very small budget.
I have to admit I am very happy you are looking at this
getting a true anomaly in front of a fellow like you ,as well as
good measurement protocols
That can change the world.
once the protocol is established [the simple one] it will be posted here.
and of course any suggestions to improve or simplify ...
thats what Open source is all about...
a meeting with Dr.Jones tonight to discuss methods for experimenters here and elsewhere to replicate.
some members have already geared up with Data logging protocols
as well as techniques to play with this .
it is possible that all bits will be made available [at no cost] to open source experimenters here [and elsewhere] who would like to participate.
Sir
I always enjoy your thoughts and input on this forum
and also how your opinions are not easily swayed.
your comment here gave me pause , I am certain these fellows have theories,
but as of Yet ....
just anomalous mysterious results .
I will try to work a bit with Steve [Dr.Jones] on better understanding all the minutia
of the technique the Celani team is using as well as Parkhomov's better understood kitchen work.
perhaps with a few more pieces of equipment and technical support a few of our open source Labs could play here ?
and maybe a few other techniques could tickle the lattice ??
after all Parkhomov does literally work in his kitchen.....
I will ask about your thoughts .... heat does change things and perhaps this Celani potpourri ... in the oven .... ?
maybe it does mimic the attributes of plasma due to its similarities ?
to me this is mind bending stuff ...and I don't have much to bend...
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...h_temperatures
------------------------------------------------------------
Dr.Jones quote
Note that nickel metal and H2 (also D2) are used here. I believe the first to claim anomalous heat production (AHP) from metals + H2, from H2O in his case, was Peter Davey of New Zealand in the 1940's.
(We've discussed his work in a different thread).
Now the research focusses on H2 and D2 gas entering nickel (also other metals) at elevated temps (but well below plasma temps). It seems important that the metal lattice be present.
Hence, a solid lattice is needed for the (presumed nuclear) reaction to occur. That is what is so surprising, that a nuclear (not d-d fusion) reaction appears to occur at a sufficient rate for heat to be observed and measured.
Here is a photo and corresponding drawing of one of the "knots" in the Constantan wire where the reactions evidently occur:
Note. the system has been run with out any HHO for the last year ,but engine damage was a problem [long term testing]
recently HHO has been added to The fuel mix.
this is the simple yet effective test protocol
Brad
quote
ATM we are useing 20% gasoline,10% catalyst,and 70% water-->with the addition of the 7LPM of HHO.
The catalyst is to remain with me and my partner ATM,but the rest of the system is of course -open source.
Our test method ATM
Our load is a string of incandecent party lights that places around a 600 watt load on the generator.We simply measure the voltage across the light string so as to maintain the same load throughout the testing.The engine is also goverened,so speed remains constant.
We first run the unit on straight gasoline,and use a set volume of 200mL. We simply time each run,and record the result's.We then add the 700mL of water,and 100mL of catalyst to the gasoline,and run the test again,with the HHO as well of course.To achieve the 240 volts needed from the 24 volt altinator,we simply use a 24 v to 240 v inverter-->in this case,a UPS,so as we get a true sine wave output.
We are still working on getting the gasoline ratio down even further,but at this time it seems we have reached the limit with the materials and funds we have at hand.
Aaron
I have never seen Brad post on a topic in an Open source forum and not share the details [when he was ready]
To be honest,
I believe the claim here is not Running on water ... its running a given volume thru the engine with "gas" and then taking that same volume and replacing a significant part with water plus a catalyst [80% total].
"Z"
Water becomes useful for combustion when high Temperature forces
stoichiometric state [or other methods]... as Johan_1955 has shared.
Yes we are getting much closer to the place we should have been 100 years ago
Chris has just given Us a nice reminder..........
a truly gifted young man with Many wonderful ideas for "efficiency" in modern times.
UFO
yes the PDF does cover that ,however a few questions have come up from Graham at Overunityresearch [thread being settup] on Pressure in the system and how it may apply to the design parameters of the mentioned injectors operating range.[back pressure]
Graham scratch builds ICE's in the UK,but like most of us is unfamiliar with
Chris's unique thoughts and hands on experience with this type system.
We gonna learn...........
Thx for your contribution,and for the record I am just a grateful messenger
completely dedicated to assisting true open source get out to the world
[like most here ]
This is Chris's legacy to the world [along with those who helped him]
