Padua Cell - did we bake a cake? [UPDATE#1 - Fuel components tested now alongside ash re-test]

Written by Robert Greenyer on 05 June 2016.

The very first 100% Parkhomov supplied fuel reactor the MFMP ran was the Padua cell. It was heated 2 times, once in Padua, Italy and again at me356's place. In total, it ran for far more than 1 week live and for a large proportion of that over 1000C.

Padua cell re-heat

Whilst there were signs that the "active" side ran hotter than the null side, the point of the experiment was to cook the ingredients with a view to seeing if there might be any transmutations and if there were, would they be in line with Rossi's or Parkhomov's related claims.

There were several test arranged by us and done by various 3rd parties of Parkhomov's fuel components that supported Parkhomov's own analysis.

Ubaldo Mastromatteo analysis

Edmund Storm's analysis

EarthTech / UOM

The reactor tube was made of Coorstek 99.8% Al2O3 - no fuel capsule - and there was Air (Nitrogen, Oxygen, Carbon and air based noble gasses) in the cell as it had no vacuum. The heater wire was Kathal.

Padua cell takedown photos

A student at a Danish university has conducted, at the universities expense, the first analysis of the ash, and here are the results.

Raw quick TOF SIMS report

We are not going to comment too much at this stage on these raw results, we just wanted to get the data out for review.

We have asked for the raw data and have a whole bunch of questions for them. We'd be very happy if you could add your own questions below for us to put to the testing party.

Raw data as compressed ZIP file

Here is a live document to discuss and learn from the raw report

View/Edit this document in full screen (depending on permission)

UPDATE#1 - Fuel components tested now alongside ash re-test

The independent researcher that previously did an initial test of the Padua Cell ash, has since been supplied with samples of the two Parkhomov fuel elements (his LiAlH4 and Russian Nickel powder).

The testing party took on as much of the advice as possible given in the live document on our main site, but was unable to sit the powder on Silicon substrate as the ion beem just moved the sample.

However, since each sample was on the same type of substrate any carbon based interference should net net out.

Here is the raw data

We would appreciate any graphing/analysis prowess the crowd can provide.

< Prev Next >

Add comment

Comments

12

0 #24 Eleanor 2018-05-11 10:20

Very instructive and great anatomical structure of articles, now that's user
friendly (:.

0 #23 Robert Greenyer 2016-07-25 16:23

I had a quick go at one part of the data and produced this GIF animation

goo.gl/6GsYuw

0 #22 charlie tapp 2016-07-06 19:22

@ Ecco check out this. interesting to me is the parts dealing with lower pressure and hydrocarbons makeing the reaction not possible. Mabee that is why lenr works and then doesn't work. Hydrocarbons being introduced somehow? Anyway the candolumenescen ce could account for black light power, and Rossi being able to use the light. You have a good memory do they use any ingriedients that could do this? web.anl.gov/.../...

0 #21 Robert Greenyer 2016-06-08 20:26

"DAK" has done some analysis, this is added to the live document.

0 #20 Robert Greenyer 2016-06-08 13:59

Hi Ecco,

I did something similar, I sampled

6Li 6.010182 - 6.300047
3752

7Li 6.998976 - 7.300138
37355

7Li ratio
37355/41107=0.90873

6Li ratio
3752/41107=0.09127

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

0.091 / 0.075 = 1.213

Relative 6Li proportion may have increased by over 21%

Sputter cleaning, blank test and much longer integrations times are important now.

7Li/6Li Ratio

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

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

Both of the above testing was done by ICP-MS

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

Yes, I know they are not directly comparable.

0 #19 EccoEcco 2016-06-08 13:17

I had a look at the txt file. The sum of counts in the regions of mass 6.010-6.023 and 7.010-6.023 is respectively 2511 and 23864, implying that the isotopic composition of Li is roughly 6Li = 9.6%, 7Li = 90.4%. This is closer to the natural distribution than the values I previously estimated in another comment from the peaks in one of the screenshots in the preliminary report.

There might be better ways to calculate it than what I did.

+1 #18 Robert Greenyer 2016-06-08 11:56

@All

Tester has made some responses in the live document

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

goo.gl/1qKesR

+1 #17 JustaGuy 2016-06-07 22:27

@All FYI:

Short of waiting for the actual questions to be answered, this is what I can ascertain.

The specs on the ionTOF TOF.SIMS-5 show:

Variety of Primary Ion Species:
(Ga, Bin, O2, Cs, Ar, Xe, SF5, C60)

iontof.com/.../...

Looking at the Raw .ITA file that was supplied, we see the following records:

I n s t r u m e n t . P r i m a r y G u n . S p e c i e s B i 3 + +

I n s t r u m e n t . S p u t t e r G u n . S p e c i e s C s

- Mark

0 #16 Robert Greenyer 2016-06-07 19:33

Thanks Mark,

We have requested

"Can you dump the data as a CSV file in full scan mode rather than as nominal masses"

0 #15 JustaGuy 2016-06-07 19:26

@All

Just got off the phone with Nathan @ ionTOF USA and he says the best thing to do is request an ASCII File of the data. He also mentioned that an ITA File is not a raw data file (ITM is?), and that just to analyze these type of files by other parties requires purchasing their software, unfortunately.

- Mark

0 #14 Robert Greenyer 2016-06-07 17:33

Hi Ecco,

Thanks for this.

You will see from the live Q&A doc we have asked for a CSV of the data - we also have another party calling on associates that may have the software.

0 #13 EccoEcco 2016-06-07 16:59

Newbie observation again. I'm wondering if many of these consecutive mass peak couples, being very similar in ratio, are actually related to 6Li/7Li:

larger

While waiting for the raw data I digitized peak values from one of the screenshots in the report. The assumption is that it didn't cut off maximum counts. If this assumption is valid, the Li isotope distribution here should be approximately 6Li=15% and 7Li=85%

0 #12 Robert Greenyer 2016-06-07 14:39

@All

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

goo.gl/upTm6s

0 #11 EccoEcco 2016-06-07 13:20

It would be optimal if an expert in mass spectrometry with a knowledge of the chemistry involved with this and similar experiments could perform such analysis though. I suspect for example that even just having the initial powder mix react at high temperature, forming new compounds and alloy phases would affect the end results, even without involving possible nuclear reactions.

Regarding this analysis, it would be useful to know how the sample was prepared, what was the support, if it was sputter cleaned, etc.

0 #10 Robert Greenyer 2016-06-07 10:08

Thanks Mark, I have asked the university if there is a way they could extend their licence to us.

Perhaps a google desktop share to their computer with it running would allow us to do analysis on their computer/licence.

If it is not possible, please can you list specific questions for me to work through with them.

0 #9 JustaGuy 2016-06-07 03:13

The Raw Data is an ionTOF Analysis File AFAIK. The program is called, "SurfaceLab 6":

www.iontof.com

Not sure if we had a login and a TOF-SIMS software license number, we can legally DL the SW and work with it.

- Mark

0 #8 Robert Greenyer 2016-06-06 20:41

@Ecco

I have asked the tester if the viewing software install is freely distributable - failing that to export into something we can use.

0 #7 EccoEcco 2016-06-06 19:59

@Arnaud: I don't know about that. I feel there's a higher chance it could be something else that adds up to about that mass value.

(BTW: this also means that some assumptions I made in the past for similar analyses are probably wrong)

0 #6 Arnaud 2016-06-06 18:26

Quoting EccoEcco:

To better demonstrate my point, I made a composite image with ToF-SIMS spectra from the report showing peaks for 58Ni, 60Ni, 61Ni, 62Ni. The highlighted (green) peak for 61Ni is noticeably shifted from published 61Ni isotopic mass values, and appears roughly more than twice in area than the presumably correct one in proximity of the red arrow.

This could account for the apparent difference in measured isotope distribution noted in the report.

i.imgur.com/2iIfc23.png
url: i.imgur.com/2iIfc23.png

@Ecco, could it be an excited state of the nucleus Ni61 ? A quick computation for a rouhgly 0.06 u above threshold gives a gamma release of 56 MeV. This is something that should have been noticed a long time ago. So my hypothesis seems wrong.

+2 #5 EccoEcco 2016-06-06 15:37

To better demonstrate my point, I made a composite image with ToF-SIMS spectra from the report showing peaks for 58Ni, 60Ni, 61Ni, 62Ni. The highlighted (green) peak for 61Ni is noticeably shifted from published 61Ni isotopic mass values, and appears roughly more than twice in area than the presumably correct one in proximity of the red arrow.

This could account for the apparent difference in measured isotope distribution noted in the report.

12

Refresh comments list
RSS feed for comments to this post

Here is your generous contributions so far towards our $500,000 target, thanks everyone! : $45,020 Please Donate
See the current state of our booked costs here