On Jun 22, 2011, at 12:55 AM, scarmani wrote:
> Dear Dr. Mills,
> In the email post below, you state "If you are looking for a
> theoretical explanation for recent extraordinary cold fusion
> claims, my assessment is that you are wasting your time. Based on
> theory and experiments, I'm confident that the claims will not be
> reproduced independently."
> You were likely referring to the recent extraordinary cold fusion
> claims made by Andrea Rossi, Dr. Focardi and Dr. Levi.
> I agree with your assessment that Rossi's claims will not be
> reproduced independently. I will further state that, in my
> opinion, they are fraudulent.
> Rossi described (via Swedish observers), a cylindrical 50 cm^3
> stainless steel reactor, containing 50 grams of isotopically
> enriched powdered nickel and 0.11 grams of hydrogen gas plus a
> secret catalyst, to which was input 0.3 kW of heat. Upon reaching
> a threshold temperature, this reactor output approximately 4.4 kW
> of continuous power and a net 25 kWh of excess energy over the
> course of about 6 hours. According to Rossi, this energy was
> produced by a non-chemical reaction which consumed the hydrogen.
> In 2008 you issued a paper, Commercializable Power Source from
> Forming New States of Hydrogen, R.L. Mills, G. Zhao, K. Akhtar, Z.
> Chang, J. He, Y. Lu, W. Good, G. Chu, B. Dhandapani, Int. J.
> Hydrogen Energy, Vol. 34, Issue 2, January 2009, pp. 573-614.
The water-flow calorimetric details and materials characterization
are given in our paper along with the mechanism and hydrino product
identification. Our results have been independently reproduced off-
site starting with obtaining the chemicals from vendors, then
characterizing the reactants, and performing power measurements and
product and hydrino characterizations.
Regarding Rossi et. al., the results we obtained at BLP from
following the description in the Rossi patent application are
consistent with the known heat of formation of nickel hydride of
about -2 kcal/mole H2 corresponding to 10^-2 Wh for 0.011g H2.
B. Baranowski, S. M. Filipek, “45 years of nickel hydride—history and
perspectives,” J. Alloys Compd., 404-406, (2005), pp. 2-6.
No isotopic enrichment is disclosed. Nor, is a method of enrichment
shown if it is possible. No catalyst is disclosed. A patent must
teach one skilled in the art how to make and use the invention. The
speciation teaches how to make about -2 kcal/mole H2 forming nickel
hydride that is known in the art. But, even here, the H2 pressure is
far too low.
The fusion reaction is theoretically impossible and not shown
experimentally. Nor, is net power shown experimentally by the
method presented. At 4.4 kW output, the heater power could be
disconnected and threshold temperature to maintain the claimed
reaction will be far exceeded. The proper method of measuring power
from steam is to condense it and measure the heat delivered by the
steam. This was not done. Based on the energy balance and power
density in this case as well as in more aggressive claims, it is
overwhelmingly possible that the heat balance was not measured properly.
> You described (via this paper) a cylindrical 60 cm^3 stainless
> steel reactor, containing 15 grams of NaOH-doped R-Ni 2400, to
> which was input 0.1 kW of heat. Upon reaching a threshold
> temperature, this reactor output over 0.25 kW of peak power and a
> net 0.003 kWh (11.7 kJ) of excess energy over the course of about
> an hour. According to your paper, this energy was produced by a non-
> chemical reaction which consumed hydrogen.
> Superficially there appear to be similarities between the
> abovementioned reactions. Both involve nanostructured, nickel
> containing materials which have in some manner been charged with
> hydrogen, being heated in small stainless steel reaction chambers
> to trigger an excess-heat-releasing, hydrogen-consuming reaction,
> the explanation of which invokes a catalytic mechanism that
> generates excess energy through novel, non-chemical means.
> It might seem to the casual observer who accepted the experimental
> results and theoretical explanations of Blacklight Power with
> regards to excess heat production in nickel / hydrogen systems, and
> who read the reports of Rossi's extraordinary claims, that Rossi
> could have have stumbled into a technique of producing hydrinos
> rapidly in nickel/hydrogen systems using some special catalyst.
> But presumably you do not agree that this is a possibility.
> Could you clarify the differences between the recent extraordinary
> claims of Rossi, and your earlier published reports of hydrino-
> based reactions, and explain the reasons why, despite the
> superficial similarities mentioned above, you are confident that
> the recent claims of Rossi et al will not be reproduced
> independently, and should not be confused or associated with the
> work being done by Blacklight Power?
> Best regards,
> Armand Tuzel
> --- In SocietyforClassicalPhysics@yahoogroups.com, Randy Mills
> <RMills@...> wrote:
>> The smallest radius for a hydrino atom is 1/137 the radius of the
>> hydrogen atom. Muonic atoms have a radius of 1/207 the radius of
>> the hydrogen atom and are not known to pass through the electron
>> shells of multielectron atoms.
>> If you are looking for a theoretical explanation for recent
>> extraordinary cold fusion claims, my assessment is that you are
>> wasting your time. Based on theory and experiments, I'm confident
>> that the claims will not be reproduced independently.
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: mixent@... [mailto:mixent@...]
>> Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2011 03:48 PM
>> To: SocietyforClassicalPhysics@yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: Re: [SocietyforClassicalPhysics] Can a neutron pass
>> through an orbitsphere
>> In reply to Randy Mills's message of Sat, 16 Apr 2011 15:10:55
>>> Neutrons are neutral.
>> Overall yes, but the question is, do they have a negative near field
>> (compensated for by a central positive field)?
>> If so, then there should be little apparent difference between a
>> shrunken Hydrino, and a neutron, when it comes to passing through
>> the electron
>> shells of other atoms.
>>>> Then, the same could be said for helium. It is an easy calculation
>>>> to see that this will not happen.
>>> Neutrons purportedly also have a negative near field, yet clearly
>>> manage to
>>> arrive at the nuclei of other atoms without difficulty at thermal
>>> otherwise nuclear reactors wouldn't work.
>>> Robin van Spaandonk <mixent@...>
>> Robin van Spaandonk
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> Yahoo! Groups Links