This is encouraging if true. Seems like they got over 15. If this can scale...
However, I note that there's no analysis of the used fuel for nuclear reactions. There's also no measurement listed for how much heat was applied. Any calculations used seem lacking in information which is not encouraging.
It is frustrating when interesting results are stated, as here, and the detail to back them up does not exist.
I'm very cautious about this (that is, on balance I do not find the report here persuasive that anything much is going on) for various reasons:
1) Lack of precise detail
2) The claimed high energy out / energy in figures are in a system where the calorimetry is not controlled (outer vacuum cylinder removed).
3) Estimates of chemical enthalpy available are not reliable when nanoparticles are used because surface reactions can be very different from bulk and therefore have a relatively higher enthalpy than expected from bulk hydride formation. Such surface-dependent reactions could also explain why positive enthalpy was observed on both loading and unloading.
4) Additional reactions (e.g. unexpected oxidation) are as the author points out an inherent problem in these measurements. he states that these have been eliminated from consideration but not how and this is surely an area where mistakes can easily be made.
5) The observed effects are transient in nature. Sure, that could be destruction of the surface active regions etc, but it provides no way to test that there is really some non-standard (nuclear?) energy source through observation of total energy production much higher than possible from other means.
6) As always, i'd want to check that the TCs used here stayed in calibration, given the highly reducing conditions from deuterium which the TCs may or may not get exposed to. You'd hope that Miley has checked this with a cal run before and after, but he does not say this and my view is that unchecked one would assume worst. Note also that using hydrogen as a control vs deuterium is not safe because the physical properties are very different.
So while I can see that Miles believes he has something interesting, what he describes so far would not easily convince others of more than the low probability possibility that there might be something interesting.
Regards, THH
3) Estimates of chemical enthalpy available are not reliable when nanoparticles are used because surface reactions can be very different from bulk and therefore have a relatively higher enthalpy than expected from bulk hydride formation.
Isn't chemical enthalpy proportional to the mass of the material, not it's surface area?
Sure, the rate of a chemical reaction would be related to the surface area, but then, isn't that more akin to power density, than total energy content?
QuoteThe observed effects are transient in nature.
Yes. If the energy source is nuclear, it is pretty wimpy nuclear.
Note that they are NOT using "COP" in the traditional sense of "total power out/power in" ... they are using GAIN defined as "power out / maximum possible chemical power out".
The wimpiness mayhaps comes from the fact they currently only exploring the loading (pressurization) / unloading (depressurizations) phases, with no attempt to generate or sustain power between the two.
they are using GAIN defined as "power out / maximum possible chemical power out".
With gain factor of 15 over the chemical potential we can easily note, that LENR is confirmed by this experiment. The usual THH argument (oxidation might explain excess) sounds absurd and may be is based on missing knowledge.
3) Estimates of chemical enthalpy available are not reliable when nanoparticles are used because surface reactions can be very different from bulk and therefore have a relatively higher enthalpy than expected from bulk hydride formation. Such surface-dependent reactions could also explain why positive enthalpy was observed on both loading and unloading.
They obviously took the entire load of 23 grams to calculate the total free energy (Enthalpy). THH's argument could be reversed that if only the surface reacts the LENR gain (COP) is even higher...
It reminds me of the patent by Brown, Cravens, and Taylor
Patent # 8,485,791 and 8,303,865) involving ZrO2 as one of the preferred ceramics and with Pd and/or Ni added and in contact with D2 source and at elevated temperatures. filed in '09
Isn't chemical enthalpy proportional to the mass of the material, not it's surface area?
Sure, the rate of a chemical reaction would be related to the surface area, but then, isn't that more akin to power density, than total energy content?
No. I'm claiming possibly very different enthalpies. Surfaces have very different chemical properties from solids (think about the one-sided electronic configuration half bound to a lattice) , so when you have very large surface area/volume ratio these dominate. My point was that the enthalpies for such surface reactions are not well characterised and could very likely be larger than for bulk hydride.
Nice to have a dedicated "Industrial Heat University of Illinois Lab LENR Team". No shying away from the LENR stigma...as they just put it right out there on the paper Wytennbach found, that they are all about LENR.
That is in contrast to others like SKINR, Seahorse Research, Leonardo ( 
) and others, who mask their intended research objectives for obvious reasons.
Come to think of it, Dr. Miley had that LENR scholarship program recently. And he, along with his skilled grad students, have also been listed on the UOI website for years, as being involved in LENR.
So what is it about the UOI, where LENR can flourish, and IH fund a team, without any negative attention?
Darden and Dewey must be proud. Speaking of...
Display MoreNice to have a dedicated "Industrial Heat University of Illinois Lab LENR Team". No shying away from the LENR stigma...as they just put it right out there on the paper Wytennbach found, that they are all about LENR.
That is in contrast to others like SKINR, Seahorse Research, Leonardo (
Come to think of it, Dr. Miley had that LENR scholarship program recently. And he, along with his skilled grad students, have also been listed on the UOI website for years, as being involved in LENR.
So what is it about the UOI, where LENR can flourish, and IH fund a team, without any negative attention?
Darden and Dewey must be proud. Speaking of...
Shane,
My guys down in beautiful “Chambana” Il,
Spent many a drunken dollar at Kams and Bonnie’s when I was there.
Interesting but the only evidence for LENR they appear to cite is the excess energy? No mention of any checks for radaition or fuel analysis?
Interesting but the only evidence for LENR they appear to cite is the excess energy? No mention of any checks for radaition or fuel analysis?
Thank you, I already read THH's skeptic viewpoint. But another is always welcome in LENR land.
I was just curious how those at the UOI can be so open, and honest about their LENR research?
It has to be more than the mainstream science faculty being too drunk from "Kams and Bonnies" happy hour, to make Dr. Miley and his team miserable?
4) Additional reactions (e.g. unexpected oxidation) are as the author points out an inherent problem in these measurements. he states that these have been eliminated from consideration but not how and this is surely an area where mistakes can easily be made.
This is what I attributed the 'excess energy' to in the second publication in this field by Kitamura, et al., in the manuscript rejected by Physics Letters and contained an an Appendix to my whitepaper for those interested (which I have referenced here several times).
EDIT: I should say that I wasn't referring to oxidation, but to hydrogen reactions with the oxide...sorry...same idea tho.
EDIT: I should say that I wasn't referring to oxidation, but to hydrogen reactions with the oxide...sorry...same idea tho.
well the hydrogen gets oxidised!
One mechanism perhaps in your mind being an oxide layer on the nanoparticles that (when reacting with D or H) has a higher enthalpy than available for a classic hydride reaction. An example of the surface enthalpy being much higher than the bulk enthalpy as I suggested. this will only work for nanoparticles where there is a lot of surface, and hence a lot of surface oxide.
this will only work for nanoparticles where there is a lot of surface, and hence a lot of surface oxide.
For this new chemical power fuel (COP 15) you possibly will get a nobel...
For this new chemical power fuel (COP 15) you possibly will get a nobel...
Why W? You think highly reactive nanopowders are something new? Or you don't believe that surface reactions are different from bulk?
Rating chemical reactions by COP is silly, since any exothermic reaction has a possibly infinite COP.
Why W? You think highly reactive nanopowders are something new?
I thought you deserve the silly comparison with COP...
If they calculated the total (maximal) chemical energy for all the used ( = placed into the reactor) fuel, then any comment is silly, that points to additional potential (unaccounted) energy...
Thank you, I already read THH's skeptic viewpoint. But another is always welcome in LENR land.
I was just curious how those at the UOI can be so open, and honest about their LENR research?
It has to be more than the mainstream science faculty being too drunk from "Kams and Bonnies" happy hour, to make Dr. Miley and his team miserable?
“Boney’s” damn spellcheck
