Independent Hydrino Replication

    Quote from dselke

    You're right that the reaction products will clarify much. I bet the mixture is opaque to UV and the DSC pan and the DSC itself were most certainly opaque to UV. So the light could have been there, just not observed because of its surroundings. At this point it's very possible that another theory could explain the result, but Dr. Mills' theory is the one I know most about at this time, and I am unwilling to give up his classical approach at this time to go back to alive and dead cats and seas of quarks. But if you prefer another theory, let's explore!

    That and possible interesting H/metal interactions that do release a lot of energy should be considered if strange elemental findings are reported. The serounding mass may absorb and have an opaque attitude to the spectral products.

    • Official Post
    Quote from dselke

    You're right that the reaction products will clarify much. I bet the mixture is opaque to UV and the DSC pan and the DSC itself were most certainly opaque to UV. So the light could have been there, just not observed because of its surroundings. At this point it's very possible that another theory could explain the result, but Dr. Mills' theory is the one I know most about at this time, and I am unwilling to give up his classical approach at this time to go back to alive and dead cats and seas of quarks. But if you prefer another theory, let's explore!


    I think the part of your experiment that could be subject to great debate, not counting the calorimetry (I am still expecting THHuxley to come any second to enlighten us with the miriad of potential mistakes) is the point of comparison for the energy release. In other words, How do you know that these compounds should release more energy than they did?

    Quote from Curbina

    I think the part of your experiment that could be subject to great debate, not counting the calorimetry (I am still expecting THHuxley to come any second to enlighten us with the miriad of potential mistakes) is the point of comparison for the energy release. In other words, How do you know that these compounds should release more energy than they did?

    Not being a chemist, I included in my spreadsheet the three reactions that were assumed by Brilliant Light and the validators. If somebody comes along with another chemical reaction of those inputs that produces the change in enthalpy I saw, it would squash this result - until the composition analysis of the products gets done.

    • Official Post
    Quote from dselke

    Not being a chemist, I included in my spreadsheet the three reactions that were assumed by Brilliant Light and the validators. If somebody comes along with another chemical reaction of those inputs that produces the change in enthalpy I saw, it would squash this result - until the composition analysis of the products gets done.


    The problem I am pointing out is that the "control" or comparative basis from which the excess heat is claimed, is only theoretical. That is, from an experimental design point of view, very weak. Once you get the results of the products of the reaction, we will have a more clear picture, but anyway the experimental design is weak and it will be very hard to get it published, best luck would be in the form of a letter to the editor, as much unexpected results have a better way to be published this way.

    Quote from Curbina

    The problem I am pointing out is that the "control" or comparative basis from which the excess heat is claimed, is only theoretical. That is, from an experimental design point of view, very weak. Once you get the results of the products of the reaction, we will have a more clear picture, but anyway the experimental design is weak and it will be very hard to get it published, best luck would be in the form of a letter to the editor, as much unexpected results have a better way to be published this way.


    Thanks for your advice. Can you think of a way to compare with an experimental control in such a case where two theories put forth different reactions from the very same reagents? There's no way to make one react according to the real chemistry while the control reacts according to a false chemistry. I'll probably be doing more experiments so any suggestions are welcome. Or if you prefer, do your own!

    • Official Post

    In this case I don’t see a way to make a proper control. The article should be elaborated into the expected by theory and observed by experiment discrepancy, propose the explanation, and invite others to replicate and comment. As a letter, and barring a major flaw on the chemistry calculation and error margin bounds, it could be published and receive some attentention.

    Quote from Curbina

    In this case I don’t see a way to make a proper control. The article should be elaborated into the expected by theory and observed by experiment discrepancy, propose the explanation, and invite others to replicate and comment. As a letter, and barring a major flaw on the chemistry calculation and error margin bounds, it could be published and receive some attentention.

    Thanks to all who have critiqued and commented. Looking at the views of this thread, it's hard to imagine what journal would reach a wider audience. But the case has to be made to the "mainstream" and to the professionals. Maybe an actual scientist (who also replicated) would be a better messenger for this result.

    If I can just reach that person, my work will be done. It's cheap guys! Jump in!

    • Official Post
    Quote from dselke

    Thanks to all who have critiqued and commented. Looking at the views of this thread, it's hard to imagine what journal would reach a wider audience. But the case has to be made to the "mainstream" and to the professionals. Maybe an actual scientist (who also replicated) would be a better messenger for this result.

    If I can just reach that person, my work will be done. It's cheap guys! Jump in!

    With such a specific experiment and without a control, it’s hard to reach a big audience. I like letters to editors because this is used for reporting findings that are unexpected and to put the word out to others that might get interested in it. In this case you might try the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy that has a track record of reporting controversial results, and their counter points when they are produced.


    You need to hire a good chemical engineer Dr when the results are out, to analyze the energetic results in light of the initial reactives and products. The theoretical baseline needs to be assessed very carefully if it’s going to be used as control.

    A Redditor pointed out that I read the DSC heating peak upside-down. It absorbed energy, not released it. I'll be repeating this experiment with a powdered form of both reagents so there is better mixing and I'll let everyone know how it goes. Sorry to lead you astray but I hope to have good news in a few weeks.

    • Official Post
    Quote from dselke

    A Redditor pointed out that I read the DSC heating peak upside-down. It absorbed energy, not released it. I'll be repeating this experiment with a powdered form of both reagents so there is better mixing and I'll let everyone know how it goes. Sorry to lead you astray but I hope to have good news in a few weeks.


    Wow, that's kind of a huge mis reading. Thanks for coming clean about that.

    Quote from Alan Smith

    dselke Any more news?

    I removed my manuscript from consideration at Energy and Environmental Science, since the data didn't support my conclusions when rightly interpreted. I am looking at getting another lab on contract. This time we will use powdered form of both reagents and seal the gold pans, two differences with the original experiments that could have caused the discrepancy. ATS is not able to replicate until July, and EAG is taking forever to get me a quote. This evening I looked into local Binghamton University's ADL lab which has DSC, but they seem to offer non academic customers only services that are not readily commercially available. Battellle went radio silent after I answered their question what the experiment was for (maybe I should have been less forthright with them...) So it's time to google up another batch of labs. Other than that, I can say that what I am doing does not require being me at all. I encourage everyone to replicate the DSC experiments found in R. Mills et al, Solid Fuels that Form HOH Catalyst, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2014. The only thing I bring to the table is independence. Including the Setaram and Perkin Elmer runs in the original paper, there are 6 replications of the original experiment now. The problem is that Brilliant Light money is behind them. So I am really just trying to prove that large commercial DSC manufacturers and college professors are not in secret conspiracy with Randell Mills, something that hardly needs showing. But since GUTCP still has not broken out into the scientific community, apparently more is needed. Any word from your person who has access to a lab?

    LeBob

    Just my opinion: it's a brief "one-shot" reaction involving a compound that has reportedly no useful applications (wikipedia) and which happens to produce more energy than expected in the literature when reacted with another. It does not continuously do so upon excitation as reported for many (most?) other LENR experiments. Unless heat production results are significantly larger than ordinary chemical sources (rather than the calculated energies for these specific compounds) I do not see this triggering much interest.


    It could possibly trigger more interest if FeBr2 can be replaced with more widely used compounds.

    Quote from can

    LeBob

    Just my opinion: it's a brief "one-shot" reaction involving a compound that has reportedly no useful applications (wikipedia) and which happens to produce more energy than expected in the literature when reacted with another. It does not continuously do so upon excitation as reported for many (most?) other LENR experiments. Unless heat production results are significantly larger than ordinary chemical sources (rather than the calculated energies for these specific compounds) I do not see this triggering much interest.


    It could possibly trigger more interest if FeBr2 can be replaced with more widely used compounds.


    Page 8 and 9 of this paper report about 20 combinations that produce excess heat, some in which the expected reactions are only endothermic. Maybe there is one more to your liking. A partial list from table 1:


    465 9.8g Cu(OH)2 + 21.6g FeBr2 + 1 atm Ar 565 13.9 -1.6 8.7

    466 9.8g Cu(OH)2 + 21.9g NiBr2 + 1 atm Ar 591 17.3 -0.9 19.2

    4672 9.8g Cu(OH)2 + 21.9g CoBr2 + 1 atm Ar 576 12.0 -1.1 10.9

    468 9.8g Cu(OH)2 + 13.0g NiCl2 + 1 atm Ar 552 8.7 0.6 inf

    469 9.8g Cu(OH)2 + 21.5g MnBr2 + 1 atm Ar 603 14.2 9.8 inf

    4703 9.8g Cu(OH)2 + 27.9g SnBr2 + 1atm Ar 598 16.4 -1.5 10.9

    4714 9.8g Cu(OH)2 + 19.0g SnCl2 + 1 atm Ar 623 20.2 -1.2 16.8

    475 9.8g Cu(OH)2 + 37.3.0g SnI2 + 1atm Ar 507 13.4 -4.1 3.3

    dselke

    From table 1 in the paper, wouldn't the reactions using metal chlorides be more interesting from a scientific point of view? NiCl2 and CuCl2 are widely known and used compounds (e.g. in catalyst synthesis).



    Also just heating FeOOH, although reported to have a low gain compared to theoretical estimations using conventional chemistry, should be interesting since studies on its thermal decomposition already exist in the literature (from a quick scan on Google scholar) and the reaction involves just one starting compound.



    More in general I think it would be more impactful to provide data from unexpected reactions involving well-studied compounds, even better if they are readily available or easily synthesized also by interested amateurs (so that the lab-grade DSC results could help supporting any apparent excess heat observation in replication attempts using less sophisticated measurements and methods).

    Could the excess enthalpy be simply accounted for by the existence of other chemical/phase change reactions not considered in the calculations, particularly important for crystalline compounds releasing energy on heat degradation to amorphous phases? None of these reactions are all that simple, and further wouldn't hydrino energy be released from all hydroxyl-based reactions - making such reactions forming precipitates etc potentially explosive? Which has not been observed.:)

    Quote from Dr Richard

    Could the excess enthalpy be simply accounted for by the existence of other chemical/phase change reactions not considered in the calculations, particularly important for crystalline compounds releasing energy on heat degradation to amorphous phases? None of these reactions are all that simple, and further wouldn't hydrino energy be released from all hydroxyl-based reactions - making such reactions forming precipitates etc potentially explosive? Which has not been observed.:)

    Which is why I lean to interprete that hydrino or H* single atoms are not a stable end product of the proposed catalysed reaction only paired H2* or clusters. basically hydrogen pico-chemical interaction with other hydrogen holding each other in a closer state. Assuming these phenomina are altogether new energy source in chemistry and more than misunderstood old phenomina. Something I've heard RobertBryant illuminate swiftly but convincingly. Why I think it's wise to CONCIDER all Mills brings to the table even if all of it may not be solid. Don't through away gold and silver because there are some impurities in the or heck the impurities may be useful too, Goodmorning!

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.