nkodama, although they think they have solved it with "neutrino oscillations", there is a deficit of neutrinos from the sun of like 2/3 the amount expected from hot fusion being missing. So they say "those 2/3 of neutrinos turned into the other neutrino types: see? factor of 3 error and 3 kinds of neutrinos? solved!" On its face the solar neutrino deficit is evidence that much less hot fusion is occurring in the sun than we thought - possible evidence for your theory.
ITER has a lot of neutrons. The moon is supposed to have a neutron flux based on its surface constantly absorbing cosmic rays and getting transmuted to unstable isotopes as a result. Fission plants have neutrons.
What if you could start with hydrogen-1, absorb a neutron, absorb a neutron again, wait for beta decay, and absorb one more neutron? You would go from H-1 to He-4 while never having to overcome proton-proton repulsion. The second proton "sneaks in" as the second neutron of tritium, then it turns into a proton "for free" if you're patient. The best efficiency would be to start with He-3 and just add the last neutron, but I understand He-3 is not abundant. I did a spreadsheet on this and it wasn't promising, but maybe I was wrong.
Has anyone read about this being studied before? Anyone know where I can find cheap neutrons? Are the absorption cross sections high enough?
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).
You make a good point, and I am seeing the practical advantage of FeOOH in simplifying the experiment - eliminates sources of error like poor mixing of two compounds. I have a couple labs engaged in quoting. Maybe I will incorporate this feedback in my next round.
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 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?
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.
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!
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!
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.
If this was indeed a hydrino formation reaction, then why was the energy released as heat rather than the expected UV radiation Mill's reports for most other hydrino reactions? It's always possible other nuclear fusion reactions were responsible for the excess heat released in the presence of iron oxides formed resulting in ultra dense hydrogen and LENR. See what is in the reactant products!
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!
dselke - Sadly that wouldn't help - lab time is not the problem and nor is the equipment. But this is a bureaucracy and there would be no chance of a budget for chemicals not aligned with an official project.
Interesting. I can order chemicals but I can't have them delivered to me because I only have a residential address. If you're serious about a further replication, contact me at dselke at hotmail dot com and let me know the address and attention I should have the materials delivered to. I'll need to know how much is needed; I have heard that for composition analysis more is better, so you use a different batch than you put in your DSC. For the DSC itself I use 4.7 mg Cu(OH)2 and 11.8 mg FeBr2, following one of Dr. Mills' validators.
If you have any spare reactant chemicals I know somebody with a DSC and analysis kit who MIGHT be persuaded to run this again.
I don't have any reactants because I had the lab order them. I wanted to protect the chain of custody of the samples from me, who might be seen as an interested party by outsiders. You should persuade this person to run the experiment and commit to publishing it beforehand The real cost isn't the reactants but the lab time and gold DSC pans. I think one of the replications at least was done using aluminum pans, which takes about $600 off the cost. And if the lab time is free for your friend... well, he might get it done for a couple hundred bucks.
dselke , not meaning to be hostile or attacking your work, I am also thinking what exactly is being claimed as the relationship of this experiment to hydrinos.
The “excess heat” claim is based upon a theoretical estimation of maximum expected chemical energy release.
Now let’s say the excess heat is proven beyond any reasonable doubt (we have yet to hear from our resident skeptics all the ways in which the experiment is incorrect Regards to calorimetry), then this excess heat can be proof of LENR, UDH or even Magnehydrogen formation. How do you tell is hydrinos?
In other words, can you provide the Mills model based equation that predicts this excess heat over expected chemical reaction, in order to claim the experiment proves the equation valid?
I don't "know" it's hydrinos. But the excess heat is a prediction of the hydrino theory (as well, maybe, as other theories) - but not of conventional theory. In the paper I say that the next step is to go looking for hydrinos in the product using the many methods that Brilliant Light has published.
Nice work! I'm curious : Did Dr. Yue, who performed the test, communicate to you any personal surprise at the results?
No, I think he did not do the spreadsheet that shows the results are anomalous. I didn't pay for that extra effort
Without experimental details the shopping will have no success!
This is good feedback. Appendix B tells the tale, but it would be good to summarize in the body of the paper. There's not much to it: so many mg. of this and that, gold pans, glove bag, DSC, temperature profile.
I recently hired a commercial lab to replicate the FeBr2 + Cu(OH)2 Differential Scanning Calorimeter experiment that Mills and his validators have reported. It works. I'm shopping a paper around to journals, but you can see a preprint along with my spreadsheet calculations and the report from the lab here. Based on the assumed reactions that Mills et al have used, the signal was 100% excess energy compared to conventional chemistry. This despite an error I made: the FeBr2 was ordered as beads not powder, so the mixing was poor. I expect repeating this with powder for both reagents will show even more excess energy.
The lab did all handling of materials from ordering, preparing the sample, running the instruments, and producing a final report from which I plugged numbers into my spreadsheet. Those who have accused Dr. Mills of fraud are going to have to explain why this commercial lab, likely never having heard of GUTCP/Mills/hydrino (they didn't hear it from me), is in on the conspiracy.
I love to hear you preach against the SM church. Mills and Unzicker are a couple more from this genre for other fans out there. I looked at only one of your PDFs so far and I found one thing unsettling. The factors that you add to make your computed values were (that I saw) all close to power of 10, like 0.998 x 10^-3 etc. Then they might be added multiple times with an SO(4) (incomprehensible to me) explanation for why that many times. It looked like you were adjusting each place value more or less independently. Do you have an example where one of your geometrical factors is like 1.64 x 10^-5 or something that would make it harder to reach a target value than just adding ones in each place to make the value?