Re: [SocietyforClassicalPhysics] Hydrinos vs. Recent Extraordinary Cold Fusion
Claims
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.
