Michel Jullian
Tue, 10 Jun 2008 03:04:07 -0700
Robin, (replying on-list, in case you forgot to change the address line or are unable to get through again) 0.04g D2 is 0.04g D, and D is 2g/mol, so that should be 0.04/2 mol * 6E23 atoms/mol = 1.2 E22 atoms D, which makes the energy per atom half what you said, but since the actual time is really 100 hours (~4 days) i.e. the total energy is really twice what you said, the two errors conveniently cancel each other, and the observed heat is indeed 187 eV / absorbed D atom (assuming Arata et al made no error in their 1W estimation). However it is probable that only a tiny part of the absorbed D is consumed in the putative anomalous reactions (in such experiments one retrieves roughly the same amount of D2 at deloading than was put in at loading doesn't one?), in which case nuclear type energies of the order of MeVs per _reacting_ D are more likely than Mills energies of the order of 100s of eV per reacting D. Michel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robin van Spaandonk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Michel Jullian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 10:39 AM Subject: Re: Arata's results are really astounding In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Tue, 10 Jun 2008 10:26:03 +0200: Hi Michel, See below. Note however that the assumption is that only the D actually in the metal reacts. If it's being constantly replaced, then the energy / atom would be commensurately less. [snip] >It seems you are getting through again Robin, I saw your answer to Stephen. So >where does the 6E21 figure come from? In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 09 Jun 2008 14:25:29 -0400: Hi, [snip] >tail end of that heat in the hydrogen loaded sample. As you see, it >is stone cold after 300 minutes, whereas the deuterium sample remains >hot 10 times longer. That proves the point. [snip] >The material weighs 7 g, it is about 20% to 30% Pd, and it absorbs >about 2.2 mass% for the Pd (ignoring Zr) at 1 MPa (Yamaura et al.) [snip] 10 * 300 mins = 3000 mins @ 1 W = 180000 J. 25% of 7 gm = 1.75 gm. 2.2% of this is 0.04 gm D2. 0.04 gm D2 = 6E21 atoms of D. 180000 J / 6E21 atoms of D = 187 eV / D atom. This is way beyond ordinary chemistry, but does fall right in the range of Mills energies. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michel Jullian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Robin van Spaandonk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "William Beaty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 10:26 AM Subject: Re: Arata's results are really astounding Always the same recurrent eskimo.com blacklisting problem I guess, the last I heard of Bill -whom I CC- he was considering moving the list to Google or Yahoo (Bill, if you choose GG I can assist in managing the list, I have some experience with it) It seems you are getting through again Robin, I saw your answer to Stephen. So where does the 6E21 figure come from? Cheers Michel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robin van Spaandonk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Michel Jullian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 4:55 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Arata's results are really astounding In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Tue, 10 Jun 2008 02:24:14 +0200: Hi Michel, [snip] >I seem not to have received that posting by Robin you quote, was it sent to >the list? I gather 180,000 J is 1W times 3600 s per hour times 50 hours (and >not 100 hours), but where does that figure of 6E21 atoms of D come from? > >If confirmed, the figure of 187 eV (180000J/6E+21/1.6E-19 = 187) per D atom is >indeed far beyond chemical reaction heat release. For comparison, D2(g) + 0.5 >O2(g) -> D2O(l) only releases about 1.5 eV per D atom (294 kJ/mol D2O -> >294000J/6.02E23/1.6E-19/2 = 1.5 eV per D atom), i.e. two orders of magnitude >less. > >Also I don't recall reading anything about Arata et al deliberately quenching >the reaction after 100 hours, didn't they suggest the reaction was poisoned by >4He to explain why heat release didn't last longer? > >Michel The list still isn't accepting my emails. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant. The shrub is a plant.