I have just returned from meeting between MFMP and Francesco Piantelli.
Piantelli does not speak English, so a translator was used.  In some cases,
some meaning was lost in translation, and there is at least one funny story
from mis-translation to Piantelli (but that is a topic for another time).
I was not present for the particular exchange that Bob Greenyer reported.
The topic of discussion was excess heat validation of LENR in an
experiment.  Piantelli was describing the various ways that energy can be
stored in an experiment with hydrogen, and included the comment about 1,312
kJ/mole for IONIZED hydrogen.  If you multiply the ionization energy of
about 13.6 eV/atom by 6.02E23 atoms/mole and convert to kJ, you get this
well known number.  He was not suggesting that this is a practical way of
storage, but simply a part of the total energy accounting that must take
place.  In general, he was critical of LENR experiments that run for too
short of a duration to guarantee that the energy was unequivocally not
stored or in latent chemical energy.

He has taken this to heart in his own experiments and MFMP was shown one of
his LENR devices running with a large excess heat (>10W) continuously for
over 2 years (over 600MJ).  The other chemical, thermal, and ionization
storage mechanisms show up as thermal bumps in the measurements, usually at
the beginning or end of an experiment.

If anyone has a "screw loose", it is NOT Piantelli - he is spot on when you
finally grasp what he has said, and knows the physics and thermodynamics
extremely well.  I don't think I have ever met anyone who had such a
detailed grasp of the wide breadth of physical phenomena that are involved
in LENR as Piantelli.  I was honored to be a part of the meetings.

Bob Higgins

On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 6:58 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I guess Piantelli said this . . . or there is a misunderstanding.
> Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [Piantelli?] also spent a lot of time on the all important matter of
>> credibility in claims. Principally about the HUGE amount of energy that can
>> be stored in various forms of Hydrogen and that must absolutely be excluded
>> before any meaningful conclusion could be had about anomalous heat.
> What is that supposed to mean? It isn't all that huge. It is the heat of
> formation of water, 285,800 joules per mole. That is the most energy-dense
> chemical reaction there is. Palladium holds more hydrogen than any other
> hydride. In my book, I computed how much hydrogen 0.2 g of palladium can
> hold when loaded 100% (which no actual hydride can achieve) will produce
> 286 J:
> ". . .  0.2 grams = 0.002 moles of Pd. Fully loaded at a 1:1 ratio with
> hydrogen, 0.002 moles of Pd hold 0.002 moles of H (0.002 grams) which
> converts to 0.001 moles H2O. The heat of formation of water is 285,800
> joules per mole. It is very difficult to load as high as 1:1, except at
> very low temperature. The palladium cigarette lighters would have achieved
> no more than a 1:0.5 ratio in a mixture of alpha and beta loaded Pd-H. In
> other words, a 1 ounce (28 gram) palladium lighter would hold roughly as
> much energy as 20 wooden matches."
> That's 1,430 J/g. A few 1 g samples of palladium have produced 50 MJ and
> more. 50,000,000 is a lot more than 1,430. It is easy to see this is not a
> chemical reaction.
> He talked about ionisation, absorption, re-combination, para and ortho and
>> various charge states etc.
> These changes cannot produce more net energy than the formation of water.
> That is the absolute upper limit to what a hydride can produce. 1430 J/g.
> No chemical system can produce more than ~4 eV/atom which is close to what
> the heat of formation of water is.
>> Just ionisation energy of 1.008 g (1 mole of Hydrogen) is 1,312
>> kilojoules, the re-combination is 423 kilojoules and so on.
> That would make great rocket fuel if you could store it! NASA would pay
> you a billion dollars and you would get a nobel prize. But no one can. As I
> said, the upper limit is 285 kJ and that's for 2 moles of H (and one of O).
> That's why NASA used H2 and O2 to power the space shuttle. There is no
> better fuel measured in energy per gram.
> You can subject a mole of hydrogen to a laser and make it real hot for a
> nanosecond too, but that doesn't count. That is not energy storage, and you
> cannot release that in any system.
> If Piantelli said this, he has a screw loose.
>> Without a full account of the amount of potential hydrogen in a reaction,
>> results are a fantasy and will not be taken seriously.
> The full account is what I said: 285 kJ per 2 moles. End of story. NASA
> and every automobile maker on earth will pay you billions if you release
> more energy than that.
> - Jed

Reply via email to