Click the Pic
These lions can't figure out why you haven't donated yet.
Please Donate Monthly
Sponsors will contribute $10 for each New Monthly Donor
Posted on 11/08/2011 10:53:54 PM PST by Kevmo
Report On A Conversation With George Miley
Posted on November 8, 2011 by ecatsite
_____________________________________________
This was posted on Vortex by Jed Rothwell and with his permission is posted below .
_____________________________________________
I spoke with George Miley of the University of Illinois about his most recent tests with palladium zirconium alloys with gas loading. Here are some notes from the conversation and some related information about some of (Dr. Tadahiko) Mizuno’s experiments .
A set of PowerPoint slides here shows his results up until recently. Download the slides here .
See the slides starting at # 46 .
This does not show the most recent results, which are more dramatic .
Slide 48 shows the overall pattern of the reaction .
Note that for ordinary chemical reactions, loading is exothermic and deloading is endothermic. That is not what you see here. In some cases the initial chemical exothermic reaction is followed by a second reaction raising the temperature still higher. This is the anomalous cold fusion reaction. These slides do not show it lasting for long. This is similar to (Dr. Akira) Kitamura’s results .
The slides show early runs. Recently they made a batch of material that works dramatically better. However, they only made one batch so far and they have run samples from it four times. They will need to make more batches to confirm that they can reproduce this improved performance. Miley is “optimistic but cautious” that the next batch will work as well as this one did .
In the four runs they have achieved fairly stable output ranging from ~75 to ~200 W. The runs last around six hours. As shown in slide 48, the sample first self-heats from the chemical reaction. Because the sample is well insulated this heat is enough to trigger the anomalous reaction — when the anomalous reaction occurs. You do not usually need external heating although the cell is equipped with a heater (slide 47) .
The samples are ZrO2 with 35% Pd loaded with deuterium at 60 psi. They range from 15 to 30 g. The starting material is of high purity and comes from Ames National Laboratory. Additional processing is done at the University of Illinois. Miley thinks that recent success is due to their increased attention to material purity and improved manufacturing methods, and a better vacuum pump. Quote slide 49:
“Most effort has been to develop improved nanoparticles by comparing and down selecting a series of triple alloys.”
They are also making ZrO2Ni, to be loaded with hydrogen. I do not think they have done this yet. We did not talk about that much .
Although deloading is chemically endothermic, in some cases they have seen the heat increased during the loading. This is presumably anomalous heat. Rossi showed a similar effect during the October 6 demonstration. Miles says this is probably caused by flux, that is, deuterons moving through the lattice. It does not matter which direction they are moving. McKubre listed flux as one of the key factors in his “ad hoc” equation .
Calorimetry .
A schematic of the calorimeter is shown in slide number 47. This is a gas calorimeter, similar to the one Mizuno used in his studies with proton conductors. I have a lot of data from that and I am pretty familiar with the characteristics so I will discuss it below .
The temperature is measured at the sample I believe, or anyway, in the sample chamber. When there is heat (chemical or anomalous) you see a temperature difference between the sample chamber and the outer chamber. In Miley’s case, the temperature difference ranges from 100°C to 200°C. Miley described this calorimeter as very complicated and nonlinear. It is difficult to model. The problem is that the ratio of output power to the temperature at the core of the sample chamber will vary depending upon the type of gas you fill the sample chamber with, and the gas pressure .
Based on Mizuno’s data, I agree this is very complicated but on the other hand it is also probably reliable, stable and repeatable. Mizuno tested hydrogen, deuterium, helium, air, and a vacuum. He tested the gases over a range of pressures. He found that when you use the same kind of gas at the same pressure, a given power level always produces the same temperature difference between the inside and the outside. So, when anomalous power produces a certain temperature you can find that point on the output curve and you can say with confidence that it is producing that much power .
Because of this complexity, Miley et al. do not know with accuracy how much power the sample is producing. On the other hand they can be sure it is producing heat because the sample chamber is much hotter than the outer chamber. We know the energy is anomalous, because it produces a much larger temperature difference than the chemical effect, and it lasts much longer: 21600 s compared to 150 s. The anomalous power continues when the heating coil is turned off, so there is no possibility that they are mistaking conventional electric heating with anomalous heating .
In other words, they can be sure there is anomalous heat but they cannot say with assurance what the magnitude of it is. I think they would have to do more calibration with a joule heater to establish exactly what the power level is. The heating coil around the outside of the sample chamber would not be suitable for this. You need to put heater right where the sample is located, in the center of the sample chamber. This is what Mizuno did .
Ambient air is outside the outer chamber. Changes in this air temperature will not have much effect on the calorimetry because the inner temperature differences are so much higher than ambient fluctuations. Mizuno’s data shows no measurable effect from ambient changes even though he was in a poorly heated laboratory in Hokkaido, with large gaps in the walls and windows .
They are using one calorimeter. They are doing the experiments every few weeks. They would like to expand the effort to have someone work full-time on it. Ahey would like to have 4 calorimeters instead of 1, so they can test more samples in parallel. I suggested they use at least one Seebeck calorimeter. This would sweep aside all of the complexities of gas calorimetry, since it measures the heat outside the walls of the gas cell. The cell should fit into a Seebeck calorimeter because it is about 2 inches long .
Miley outlined a development path for this in slide number 52 .
I hope to find someone who can provide funding for this research. It has some major advantages over Rossi’s research:
The power density and temperatures are roughly comparable with Rossi .
Tests with nickel might produce the same light water effect that Rossi has observed .
This is a state university so the results would be made public .
Miley and her students are conventional academic scientists, not businessmen. They have no imperative to keep their results secret. On the contrary they would publish as quickly as they can to establish priority .
Miley’s researchers are young. See slide 46. This kind of research should be done by young people. Frankly, I would rather have one young person than 5 elderly scientists .
The material supplied by Ames Laboratory can be documented in great detail, and probably reproduced. The additional processing performed by Miley et al. can also be documented in detail .
Unlike Rossi, Miley et al. are willing to reveal all details of their work and to share materials with other qualified researchers, so this material can be independently tested by other laboratories .
This is not to criticize Rossi for being secretive. The imperatives of research at a public university are different from those in a private corporation .
Rossi does have one large advantage over Miley et al. He is working on a gigantic scale. This impresses many people. It does not impress me…I find a test at 100 W as convincing as a test at 1 MW. As long as the temperatures and power density are comparable, and the reaction is stable, I don’t see any advantage to scaling up above 100 W. It just makes the calorimetry more complicated, and it makes the experiment dangerous. However, members of the public and mass media reporters will probably be more impressed by the larger scale of Rossi’s tests. I suppose that from a public relations point of view it would be a good idea to scale up. If Miley et al. had funding perhaps they could make a cell that generates kilowatt level heat. I regard this as more of a public relations stunt than a scientifically useful thing to do, but sometimes a stunt is called for .
ecatsite@yahoo.com
Short URL for this page: http://wp.me/p1SDhJ-pG
Sorry. Not the same thing. Keely had a very few devices. Rossi has produced many. There is no evidence of "evolution" of the devices for Keely......there is for Rossi.
Uh, you "did" grasp the point that those slides refer to the reaction of deuterium?? Of course the reaction products would be different.
Uh, you "did" grasp the point that those slides refer to the reaction of deuterium?? Of course the reaction products would be different.How convenient it is that Rossi's reaction produces no radioactive byproducts, and produces no changes to the natural ratio of the elements in the "ash". Especially when the report mentioned above produced 39 different byproducts.
The fact that you are so blindly accepting of anything Rossi says, even when it's something as unlikely as his device producing absolutely no byproducts that can be distinguished from unaltered natural metals is nothing short of amazing.
Sorry. Not the same thing. Keely had a very few devices. Rossi has produced many. There is no evidence of "evolution" of the devices for Keely......there is for Rossi.The article showed numerous devices Keely built. One very interesting common element is that both men refused to let anyone else see the working of their machines, and they did all the work themselves.
Both claimed that was to protect their "intellectual property". In Keely's case, it was obviously to hide his fraud. We will see about Rossi.
It’s a shame that the ash from Rossi’s E-Cat doesn’t show any signs of radioactive isotopes. I guess he couldn’t afford to buy any to “salt” his sample.
***Then he is lousy at scamming as well, right?
***Then he is lousy at scamming as well, right?No, he's extraordinarily good at it. He's managed to get hundreds of articles throughout the world media, based on some half-assed dog & pony shows.
My understanding is that some of these radioactive isotopes are very expensive, so it's understandable that he wouldn't be able to afford that level of detail, even if he had thought of it.
Of course, he only has to be good enough to convince some gullible and greedy suckers to invest in his company. And there are plenty of those people around.
He thinks he can build one, as soon as someone gives him $25 million to build a prototype.
***Heck, I can do that. I’d buy 50 units from Rossi for $2M, pocket $23M and 48 units, show off 2 units and go into business modifying ECats for custom use.
Don't forget that his customers have to be real stupid not to check behind the curtain.You mean stupid companies like Blockbuster? Like Intel?
HERE is a guy who got several million dollars from those companies for what he claimed was a "revolutionary new technology" to transmit high-quality video over ordinary telephone modems.
It turned out to be a box containing a VCR, a video cable hidden in a power strip and a half-mile of coax cable running under a river.
Sometimes even smart companies fall for scams, and when they do, they often just forget about it rather than admitting their stupidity to the public.
***Heck, I can do that. I’d buy 50 units from Rossi for $2M, pocket $23M and 48 units, show off 2 units and go into business modifying ECats for custom use.LOL! That is the funniest thing I've read in days!
That guy got found out. If Rossi’s a scammer, he’ll get found out as well.
I don't know that it does, and I don't know that it doesn't. The small amount of information that I have from the Swedes as to methodology doesn't give me enough to go on. I doubt that they had access to analytical devices as powerful as the SIM and Neutron Activation system that Miley used.
And perhaps they did, and the information lack is just due to bad reporting.
"The fact that you are so blindly accepting of anything Rossi says, even when it's something as unlikely as his device producing absolutely no byproducts that can be distinguished from unaltered natural metals is nothing short of amazing."
See above. Inadequate information. I "blindly accept" NOTHING. But if information is sparse, I reserve judgment until better data is available. I don't automatically jump to the conclusion that "it's a scam, it just HAS to be a scam, oh gee I "hope" it's a scam".
Did Andrea Rossi Jump the Gun with His 1 MW E-Cat LENR?
http://alfin2300.blogspot.com/2011/11/did-andrea-rossi-jump-gun-with-his-1-mw.html
New information from fusion physicist George Miley (Vortex via EcatSite and Ecatnews.net) helps to clarify a few matters regarding recent developments in LENR research.
Professor Miley and his students are proceeding with their own line of research into LENRs, and are making what is described as dramatic improvement. Miley’s slides are available for download.
The slides show early runs. Recently they made a batch of material that
works dramatically better. However, they only made one batch so far and
they have run samples from it four times. They will need to make more
batches to confirm that they can reproduce this improved performance. Miley
is “optimistic but cautious” that the next batch will work as well as this
one did.
In the four runs they have achieved fairly stable output ranging from ~75
to ~200 W. The runs last around six hours. As shown in slide 48, the sample
first self-heats from the chemical reaction. Because the sample is well
insulated this heat is enough to trigger the anomalous reaction — when the
anomalous reaction occurs. You do not usually need external heating
although the cell is equipped with a heater (slide 47).
The samples are ZrO2 with 35% Pd loaded with deuterium at 60 psi. They
range from 15 to 30 g. The starting material is of high purity and comes
from Ames National Laboratory. Additional processing is done at the
University of Illinois. Miley thinks that recent success is due to their
increased attention to material purity and improved manufacturing methods,
and a better vacuum pump. Quote slide 49: “Most effort has been to develop
improved nanoparticles by comparing and down selecting a series of triple
alloys.”
They are also making ZrO2Ni, to be loaded with hydrogen. I do not think
they have done this yet. We did not talk about that much.
...Based on Mizuno’s data, I agree this is very complicated but on the other
hand it is also probably reliable, stable and repeatable. Mizuno tested
hydrogen, deuterium, helium, air, and a vacuum. He tested the gases over a
range of pressures. He found that when you use the same kind of gas at the
same pressure, a given power level always produces the same temperature
difference between the inside and the outside. So, when anomalous power
produces a certain temperature you can find that point on the output curve
and you can say with confidence that it is producing that much power.
Because of this complexity, Miley et al. do not know with accuracy how much
power the sample is producing. On the other hand they can be sure it is
producing heat because the sample chamber is much hotter than the outer
chamber. We know the energy is anomalous, because it produces a much larger
temperature difference than the chemical effect, and it lasts much longer:
21600 s compared to 150 s. The anomalous power continues when the heating
coil is turned off, so there is no possibility that they are mistaking
conventional electric heating with anomalous heating.
In other words, they can be sure there is anomalous heat but they cannot
say with assurance what the magnitude of it is. I think they would have to
do more calibration with a joule heater to establish exactly what the power
level is.
...Miley’s researchers are young. See slide 46. This kind of research should
be done by young people. Frankly, I would rather have one young person than
5 elderly scientists.
The material supplied by Ames Laboratory can be documented in great detail,
and probably reproduced. The additional processing performed by Miley et
al. can also be documented in detail.
Unlike Rossi, Miley et al. are willing to reveal all details of their work
and to share materials with other qualified researchers, so this material
can be independently tested by other laboratories _Vortex_via_EcatSite_and_Ecatnews.net
And so on. It is worth reading both the Vortex link above and the EcatSite link.
The impression one gets from all the information available so far, is that the science is still poorly defined, and the technology is still at an infantile stage.
It is not likely that Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat reactors are ready for commercialisation or mass production. But Rossi has performed an important role by bringing this science and technology to the attention of the public and the media. Now, scientific researchers such as George Miley and others should more easily obtain funding for their research into both the science underlying LENRs and the technology required to efficiently develop efficient and reliable reactors to useful scale.
But Rossi has performed an important role by bringing this science and technology to the attention of the public and the media.So, Rossi isn't much of a scientist, but he's a great showman.
Finally, something we can all agree with!
See above. Inadequate information. I "blindly accept" NOTHING. But if information is sparse, I reserve judgment until better data is available.Nonsense. You've been jumping to the conclusion that Rossi has a "revolutionary" new technology based on much flimsier evidence. It's only the evidence that shows Rossi to be a fraud that you consistently reject.
When Rossi makes claims that he's run these devices for years, and that he heated his factory for six months on a single "fueling" without offering any evidence, but he then can't demonstrate a device working for more than a few hours, you blindly accept his word.
When Rossi is shown to have been convicted of fraud several times, for completely unrelated scams, you say that his fraud in one area has nothing to do with fraud in this area.
But when the outside, independent analysis of the "ash" from his device shows absolutely no signs of any nuclear or transmutational processes, then you decide that you need to be skeptical, that they didn't do "proper" testing and/or that they did find those results and just forgot to mention it.
We now have credible evidence that LENR reactions produce radioactive byproducts (as we would expect). Faking that would be very difficult and expensive.
Since the evidence is that Rossi's gadget doesn't produce any byproducts (either radioactive isotopes, or even non-radioactive isotopes in different ratios than occurs naturally), it's clear that his device isn't doing LENR. Since his claims are so far outside the possibility of honest error (i.e. heating his factory for six months with a single "fueling"), the obvious conclusion is fraud.
Garbage. Just what I would expect from a loon. I haven't "rejected" evidence that shows Rossi engaged in fraudulent activities, nor have I "jumped to a conclusion" on anything.
If you've got a link that shows the actual data from the Swedes' analysis, put it up here....because I have NOT found one. I'd LOVE to see the data.
Also note that Miley's slides say NOTHING about radioactivity.....they show ELEMENTAL ANALYSIS data for ELEMENTS.....not ISOTOPES. Be "very" careful not to conclude that "radioactivity" mentioned in the Miley work is from the CF process......note that Miley used both SIMS "and" NAA. "NAA" stands for "neutron activation analysis", and is a technique where the simple is PUT INTO A NUCLEAR REACTOR to generate RADIOACTIVE ISOTOPES. From the amount and type of those radioactive species, one can "back-calculate" to what elements (and to some extent what isotopes) were present in the original non-irradiated sample. I've done NAA and have a more than passing understanding of the process.
I don't see anywhere that Miley mentions that the original sample, when extracted from the CF reactor, was measurably radioactive. And detection of radiation is VERY VERY sensitive. Of course, I "could" have missed that in reading, just like YOU missed the fact that Rossi's "thermal generator" was tested by independent personnel, at an independent facilty.....and which data "you" consistently ignore or "explain away".
If anyone is "jumping to conclusions" here, it's you.
“Sorry. Not the same thing. Keely had a very few devices. Rossi has produced many. There is no evidence of “evolution” of the devices for Keely......there is for Rossi.” - WW
It is precisely the same in regard to independent verification.
It is also the same regarding a non-scientist with fantastic scientific breakthroughs.
The claims are science breakthrough related, but the demonstrations are remarkably unscientific in practice.
These practices by Rossi leave plenty of room for valid skepticism. Combine all these scientific miss-steps with Rossi’s history of questionable/failed businesses, and you get, IMO, a likelihood of deception.
If all you are doing is flipping an UP Quark to a DOWN Quark you probably wouldn’t have any radioactive debris around to measure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.