Replication of Mills Light Water Calorimetry Experiment - Run 4 - 2MAR01
(Explorer users:  please set your text size (under View) to medium) 

An introduction to this experiment, the report on Run 1, and the report on Run 3 should be reviewed before reading this report.

Run 4 was a control run, conducted with the same Ni wire cathode used in Run 3 but with fresh 0.57M Na₂CO₃ electrolyte instead of the K₂CO₃ electrolyte used in Run 3.

After Run 3, the Ni cathode was rinsed thoroughly with distilled water and then soaked in distilled water for 1/2 hour and rinsed again.  All other materials were cleaned and assembled as described in our earlier reports.

Our gas flow rate measurements for Run 4 were rather consistent, and noticeably higher than was observed in Run 3.  In the early stages of the 477 hour run, the gas flow rate was about 70% of the theoretical value computed from the cell current (corrected for ambient temperature and local atmospheric pressure).  Towards the end of the run, it increased to about 75%.

We analyzed the electrolysis gases with our RGA and the results were essentially identical to those obtained in Run 3.

This plot shows the entire calorimetric record for Run 4.  The horizontal axis is time (0-500 hours) with 50 hr/div.  The color-coded power traces Pout and Pin are plotted on a vertical scale that runs from 0 mW to +500 mW (50 mW/div).

The other traces are temperatures and are all plotted on a scale that runs from 10°C to 60°C (5°C/div).  The temperature of the electrolyte in the active cell is Tcell.  The temperature of the water in the reference cell is Tref.  Room air temperature is Troom.

Per Mills, the run necessarily starts with electrolysis power on.  His protocol calls for immersing the Ni cathode into the electrolyte with electrolysis power applied.  A constant-current power supply was employed and, for this run, was set to drive 0.083 amps through the cell.   That current persisted for the entire 477 hour duration of the run.   The system reached thermal equilibrium after ~80 hours.  At the 140 hour mark, precisely 100 mW of power was applied to the teflon-encased calibration resistor submerged in the active cell's electrolyte.   This "standard addition" persisted for another 190 hours, again with thermal equilibrium occurring in the last 80 hours.  At the 280 hour mark, power was removed from the calibration resistor in the active cell and the system was allowed to relax to thermal equilibrium again.  At about 425 hours, a manually adjustable power was applied to the calibration resistor in the reference cell.   By 430 hours, this power had been adjusted so the temperature of the water in the reference cell closely matched that of the electrolyte in the active cell, thus achieving a null balance.  Evidence of this last condition is marked by the Tcell and Tref traces merging together and the Pout trace going to zero.

This table summarizes the calorimetric results from this run.  All values are in watts.  Column 1 represents the results obtained from the first equilibrium (i.e. 100-140 hrs) employing a calibration based upon the 100 mW standard addition.  Column 2 represents the results obtained from the equilibrium after the standard addition (i.e. 380-425 hrs) employing the same calibration.  Both equilibration periods show a small apparent excess heat signal, about 7% of the total input power and the difference between them provides a rough indication of the overall uncertainty in these measurements.  

For comparison, here is the column A data from Run 3, which employed the same calibration method as was used in Run 4.  Clearly there is no significant difference between the results of Run 3 (active) and Run 4 (control).  As indicated in the Run 3 report, this small apparent excess heat signal may well be just an artifact of the calorimetry because it shrinks considerably or disappears when other calibration methods are employed.

Unfortunately, the implications of this result are not so clear.  Despite our efforts to achieve a faithful replication it is certainly possible that our active run (Run 3) was inactive for some reason.   On the other hand, there is still the possibility that Mills' original experimental results were erroneous.  We have asked for assistance from Dr. Mills in replicating this experiment but, to date, there has been no response to our requests.  All we can do without his assistance is continue our efforts.

Our next run will be another active run using the K₂CO₃ electrolyte but this time we will employ the pulsed electrolysis power scheme that Mills employed in his experiment #2 (see p. 474 in the 1996 edition of "The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics").

Comments and suggestions are welcome:  little@earthtech.org