Cold Fusion Heat from the Rossi Reactor

Home (Main Menu)

Nickle + Hydrogen => Copper + Heat

Hydrogen + Hydrogen => Deuterium

The Rossi Patent Application

Conspiracy Theory

Background for the deflation fusion scenario

Defkalion to make Rossi Ecat Boilers

2-6-11: ICCF16 in India (International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science)

Brief Technical Description of the Leonardo Corporation, University of Bologna, and INFN Scientific Demonstration of the Andrea Rossi ECat (Energy Catalyzer) Boiler

[INFN is the Italian National Institute of Nuclear Physics]

by Jed Rothwell

lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJbrieftechn.pdf

Commentator 1 wrote:

Public demonstration at Bologna, Italy, on January 14, 2011

[The press conference is on 1-15-11.]

The experiment has been underway at the University of Bologna since mid-December 2010. It has been done several times. Several professors with expertise in related subjects such as calorimetry are involved.

LIST OF MAIN EQUIPMENT IN EXPERIMENT

A hydrogen tank mounted on a weight scale which is accurate to 0.1 g

10 liter tank reservoir, which is refilled as needed during the run

Displacement pump

Tube from pump to Rossi device (The Rossi device is known as an "ECat")

Outlet tube from the Rossi device, which emits hot water or steam

Thermocouples in the reservoir, ambient air and the outlet tube

An HD37AB1347 IAQ Monitor (Delta Ohm) to measure the relative humidity of the steam. This is to confirm that it is "dry steam"; that is, steam only, with no water droplets.

Alternating-current heater used to bring the Rossi device up the working temperature

METHOD

The reservoir water temperature is measured at 13C, ambient air at 23C.

The heater is set to about 1000 W to heat up the Rossi device. Hydrogen is admitted to the Rossi device.

The displacement pump is turned on, injecting water into the Rossi device at 292 ml/min.

The water comes out as warm water at first, then as a mixture of steam and water, and finally after about 30 minutes, as dry steam. This is confirmed with the relative humidity meter.

As the device heats up, heater power is reduced to around 400 W.

RESULTS

The test run on January 14 lasted for 1 hour. After the first 30 minutes the outlet flow became dry steam. The enthalpy during this last 30 minutes can be computed very simply, based on the heat capacity of water (4.2 kJ/kgK) and heat of vaporization of water (2260 kJ/kg):

Mass of water 8.8 kg

Temperature change 87C

Energy to bring water to 100C: 87C*4.2*8.8 kg = 3,216 kJ

Energy to vaporize 10 kg of water: 2260*8.8 = 19,888 kJ

Total: 23,107 kJ

Duration 30 minutes = 1800 seconds

Power 12,837 W, minus auxiliary power ~12 kW

There were two potential ways in which input power might have been measured incorrectly: heater power, and the hydrogen, which might have burned if air had been present in the cell.

The heater power was measured at 400 W. It could not have been much higher that this, because it is plugged into an ordinary wall outlet. Even if a wall socket could supply 12 kW, the heater electric wire would burn.

During the test runs the weight of the hydrogen tank did not measurably decrease, so less than 0.1 g of hydrogen was consumed. 0.1 g of hydrogen is 0.1 mole, which makes 0.05 mole of water. The heat of formation of water is 286 kJ/mole, so if the hydrogen had been burned it would have produced less than 14.3 kJ.

I [am] tempted to add: "Hey, Richard Garwin: here's your cuppa tea, big guy!"

I think it is all but certain these results are real. They cannot be a mistake, and fraud seems unlikely to me.

---------

Commentator 1 wrote:

Date: Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 12:34 PM

Rossi will also be at the press conference [on 1-15-11].

His blog says there will be an "on line" version of it:

www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/

I assume this means a real-time web-broadcast. I asked Rossi what part of his web site this will be linked to.

So, you do not need to go to Bologna to see it.

Someone who speaks Italian should please watch this and report on it. Tell me about it.

If this is true, and the mass media believes it, it may well be the biggest sensation in cold fusion since 1989.

To put it another way, if this is true, I guess it is Game Over and We Won. I have difficulty taking that possibility seriously. It could happen though. There is certainly no physical reason why a 16 kW heater cannot be made.

mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?hl=en&shva=1#drafts/12d829b652560438

---------

The Board Of Advisers of the Journal Of Nuclear Physics wrote:

Saturday, January 15 [2011] Sergio Focardi and Andrea Rossi will make a press conference online about the presentation of the 10 kW module reactor ...

The press conference will start at 10 a.m. Italian Time. To put questions, you will have to send your inquiry as a comment to our blog, you will receive the answer in real time online.

Warm Regards, The Board Of Advisers of the Journal Of Nuclear Physics

Comments to JANUARY 15th FOCARDI AND ROSSI PRESS CONFERENCE:

Andrea Rossi wrote:

January 13th, 2011 at 5:33 PM

To join the press conference of Saturday January 15th you can go to

www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com

log in the blog and participate starting from 4 a.m. US Eastern time.

There we will give the instructions to look at the video.

Warm regards, Andrea Rossi

---------

Commentator 3 wrote:

Rossi has claimed to have documented these things:

1) Transmutation of nickel to copper

2) "Easily shielded" gamma radiation (probably <100 keV)

3) Massive and reliable excess heating. Much more than Randell Mills or anyone else in LENR [Low Energy Nuclear Reactions]

-----------

Commentator 1 wrote:

I would like to know more about how the steam was condensed. They must have flushed it out of the room, down a drain. Otherwise they would end up with a very hot large bucket of water. Someone ... correctly pointed out that venting that much steam into the room would make it like a steam bath. A medium size water heater at Home Depot is 5.5 kW. A sauna takes about 6 kW, I think.

----------

Commentator 3 wrote:

Here is the website of the company founded by Andrea Rossi and others a few years ago. This company funded and owns the technology in question.

www.lti-global.com/index.php

However, apparently there has been some kind of falling-out with Rossi, and as you can see there is no mention of any of this on the website. It seems he is being marginalized.

The company has changed focus to so-called "clean-coal". Sad. They have no comment about Rossi, who was operating out of a different branch (New Hampshire). They have large DARPA grants, unrelated to the LENR cell, and do not want to compromise those ...

[Rossi] will sell not a single unit in the USA without an NRC license, which is complicated, costly and takes years.

As for Europe, where the need for inexpensive energy is greater, who knows? ...

-----------

On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 8:50 PM, Commentator 3 wrote:

Sell reactors to whom?

Commentator 4 wrote:

Iran? Stuxnet free.

---------

On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 9:14 PM, Commentator 1 wrote:

Another possibility, which we discussed earlier, is that the NRC or some other regulatory agency will wake up and demand that Rossi stop selling unlicensed nuclear reactors in the U.S. ...

Commentator 4 wrote:

I wonder. Does the NRC regulate reactors on naval ships? The military applications alone are worth billions. The supply line to Iraq during the war was a large percentage of the cost.

---------

Commentator 4 wrote:

Did the profs witness the actual setup of the equipment?

The story is that the profs set up and ran the entire demonstration.

Commentator 1 wrote;

That's what they told me. Celani said: "All the measurements were made, INDEPENDENTLY, from a Researcher (and Technicians) of Bologna University. Rossi made only supervision about key safety aspects." He did not actually mention setting up, but other people have.

Anyway, the people who conducted the tests are writing up their work now. You can see that I got some preliminary notes from them. So you will get the story from them directly in a week or two. Have patience ...

Rossi ... knows that he cannot convince university profs. to do a test except on their own terms. I know many profs, especially elderly ones who used to be Presidents of the Chemical Society ... or what-have-you. Such people NEVER take orders from anyone. They never agree to do anything except on their own terms, with their own instruments and grad students and colleagues. They never take anyone's word for anything. They use techniques from 1943 even when electronic gadgets do it faster.

They do not read computer manuals or learn how to use Microsoft Word. They wrote the book on measuring steam ... or neutrons, and they know that subject better than anyone else on earth. (Or they think they do.) You can't get them to write a memo, order lunch or tie their shoes except by methods they have fully investigated, tested, and confirmed.

Reason two is pretty simple. Ask yourself, how likely is it that you persuade a professor to walk into a room, look at a few instruments, and say: "Hey, whaddya know! It works after all!

Cold fusion may seem to violate theory and it is the biggest controversy in history. Dozens of people who replicated it had their reputations trashed. But what the hell, I'll just sign off on this and tell everyone in the audience here that I am sure it works."

Do you really suppose that professors are unaware of academic politics and the biggest death-match fight in the history of physics? ...

--------

Commentator 5 wrote:

The huge difference between the two is that the COP [coefficient of performance -- (output power) / (input power)] of the BLP [BlackLight Power] demo was not much larger than 1, and it was a "one shot", whereas Rossi says he can run continuously with a COP > 8.

---------

Commentator 5 wrote:

Commentator 1, in your report you quote:

"30 second period" (see #2).

Was that the duration of the test??

(I had (perhaps mistakenly) gained the impression that it ran for at least an hour).

Commentator 1 wrote:

That's confusing, isn't it? The Jan. 14 test was about an hour. Not sure how long it took to reach the terminal temperature and dry steam, but after that they ran for 30 minutes exactly. I have a graph showing that. It shows the reaction quenching remarkably quickly. That's almost as good as starting up quickly. It would be nice to have a cold fusion reaction we can turn off.

30 seconds is how they quote the flow rate. It seems the pump setting is for 30 second intervals; i.e. 146 ml/30 s.

In the video the pump makes a loud noise and sends a pulse of water every few seconds ...

--------

Commentator 6 wrote:

Rossi's good. But there's a black box in the middle ...

--------

Commentator 7 wrote:

This is another example of the disastrous consequences of depending on a "black box" test. The stuff coming out could have been dry steam, or it could have been hot air.

The person presenting the demonstration -- Rossi -- claims he turned it into steam.

What proof is there of that?

With a single demonstration, in which only one researcher knows what's inside the box, unless you have rock solid confidence in that researcher, you should take /nothing/ for granted.

--------

Commentator 14 wrote:

Rossi could keep his black box method and still prove his claims with a 24 hour stress test that would produce far more energy ...

Commentator 1 wrote:

He has done that. People have told me they witnessed that, albeit not at a national university setting, with professors doing the installation and running of the calorimetry. I think they did some longer runs in the weeks leading up to this demo, but I have not heard how long they were. I asked, but they did not get around to answering.

Rossi ... has done a good job of revealing his device. I think he has done as much as anyone can do without revealing trade secrets. I am afraid it is futile to try to protect trade secrets, but I understand why he is trying. It is hard to think of a better way to proceed given the patent situation.

Top -- Home

[Nickle + Hydrogen => Copper + Heat]

Commentator 5 wrote:

There is still a problem with the Cu formed. One would expect at least some of it to be radioactive, and the gammas from these isotopes should still be easily detected through 2 cm of lead.

The primary isotope of Ni is Ni-58 which by addition of a proton should produce Cu-59 which has a half life of 81 seconds, decaying to Ni-59 via beta+ decay. These positrons should produce annihilation gammas when interacting with electrons from the metal. [12.6%] of the 511 keV gammas would get through the 2 cm lead shielding, and be very readily detected.

However it's also possible that the Hydrino electron that got "sucked in" immediately reacted with the new copper nucleus to form Ni-59 directly through an enhanced electron capture reaction (enhanced because the electron is already "on hand", and doesn't need to be captured from the K shell).

(Since Hydrino electrons are much much closer to the proton than in ordinary Hydrogen, they may get "sucked in" when the proton is attracted to the Ni nucleus by the nuclear force, then get expelled from the newly formed Cu nucleus carrying the excess energy.)

The problem with this is that the reaction to Ni-59 produces 8 MeV, and this energy can't be converted into electron energy as the electron has already been used so it would at first blush seem that only gamma radiation remains (a problem once again).

As an alternative I would offer the possibility that not single Hydrinos, but rather whole molecules or even magnetically bound groups of molecules are reacting with the Ni. The energy of the reaction could then still be carried away by a combination of protons and shrunken electrons left over from the molecule (cluster).

A cluster would also open the way to the following reaction:

Ni-58 + 2H2 => Ni-60 + 2H + 2 neutrinos (or 2 e- + 2 p) + 18.8 MeV

leaving no radioactive substance.

A reaction producing Cu would be:

Ni-60 + 2H2 => Cu-63 + H (or e- + p) + 2 neutrinos + 23 MeV.

(The simplest cluster is 2 magnetically bound Hydrino molecules; 4 atoms, hence 2H2).

----------

Commentator 3 wrote:

We cannot assume that this is directly comparable to a known hot fusion reaction, assuming it is real. Why should we? There is every reason to suspect that LENR is based on previously unknown pathways.

The best way to validate the claim is to test a sample of spent fuel for copper isotope ratio. We can probably expect the heavier Cu-65 to be completely absent. That would constitute almost indisputable proof.

---------

Commentator 5 wrote:

The reaction [could be]

Ni-58 + H -> Cu-59.

The Cu-59 would accumulate until there was enough for the decay rate to equal the production rate, at which point the quantity would stabilize. If we assume that the reactor is in this stable state, and producing an output of 4 kW (2/3 of 6kW from this isotope), then there are 3E15 Cu59 atoms being created every second, and an equal number decaying to Ni-59.

Almost all of the decays produce positrons which annihilate with electrons producing a pair of gamma rays. Hence about 6E15 gammas are being produced every second. Of these about 2.8E11 / sec. would make it through 2 cm of lead. That's the equivalent of an unshielded source of 7.7 Ci of gamma radiation.

Over 1 hour that would lead to a received dose of about 308 mr at a distance of 5 yards (at 1 yard it would be 7700 mr). (average background radiation in the US is about 300 mr / yr, so while observing the experiment at a distance of 5 yards one would get about a years worth in 1 hour).

(These are 511 keV gammas. Dental X-rays are about 65 keV or less).

---------

Commentator 4 wrote:

If the electron capture concept is correct, then only dissociation is necessary. Further reading on my part shows that dissociation can occur on metal surfaces ...

----------

Commentator 3 wrote:

The Rossi collective seem to be convinced, or at least promoting the hypothesis that the fusion of a proton with nickel, resulting in copper, is the main heat source in this device.

There are other options.

One possibility is related to dense hydrogen or "pycno". This could include Miley's inverse Rydberg hydrogen or the less dense variety. Here is an important Miley paper where he sees clusters of about 100 atoms in a "defect" . (Casimir cavity ??)

iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/244/3/032036/pdf/1742-6596_244_3_032036.pdf

Inverse Rydberg states of hydrogen atoms are far denser than 100 atoms, of course, and relatively "long-lived". Here is the citation (fee) - if it is confirmed by other experimenters, then it could be one of the most important papers in LENR:

"Ultrahigh-density deuterium of Rydberg matter clusters for inertial confinement fusion targets" L. Holmlid, H. Hora, G. Miley and X. Yang, Laser and Particle Beams 27 (2009) 529-532.

Holmlid, Miley and associates, claim that the density seen in their testing works out to the equivalent of ~10^29 atoms/cm^3, which more than enough for the "solar variety" of proton-proton tunneling reaction (or chain reaction) which is one of the prime fusion reactions by which stars convert hydrogen to energy. The proton-proton chain reaction dominates in stars the size of our Sun or smaller, which are in this range of density.

In 1939, Hans Bethe proposed that one of the protons in this reaction will beta+ decay into a neutron via the weak interaction during the fusion, making deuterium as an initial product in the chain that leads to helium - and he won the Nobel Prize, in part for this insight. It adds new meaning to one of the early idioms for cold fusion - "sun in a bottle".

In reading Commentator 2 recent musings, he seems to favor a rare version of this H+H reaction for Rossi - one that does not involve extreme density - known as the P-e-P reaction, which also results in deuterium, as the 'ash'.

However, if we add the Holmlid/Miley finding into the mix - extremely dense IRH (inverse Rydberg hydrogen) or even the 100 atom cluster, then we can possibly stay with better known solar reaction, involving beta+ decay.

The falsifiability of this hypothesis can be related to the appearance of deuterium and perhaps the gamma signature of the positron, as it either annihilates or goes to positronium with the UV signature (6.8 eV).

This kind of fusion is consistent with all we know if the copper is explained as migration or occasional fusion. Furthermore, the 'catalyst' of Rossi could changing gaseous hydrogen via spillover, into dense deuterium, or even IRH. The catalyst is the breakthrough, and my take on it is that it is a spillover catalyst and possibly it is the same NaH which is used by Randell Mills ...

-----------

Francesco CELANI wrote:

Dear Colleagues,

I attended last Friday (January 14, 2011) "demonstration" of Andrea Rossi - Sergio Focardi experiment.

It was held in an "industrial" building, far from Bologna City (about 10km).

* Only people that get *PERSONAL invitation* were able to attend it. There were several security people around the hall and outside the building. Total people attending was 40-50 (according to my estimation). There were several people from Physics Department from Bologna University, Director included. Moreover, also the Director of Bologna Section of National Institute of Nuclear Physics attended, in almost official way, the demonstration.

* The experiment started at about 15:30 and ended at (about )16:45.

The experiment measurement about energy emission was based on a modified "flow calorimeter" method (peristaltic pump, small size, about 10-20W of power).

They warmed-up the water up to 102C, pressurised vapor condition. They consumed water was about 12-14 liters (my evaluation).

* All the measurements were made, INDEPENDENTLY, from a Researcher (and Technicians) of Bologna University. Rossi made only supervision about key safety aspects.

* The amount of the reactant wasn't clear but can be of the order of few gram. According to Rossi, it is a complex mixture of *Nickel* and another (*1 or 2, SECRET) additives,* key for the energy emission. All the material is in the state of *nano-particles* or colloid.

In the pressurised (about 2 Atm.) chamber, volume of the order of 1-2 liters, there were the cooling pipe and the reactants.

Hydrogen gas was added continuously, at low rate. According to the Authors, they say that the "trigger" is just heat (at quite high temperatures: T>T_Curie of Nikel ???), other people speculated about ultrasounds.

The input power was of the order of 500-700W at maximum. An approximate calculation, supposing no thermal dissipation from the reactor, give:

Input Energy (3600s): (500--700 W)*3600=(1.8--2.52)MJ

Output Energy to increase the water temperature of 90C: 4.2* (102C-12C)=378 J/g

Vaporitation enthalpy, about 40.6kJ/mole water= 2633J/g

Total energy (with 13 liter of water vaporized)= 378+2633=3011J/g of water=>39.14MJ

The energy gain is of the order of a factor 15-20 => really large!

* It was assembled also a twin gamma ray detector in order to detect e+e- annihilation: this time almost no results. Focardi was confident that they will get large amounts of such signal, as in previous experiment. This time the counts were close to background for coincidences and only some uncorrelated signal were over background.

* I bring a gamma detector, battery operated, 1.25" NaI(Tl). Energy range = 25 keV - 2000 keV.

I measured some increase of counts near the reactor (about 50-100%) during operation, in a erratic (unstable) way, in respect to background.

I decided to move the gamma detector from "counts" to "spectra" mode. After few minutes Eng. Rossi realised that I was trying to identify something "secret" inside the reactor: I was forced to stop the measurements.

The discussion, mostly scientific and even "hot" about details, lasted up to 18:45. Some Italian news-paper made on-line report of the whole experiment (over 3h). The government television report isn't still ... [available].

* As soon as I will get more details I will send to You.

Thanks for Your attention,

Francesco CELANI

---------

Commentator 1 wrtoe:

The Piantelli Ni experiments required high temperature and external heating.

I believe the control factors are heat and pressure. The H2 is at 2 atm, according to Celani. When you depressurize the cell, the reaction soon stops. That's good news. Cold fusion reactions are sometimes nearly as difficult to stop as they are to start.

I assume the Rossi device has some internal self-regulation, or what Stan Pons called a "memory" that keeps electrochemical cells going back to the same power level after you refill the cell, tap on it, or disturb it some other way.

I also assume there is something about the Rossi device that acts analogously to a self-quenching CANDU nuclear reactor. I am only speculating; I have no knowledge of this. The mechanism would be something like the metal degassing at very high temperature, cooling down, and then absorbing the gas and reacting again. That would explain why it quickly stops when you degas manually.

I suspect the electric heater is in the core, and the cold fusion reaction occurs in the Ni powder surrounding that. I recall some of the Piantelli devices had heaters attached directly to the Ni bar.

I think Rossi claimed the internal temperature of this thing is 1500C. Commentator 2 pointed out that cannot be right, because the melting point of Ni is 1,453C. Perhaps that is a misunderstanding, or a mistranslation. Still, it must be pretty hot in there because the device is small and well insulated. Even with 400 W or 1000 W from the AC heater it must be quite hot internally. I assume (but I do not know) that the heater is the hottest part. That's how I imagine it works.

--------

Commentator 5 wrote:

Where does Rossi actually say it's 1500 C? ( I have seen a value of 400 C).

Top -- Home

[Hydrogen + Hydrogen => Deuterium]

H-H-e fusion [electron capture] to give deuterium.

Commentator 2 wrote:

It is essential to analyze the results in terms of how we know Nature has to behave. By doing this, we can gain increased understanding of what is actually happening in the Rossi apparatus, information that Rossi has not provided.

First, we must accept that the excess power is real and ask what characteristics of the energy-producing reaction would produce the observed behavior.

If the energy-producing reaction were exothermic with a positive temperature coefficient, the device could not be controlled and the temperature would continue to rise until the device was destroyed.

This would be like mixing H2 and O2 gas and then trying to slow the reaction by removing heat at the correct rate to produce a constant rate and temperature as the reaction proceeded. This kind of control is simply not possible.

Therefore, the energy-producing reaction must be self-controlling, i.e have a negative feedback mechanism. How is this possible?

The energy producing reaction for the Rossi and all CF applications has two components. The nuclear reaction requires a structure to be produced in which the nuclear reaction is initiated and allows the energy to be dissipated. I call this structure the nuclear-active-environment (NAE).

Formation of this structure has been observed to be spontaneous, therefore it is exothermic and the rate of formation increases with temperature.

If this were the only process, CF and the Rossi device would heat until the apparatus was destroyed, a fact that most theories ignore. Fortunately, as temperature is increased, the concentration of the reactant, hydrogen in Rossi's case and deuterium in the other branch of the effect, is reduced.

We all know from basic chemistry that when the concentration of a reactant is reduced, the rate of reaction using that reactant must go down. Consequently, competition between the rate being increased by temperature and decreased by loss of hydrogen or deuterium, results in a temperature at which the energy-producing reaction has a maximum rate ...

If the temperature attempts to go above this value, the rate of energy production automatically drops and the temperature is prevented from rising higher. This is how all systems containing a negative feed-back mechanism must behave.

Suppose we want to remove energy from such a system. Removing energy causes the temperature to drop, which reduces the rate of energy generation.

If we want to maximize the rate of energy generation, we must hold the temperature constant at the critical value. This can be done by changing the applied energy and matching it with the energy loss caused by cooling. If this process is done carefully, a source of constant power at constant temperature can be achieved. So far, this is all basic engineering 101.

The behavior of the Rossi device demonstrates that he has achieved this stable condition, which is only possible if the two conditions described above are operating in his apparatus. These two conditions will operate in ALL CF cells producing energy.

We see how the two conditions interact on a small scale in the flashes of light observed by Szpak et al. when Pd is electrodeposited - energy is produced, temperature rises, D is lost, temperature drops with the cycle repeating as D is taken up by the active region. Rossi has caused the effect on a large scale while under control.

Consequently, the Rossi effect is consistent with how all CF devices are expected to behave and provides an insight into how they must be designed.

Because the critical temperature might exist only over a small temperature range, failure to cause CF might be partially related to not having entered this critical temperature range.

If the temperature is too low, the formation rate of the NAE [nuclear-active-environment] is too small to produce detectable heat and if the temperature is too high, the concentration of D is too low to allow a rate that produces detectable heat. In other words, some cells might have the ability to produce power if the right temperature were used.

Rossi has shown that this insight is important and that his reaction, even though it uses H2 and Ni rather than D2 and Pd, has all the characteristics of what we have identified as cold fusion.

I suspect the heat does not result from transmutation but from ... H-H-e fusion [electron capture] to give deuterium.

The small amount of transmutation that results gives stable isotopes just like such transmutation found in CF cells. Consequently, we need to examine his results using what we know about the deuterium system.

The bottom line is that Rossi is initiating cold fusion and the reactions have all the characteristics observed when deuterium is used. Nature has only one song but with different words.

-----------

Commentator 3 wrote:

Rossi could changing gaseous hydrogen via spillover, into dense deuterium ... The catalyst is the breakthrough, and my take on it is that it is a spillover catalyst and possibly it is the same NaH which is used by Randell Mills ...

---------

Commentator 3 wrote:

Well, neutrons may be out, since the patent mentions lots of boron and few neutrons would escape anyway, and there are almost no secondaries from the boron ash: lithium and alpha ...

Celani's comment are indeed a bit puzzling, given the shielding - and the already admitted failure to see anything at 511 keV. That makes a lot of sense.

However, I have suggested in a previous post that Rossi - like BLP [BlackLight Power], could be using sodium hydride as the (spillover) catalyst, giving him a strong reason to hide this ...

Yikes! it is a very strong reason, come to think of it.

If so, and if there are energetic protons, then the Na (p,gamma) reaction is the culprit. Especially since this one is very important in cosmology, thus well studied, and with a characteristic 1.275 MeV signature.

Aha. This little detail does make NaH an even better candidate.

------------

Commentator 9 wrote:

You could probably see neutrons, if any were emitted - if the detector has a neutron capability, of course. Even if you see them, you now know a neutron emitter is present, nothing else.

So the chances of seeing anything useful other than high-energy gammas is really pretty low. The algorithms that identify components within a spectrum are rather sophisticated, though. Hope springs eternal....as always.

Chances are the "secret" may not be a gamma emitter at all, but it's worth a go.

With a lead-shielded reactor it is doubtful that any radiation other than gammas could be detected.

-------------

Commentator 2 wrote:

Consequently, competition between the rate being increased by temperature and decreased by loss of hydrogen or deuterium, results in a temperature at which the energy-producing reaction has a maximum rate. In Rossi's case, this temperature is above but near 101 C.

Commentator 1 wrote:

I think the temperature inside the machine is a lot higher than 101C. The steam is at 101C because the pipe is short and unpressurized, like an open saucepan of boiling water. It does not make any difference how hot you make the saucepan, the steam will always be just a little above boiling.

I agree with the rest of this analysis. As I mentioned Pons also described the fact that the reaction is stable and tends to return to the same power level. I assume this is a function of the amount of active material in the sample.

Rossi believes the temperature at the core is 1500C. As I mentioned here, Commentator 2 thinks that is impossible because it is above the melting point of nickel.

----------

Commentator 6 wrote:

That, also, makes it seem a little surprising that the joule heater continues to be used *after* "ignition". It's contributing just 4% of the total heat; you'd think they could just shut it off after the thing starts up.

Of course, the reacting surface area may be large enough that it stays cooler than the heater, and perhaps the intense heat near the heater wire has something to do with the reason they continue to use it after "ignition".

-------

Commentator 1 wrote:

That is my guess. I think the AC heater wire is hotter than the active material.

As I said, it is my understanding that heat and hydrogen pressure are the two control factors. I do not know how they work. I don't know which knob you twist to make the thing go.

Rossi said that removing the AC heat completely is dangerous. That give me the willies. If the external electricity cuts off, will the machine overheat? Or if it is built in a self sustaining device and the generator fails, will it overheat or go out of control?

It would be nice if the heat triggered the reaction, and removing the heat simply quenched it, but based on Rossi's comment that is is "dangerous" to run without the auxiliary heat, that is not the case.

Who knows what to make of it! Rossi is hiding many details.

------------

Commentator 4 wrote:

I think Rossi is operating near the edge of a runaway reaction. He uses the resistive heating device to ensure runaway does not happen. If he tried to self-sustain, he gets runaway. With the added 400 W of resistive heating, he can operate the cell just below the runaway temperature.

This is why he mysteriously says that it will self-sustain; but, he does not do it.

---------

Commentator 3 wrote:

This is not surprising. My guess is that there is strong temperature inversion, and a prohibitive trigger temperature with instant quench. The trigger could be say at 800 C, and the inversion 1000 C, giving some room for error. There are zones and only one of them is externally heated. This is the insurance.

This amplification of input is why he has named it the way he has.

You cannot EVER let normal fluctuations in the fuel temperature go below the trigger, or else the whole thing will instantly quench. You spread out the active material so that once you get over the trigger in one zone, it can then go over everywhere, and continues up, since the inversion pushes it up to the limit of heat transfer.

The heater will be placed to heat one small area in the reactor only - the "failsafe zone", so to speak.

-------------

Commentator 10 wrote:

Based on what I've read so far, I know I'd prefer the full protection and experience of a major utility company managing the "reactor" . . .

Commentator 1 wrote:

Me too!

Commentator 10 wrote:

I would think that only after a considerable amount of experience combined with a good track record has been built up, plus a theory that everyone can agree on, would consumer products even be considered.

Commentator 1 wrote:

I think so too. But here's what I predict: the calendar time it takes to generate that "considerable track record" will be more compressed than any industrial development in history, including the development of nuclear power and bombs during WWII.

Once it becomes generally known that this is a real nuclear effect that is likely to lower the cost of energy by a factor of 10 at first, and thousands more later, every industrial corporation on earth will pile onto it. Hundreds of thousands of researchers will work frantically to understand it, control it, and bring it to market ...

Someone who is talking to investors about Rossi asked me what I thought the projected cost per thermal kWh would be. I told him that Rossi described the consumables and 6-month maintenance, and estimates about $0.01/kWh. But my guess is that "first generation machine of that nature are far more expensive than anyone anticipates."

Then I wrote:

"Frankly, I do not think that a conventional analysis such as the cost of thermal kWh in the initial implementation does this justice. We are talking about the most revolutionary technology in history. Making the decision to invest or not based on the initial performance would resemble the decisions made by DEC and Data General not to go into the personal computer business because the first PCs had lower performance per dollar than minicomputers."

That was true, but not for long. In 1980, any computer company that decided not to pursue the PC market was signing its own death warrant. If Rossi is not mistaken, and this thing is real, and if even ONE company, anywhere decides to develop it, then every other major industrial company will either follow suit and invest billions in the technology, or it will go bankrupt in a few decades.

GE, Toyota or Mitsubishi -- it makes no difference how big or powerful they are now. They will either develop this or they will vanish like the Pennsylvania Railroad, General Motors, DEC and all the other great corporations that went out of business in the 20th century.

Cold fusion will be the core technology to as many different products as integrated circuits are today. Can you imagine how long GE would last today if they had no expertise in integrated circuits or computers?

That's what I would tell investors ...

----------

Commentator 11 wrote on 2011.01.18:

a challenge for skeptics -- hidden H2 source would have to supply 36 - 216 kg H2 to make Rossi heat [chemically]:

----------

Commentator 12 wrote:

"The first measurements Levi described were energy measurements to determine the input of energy inside the reactor and the output of energy of the reactor.

"I don't have conclusive data on radiation but absolutely we have measured ~12 kW (at steady state) of energy produced with an input of about just 400 watts. I would say this is the main result.

We have seen also this energy was not of chemical origin, by checking the consumption of hydrogen. There was no measurable hydrogen consumption, at least with our mass measurement."

By measuring with a very sensitive scale, within a precision of a 0.10 (one tenth) of a gram, Levi measured the weight of the hydrogen bottle before and after the experiment

"If the energy was of chemical origin you would have expected to consume about 100 to 600 more than the sensitivity of the scale. You measure the bottle before and after and then you see in your measurements there was almost no hydrogen consumed." "

lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MacyMspecificso.pdf

Macy, M.: Specifics of Andrea Rossi's "Energy Catalyzer" Test: University of Bologna: January 14, 2011.

-------------

Commentator 12 wrote:

On January 14, 2011, Andrea Rossi submitted his "Energy Catalyzer" reactor, which burns hydrogen in a nickel catalyst, for examination by scientists at the University of Bologna and The INFN (Italian National Institute of Nuclear Physics).

The test was organized by Dr. Giuseppe Levi of INFN and the University of Bologna and was assisted by other members of the physics and chemistry faculties.

This result was achieved without the production of any measurable nuclear radiation.

The magnitude of this result suggests that there is a viable energy technology that uses commonly available materials, that does not produce carbon dioxide, and that does not produce radioactive waste and will be economical to build.

The reactor used less than 1 gram of hydrogen, less than 1,000 W of electricity to convert 292 grams of water per minute at ~20C into dry steam at ~101C.

The unit was turned ON and began producing some steam in a few minutes, and once it reached steady state continued producing steam until it was turned OFF.

The amount of power required to heat water 80C and convert it to steam is approximately 12,000 watts. Dr. Levi and his team will be producing a technical report detailing the design and execution of their evaluation.

A representative of the investment group stated that they were looking to produce a 20 kW unit and that within two months they would make a public announcement. He declared that their completed studies revealed a "huge, favorable difference in numbers" between the cost to produce the Rossi Catalyzer and other green technologies.

"We had a similar demonstration six months ago with the same success we've had today. We are almost ready with the industrialized product, which we think is going to be a revolution. It is a totally green energy."

The representative offered that the company was called Defkalion Energy, named for the father of the Greco Roman empire, and was based in Athens.

Giuseppe Levi, PhD in nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and who works at INFN, offers exclusive comments on the test, which he deemed "an open experiment for physicists. The idea was like a conference: to tell everybody what was going on and eventually to start new research programs on that topic."

The first measurements Levi described were energy measurements to determine the input of energy inside the reactor and the output of energy of the reactor. "I don't have conclusive data on radiation but absolutely we have measured ~12 kW (at steady state) of energy produced with an input of about just 400 watts. I would say this is the main result.

We have seen also this energy was not of chemical origin, by checking the consumption of hydrogen. There was no measurable hydrogen consumption ...

By measuring with a very sensitive scale, within a precision of 0.10 (one tenth) of a gram, Levi measured the weight of the hydrogen bottle before and after the experiment

"If the energy was of chemical origin you would have expected to consume about 100 to 600 more than the sensitivity of the scale. You measure the bottle before and after and then you see in your measurements there was almost no hydrogen consumed."

(Commentator 11 wrote:

"100 to 600 more than the sensitivity of the scale", which may be 0.1 gm, gives 10 -- 60 gm/second ranges of H2 used -- 36,000 -- 216,000 gm = 36 -- 216 kg H2 -- that would be a lot to deliver from a hidden source ...)

The workings of the Rossi reactor was, Levi explained, unknown to them because of "industry secrets." He said: "What we've done is to measure the water in the flux and we are heating and making steam for that water.

We are measuring the water flux and carefully checking that all the water was converted into steam, then it is easy to calculate power that was generated. You are measuring the power that was going in the system by quite a sensitive power meter.

Initially the system started up and we had 1 kW of input and then we reduce the input to just 400 W. The output power was constant at about 12 kW."

The flow rate, Levi continued, was measured with a high precision scale. "The flow rate was 146 g in 30 seconds. Using a simple measurement gives a simple result. There was a pump putting in a constant flux and what I have done is with the reactor completely off take measurements we spent two weeks of the water that flowing through the system to be certain of our calibration.

After this calibration period I have checked that the pump was not touched and when we brought it here for the experiment it was giving the same quantity of water during all the experiment.

The water was coming from an Edison well and the pump was putting it in the system. Then we were releasing the steam into the atmosphere; there was not a loop."

To determine if the steam was coming out dry and at atmospheric pressure, Professor Gallatini, a specialist in Thermochemics and a former head of the Chemical Society of Italy, verified that all the water came out as steam. "There was no water in the steam," Levi certified.

"The outer temperature measured was 101 centigrade at atmospheric pressure." The instrument he used was a Delta OHM # HD37AB1347 Indoor Air Quality Monitor. Gallantini inserted the probe inside the exit pipe with the steam.

Levi was asked: How did you compute the thermal energy production by the Energy Catalyzer (ECat)?

He responded, "The calculation is very, very simple. Because you know the number of grams of water per second delivered to the ECat you know you must raise the water to 100C, this is the transient phase of operation. Once the water is at 100C the energy is used to make the water into steam.

It takes 2272 joules per gram to convert water at 100C to steam. Because the ECat provided more energy the steam became hotter, 101C. So our conservative estimate of the steady state thermal output of the ECat, neglecting thermal radiation and other losses, is just 2272 joules per gram multiplied by the 4.9 grams per second = 11, 057 joules per second or Watts.

When you realize that you have to add the energy to raise the temperature of the water you get by about 80C and the steam by another 1C the total thermal power the ECat releasing is about 12,400 Watts.

These are not our refined estimate but they indicate that the input electrical power of 400 W produces using an amount of hydrogen less than a gram in a couple hours of operation we are seeing a system with a power gain = 12,400/400 = 31."

["power gain = 12,400/400 = 31" is a Coefficient of Performance (COP) of 31.]

--------

Commentator 1 wrote:

Here is some correspondence from ... Rossi. I assume this means the steam was vented out of the window. I had a comical image in mind of people trying to conduct an experiment amidst clouds of steam, like something from Monty Python ...

"Dear Sirs,

I confirm that the steam has been discharged outside. Otherwise we'd have made a strong "sauna".

Warmest Regards, Andrea Rossi"

-------------

Commentator 13 wrote:

I made some comments regarding reaction control, via thermal cycling here:

www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg41599.html

I suspect it is not flow but pressure drop, the loss of hydrogen partial pressure, that is the important result from "turning off the hydrogen".

Confirmation of this concept occurs in the form of a gamma "flash" that occurs when the hydrogen is shut off. This flash is what is expected by the deflation fusion model. As the hydrogen concentration quickly drops, due to the small nano-powder grain size, the tunneling rate momentarily jumps, as does the reaction rate. If the grain size were larger, this degassing process would last longer, and the momentary increase in nuclear activity would be called "heat after death".

The reaction is quickly shut down because in a nano-powder the effect of the loss of hydrogen concentration, quickly overwhelms the momentarily increased tunneling rate.

This quick shut down might not happen in the case where melting of the powder occurs, and longer diffusion paths exist. This is of course speculation, as is almost all talk about the Rossi device, given the little we know about it. Even Rossi says he doesn't understand why it works. Everyone is forced into speculating when talking about issues like this.

Replacing the hydrogen flow with another gas flow, e.g. carbon dioxide, has the effect of cutting the hydrogen partial pressure while simultaneously sustaining a cooling flow.

While engineering these kinds of simple parameters, gas pressure and temperature, are readily engineered, the longer term effects of other parameters, such as changing lattice structure, magnetic and electric fields, grain size stability, and transmutation product accumulation, may present as yet unknown control risks ...

--------

Commentator 6 wrote on Wed, 19 Jan 2011:

Of course if you meant to imply that Rossi was intentionally trying to mislead everyone when he said it was 1500 degrees in there, then 'disinformation' was indeed the right word.

Commentator 5 wrote:

You are all making a mountain out of a molehill. Obviously the average temperature was 400 C, while there were hot spots where the temperature exceeded the melting point of Ni, as it became fused in places.

----------

Commentator 1 wrote:

pesn.com/2011/01/17/9501746_Focardi-Rossi_10_kW_cold_fusion_prepping_for_market/

This is a good summary. Lots of details in one place, such as the fact that Rossi says they plan to ship the first units in three months, and they are manufacturing "a 1 megawatt plant composed of 125 modules."

I have been hearing rumors to this effect for months. I discounted them because I had no proof the device even exists. I cannot believe something like that just because trustworthy and informed sources tell me it is true. I need to see experimental proof. Now, I have seen it ...

Of course there are risks and Rossi may yet fail. I think there is no chance this is fraud, but he might trip up over technical issues. It might be more difficult to replicate that he realizes. Maybe he will run out of active material and find out he cannot make more. Or the gadget might blow up, and blow him to kingdom come.

----------

Commentator 14 wrote:

I agree a reaction quashing gas is a good idea but not steam which is very reactive and could permanently damage the catalyst- rather an inert gas like helium to quickly change pressure and ratio of available reactants to activated geometry ...

Commentator 5 wrote:

Note that some "inert" gasses are also Randell Mills catalysts, so might not exactly have the expected effect. A better gas to use might be Nitrogen.

----------

So, Celani and Rossi both clarify that the output steam is vented to the outside air -- I'm glad to see that issue cleared up -- I concur that the evidence strongly shows the huge heat output is real.

This establishes the reality of unknown fundamental physics, easily accessible in small, simple, cheap setups, capable of explosions -- world science has to openly and urgently find the correct theories and determine the possible ramifications -- anything that can hugely change weapons must be assessed fully and publicly, so the world can establish safeguards.

Rossi and his close associates have a clear-cut duty to humanity to immediately and fully release all details to the world, or, at least, to a public network of competent, qualified scientists who can protect his commercial property interests, while overseeing the research, hopefully with his wholehearted participation.

Any delays increase the motivation around the world for a selfish, secretive, and unpredictably dangerous explorations by rouge and failed states, criminal cartels, and terrorists ...

[The kleptocrats should not be underestimated; they are completely ruthless.

On the other hand, the thieves must think we all have tea bags for brains.

See The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7

www.avonhistory.org/mil3/spy10.htm#n5 ]

----------

Commentator 3 wrote:

One detail worth exploring further was the statement from Rossi that only hydrogen works, and that deuterium kills the reaction ...

That is counter-intuitive to say the least. Everyone in hot fusion knows for an absolute fact that deuterium is the more active nucleus, right? And everyone in LENR knows that deuterium and palladium work, whereas H2 is often used as the 'control' to show what doesn't work. Go figure.

Well, pondering this for a moment, the only possible property that comes to mind to explain it was posted a few days ago - the "composite boson" in the context of negative temperature ...

To rephrase, the complex argument goes like this. The heat anomaly, whether it is fusion or not depends on "pycno" or dense hydrogen clusters. Based on Lawandy's paper and others, we see that spillover catalysts operate by splitting molecular hydrogen into atomic hydrogen without ionization. Dense hydrogen forms from atomic hydrogen if there are adjoining dielectric surfaces or cavities.

Atomic hydrogen is a composite boson. If there are internal defects (cavities) for atoms to accumulate, they somehow seem to densify there without ever going molecular.

We know that H is a composite boson which is a singularity in nature - as it is composed of the minimum number of fermions (2) that permit both states to oscillate back and forth. and furthermore having this minimum number of quantum states to "align" (statistically) means that it is exponentially easier to condense than deuterium at so-called negative temperature (which are not "cold") especially since spin can be aligned magnetically...

Thanks to google books, we have access to an old issue of New Scientist from 1981. On p. 205-6 there is clear indication that we have known for nearly 30 years that hydrogen condensation can happen at cryogenic temperatures - i.e. that monatomic hydrogen is a composite boson independent of the molecular state - which has very unusual properties as a condensate.

books.google.com/books?id=IbbMj56ht8sC&pg=PA205&lpg=PA205&dq=composite-boson+monatomic-hydrogen&source=bl&ots=XlZyp6rE-9&sig=AwMnZv-hCQzTfcbnkN2mQZ65VG0&hl=en&ei=JFwaTab7Oon0tgPSpKjJCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

This paper seems to have been largely forgotten, and offers no indication that "negative temperature" could provide an alternative to cryogenic temperature. And certainly no indication that the Casimir cavity can provide a locus for negative temperature.

No one should be blamed at this juncture for being completely skeptical that negative temperature in a cavity can do this, even on a temporary time frame; and the only evidence of it today is the implication from half a dozen papers which indicate that so-called pycno-hydrogen exists (under many different names, even IRH or Inverse Rydberg Hydrogen). Rossi's results are consistent with this modality, and Holmlid and Miley claim to have evidence of tiny bits of hydrogen a million times denser than liquid H2 ...

----------

Commentator 3 wrote:

Wait, there is more. And it is what many of you have been breathlessly awaiting. Yup, it's black box time. Show and tell.

Here is what could be in the Rossi black box, so-called - at least as best I can describe it in such a way to get the required 'negative temperature' for getting the quasi-BEC.

Of course the mystery box is the power supply, and my guess is it contains a precision RF power supply -- to wit: a microwave tube or microtron or maser operating at 1420 MHz, the famous 21 cm line for spin flipping hydrogen. There is also an internal magnetic field in the device so the PS provides DC or pulsed DC for that.

Here is how your go from there to negative temperature. On application of a magnetic field, hydrogen atoms will tend to align so as to minimize the energy of the system. Energy is added using radio frequency (RF) causing a population to flip, providing to a positive temperature - which is also the trigger temperature. At some point more than half of the spins are in the spin-up position. In this case, adding additional energy reduces the entropy, since it moves the system further from max entropy. This reduction in entropy with the addition of energy corresponds to a negative temperature. Some of this is paraphrased from the Wiki entry and you can fill in the blanks.

The leap of faith, as stated in the original post, is the proposition that negative temperature can substitute for cryogenics to give a quasi-BEC ...

------------

Commentator 15 wrote:

I don't think there is any RF [radio frequency] generator.

My understanding of how the process works is this....

First, the nano sized powder is cleaned of impurities by being baked and perhaps exposed to chemicals.

Second, the nano sized powder is bathed in chemicals and baked repeatedly. This makes it able to absorb more hydrogen.

Third, the powder is mixed with one or more catalysts. One of these catalysts may be sodium hydride.

Fourth, the sodium hydride and nickel powder are embedded into some sort of ceramic.

Fifth, this is placed in the cell.

Sixth, the cell is pumped with hydrogen.

Seventh, the resistor in the cell is turned on which produces heat.

Eighth, when the cell reaches a certain temperature the sodium hydride releases atomic hydrogen which fills in the little cracks in the nickel powder. The atomic hydrogen may turn into hydrinos (releasing energy) which then may fuse with the nickel which may produce more energy.

Ninth, the temperature in the cell rises. Then the input is reduced slightly to allow the temperature to go down. This allows the sodium hydride to regenerate and absorb hydrogen.

Tenth, the current through the resistor is increased and the cycle starts all over again.

I do not see any need for an RF generator. I think the system can self sustain if the temperature is hot enough, but the problem is that there could be a runaway explosion if that happens.

Also, I do not see how the reaction runs away when the device is turned off.

Top -- Home

[The Rossi Patent Application]

www.faqs.org/patents/app/20110005506

Patent application title: METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CARRYING OUT NICKEL AND HYDROGEN EXOTHERMAL REACTION

Inventors: Andrea Rossi

Agents: HEDMAN & COSTIGAN, P.C.

Assignees:

Origin: NEW YORK, NY US

IPC8 Class: AF24J100FI

USPC Class:

Publication date: 01/13/2011

Patent application number: 20110005506

Abstract:

A method and apparatus for carrying out highly efficient exothermal reaction between nickel and hydrogen atoms in a tube, preferably, though not necessary, a metal tube filled by a nickel powder and heated to a high temperature, preferably, though not necessary, from 150 to 5000 C are herein disclosed. In the inventive apparatus, hydrogen is injected into the metal tube containing a highly pressurized nickel powder having a pressure, preferably though not necessarily, from 2 to 20 bars.

Claims:

1. A method for carrying out an hexothermal reaction of nickel and hydrogen, characterized in that said method comprises the steps of providing a metal tube, introducing into said metal tube a nanometric particle nickel powder and injecting into said metal tube a hydrogen gas having a temperature much greater than 150 .degree. C. and a pressure much greater than 2 bars.

2. A method according to claim 1, characterized in that said hydrogen temperature varies in a range from 150 to 500 .degree. C.

3. A method according to claim 1, characterized in that said nickel powder is a nickel isotope powder.

4. A method according to claim 1, characterized in that said hydrogen is injected into said tube under a pulsating pressure.

5. A method according to claims 1 and 2, characterized in that said hydrogen temperature is a variable temperature which varies in said range from 150 to 500 .degree. C.

6. A method according to claim 1, characterized in that said metal tube is a copper metal tube.

7. A modular apparatus for providing a hexothermal reaction by carrying out the method according to claim 1, characterized in that said apparatus comprises a metal tube (2) including a nanometric particle nickel powder (3) and a high temperature and pressure hydrogen gas.

8. A method according to claim 1, characterized in that in said method catalyze materials are used.

9. An apparatus method according to claim 7, characterized in that said nickel powder filled metal tube (2) is a copper tube, said copper tube further including at least a heating electrical resistance, said tube being encompassed by a jacket (7) including either water and boron or only boron, said jacket (7) being encompassed by a further lead jacket (8) in turn optionally encompassed by a steel layer (9), said jackets (7, 8) being adapted to prevent radiations emitted from said copper tube (2) from exiting said copper tube (2), thereby also transforming said radiations into thermal energy.

10. An apparatus according to claim 1, characterized in that said apparatus comprises, encompassing said nickel powder, hydrogen and electric resistance (101) containing copper tube (100) a first steel-boron armored construction (102) encompassed by a second lead armored construction (103) for protecting said copper tube (100), a hydrogen bottle connection assembly (106) and a hydrogen bottle (107), said apparatus further comprising, outside of said lead armored construction (103), a cooling water steel outer pipe assembly (105).

Description:

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

[0001] The present invention relates to a method and apparatus for carrying out nickel and hydrogen exothermal reactions, and has been stimulated by the well known requirement of finding energy sources alternative to fossil sources, to prevent atmospheric carbon dioxide contents from being unnecessarily increased.

[0002] For meeting the above need non polluting energy sources should be found which do not involve health risks, are economically competitive with respect to oil sources susceptible to be easily discovered and exploited and naturally abundant.

[0003] Many of the above alternative energy sources have already been explored and operatively tested even on an industrial scale, and comprise biomasses, solar energy used both for heating and photovoltaic electric generation purposes, aeolian energy, fuel materials of vegetable or agricultural nature, geothermal and sea wave energy and so on.

[0004] A possible alternative to natural oil, is the uranium-fission nuclear energy. However, yet unresolved problems affect nuclear energy such as great safety and waste material processing problems, since, as is well known, radioactive waste materials remain dangerously active for thousands or millions of years, with consequent great risks for persons living near radioactive waste disposal-off places.

[0005] To the above the fact should also be added that, at present, a nuclear fusion based on a laser actuated inertial confining method does not allow to make efficient power systems.

[0006] The above drawbacks are also true for deuterium-tritium fusion processes, as shown by the operating times estimated for the ITER project, which should within the year 2025 should allow to construct power systems according to the so-called DEMO project to make, within the year 2035, the first fusion power station.

[0007] In fact, up to now, the so-called "cold" fusion, after an early announcement by Fleischmann and Pons in 1989 (M. Fleischmann, M. Hawkins, S. Pons: Journal Electroanal. Chem., 261,301-1989), notwithstanding several exploiting attempts on a world-wise scale, has not provided useful and reliable systems capable of generating energy for normal, industrial or domestic applications.

[0008] The most intelligent work performed in the fusion field, which work has been accurately studied by the present inventor for practicing his invention, is a study of Prof. Sergio Focardi, (Dipartimento di Fisica dell'Univerita di Bologna), and Prof. Francesco Piantelli, (Dipartimento di Fisica dell'Universita di Siena) as disclosed in the following bibliographic documents:

[0009] S. Focardi, F. Piantelli: Produzione di energia e reazioni nucleari in sistemi Ni--H a 400 C., Atti della Conferenza Nazionale sulla politica energetica in Italia, Universita di Bologna, 18-19 aprile 2005.

[0010] S. Focardi, R. Habel, F. Piantell: Anomalous heat production in Ni-H systems, Nuovo Cimento Vol. 107, pp 163-167, 1994

[0011] S. Focardi, V. Gabbiani, V. Montalbano, F. Piantelli, S. Veronesi: Large excess in heat production in Ni-H systems, Nuovo Cimento Vol. 111 A pp. 1233-1241, 1998

[0012] A. Battaglia, L. Daddi, S. Focardi, V. Gabbiani, V. Montalbano, F. Piantelli, P. G. Sona, S. Veronesi: Neutron emission in Ni--H systems, Nuovo Cimento Vol. 112 A pp 921-931, 1999

[0013] S. Focardi, V. Gabbiani, V. Montalbano. F. Piantelli, S. Veronesi: On the Ni-H systems, Asti Workshop in Hydrogeldeuterium loaded metals, pp 35-47, 1997

[0014] E. G. Campari, S. Focardi, V. Gabbiani, V. Montalbano. F. Piantelli, E. Porcu, E. Tosti, S. Veronesi: Ni--H systems, Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Cold Fusion, pp 69-74, 2000.

[0015] The present inventor, moreover, has also accurately studies the following related patents:

U.S. Pat. No. 6,236,225,

U.S. Pat. No. 5,122,054,

US-H466, U.S. Pat. No. 4,014,168,

U.S. Pat. No. 5,552,155,

U.S. Pat. No. 5,195,157,

U.S. Pat. No. 4,782,303,

U.S. Pat. No. 4,341,730,

US-A-20010024789.

[0016] An analysis of the above mentioned references shows that:

[0017] 1-- all experiments performed based on cold fusion have not permitted to generate power in such an amount to be reliably and constantly exploited in industrial applications;

[0018] 2-- all the uranium based methods and systems have not up to now solved the problem of safely disposing of nuclear waste materials;

[0019] 3-- all the nuclear fusion based methods and systems have not been shown as capable of generating significative amounts of energy while allowing the fusion process to be safely monitored;

[0020] 4-- all the magnetic and inertial confining based methods and systems, such as the plasma fusion method, cannot be properly economically managed; and

[0021] 5-- the catalyzed fusion of negative muons based methods and systems cannot be used because of the muon short life.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

[0022] Accordingly, the aim of the present invention is to provide a method allowing to produce energy in an economic, convenient, reliable and repetitive manner, without generating radiations and radioactive waste materials.

[0023] Within the scope of the above mentioned aim, a main object of the invention is to provide such a method which can be carried out in small size systems, adapted to be easily controlled and allowing to heat individual places at an operating cost less than that of commercially available heating systems.

[0024] According to one aspect of the present invention, the above mentioned aim and objects, as well as yet other objects, which will become more apparent hereinafter, are achieved by a method and apparatus for carrying out a highly efficient exothermal reaction between nickel atoms and hydrogen atoms, in a tube, preferably, though not exclusively made of a metal, filled by a nickel powder and heated to a high temperature preferably, though not necessarily, from 150 to 500 C., by injecting hydrogen into said metal tube said nickel powder being pressurized, preferably, though not necessarily, to a pressure from 2 to 20 bars.

[0025] In applicant exothermal reaction the hydrogen nuclei, due to a high absorbing capability of nickel therefor, are compressed about the metal atom nuclei, while said high temperature generates internuclear percussions which are made stronger by the catalytic action of optional elements, thereby triggering a capture of a proton by the nickel powder, with a consequent transformation of nickel to copper and a beta+ decay of the latter to a nickel nucleus having a mass which is by an unit larger than that of the starting nickel.

[0026] The present inventor believes that in this reaction is possibly involved a capture of a proton by a nickel nucleus which is transformed into a copper nucleus with a consequent beta decay of the formed unstable copper (Cu 59-64) since the produced thermal energy is larger, as it will be thereinafter demonstrated, than the energy introduced by the electric resistance.

[0027] It is believed that the nickel nuclei are transformed to copper since the mass (energy) of the final status (copper isotope) is less than the overall mass (energy) of the starting status (nickel isotope+proton).

[0028] The exothermal reaction thereon Applicant's invention is based differs from those adopted by prior searchers since the inventor has not tried to demonstrate an emission of elementary particles supporting a validity of a theory, but he has exclusively tried to provide an amount of energy larger than the consumed energy amount, to just achieve a practical method and apparatus for generating an energy amount larger than the consumed energy, and this by exploiting nuclear energy generating processes starting from electrochemical energy.

[0029] Thus, the inventive apparatus has been specifically designed for producing the above mentioned energy in a reliable, easily controllable, safe, repeatable manner, for any desired applications.

[0030] In particular, the inventive apparatus is coated by boron layers and lead plates both for restraining noxious radiations and transforming them into energy, without generating residue radiations and radioactive materials.

[0031] In this connection it is pointed out that all prior attempts to generate like types of energy, have brought to small energy amounts generating prototypes not suitable for a safe industrial use, because of the theoretical nature of the performed searches.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

[0032] Thus, the aim of the present invention is to provide an energy generating apparatus adapted to operate in a reliable and repeatable manner and including a plurality of series and parallel connectible apparatus modules, thereby generating an impressively high energy amount by so bombarding a nickel atom by a hydrogen atom, to provide a large atomic mass loss copper atom to be transformed into energy, based on the Einstein's equation, plus a beta decay energy of the radioactive copper atoms.

[0033] The following discussion may be considered as valid for some (radioactive) Cu isotopes, but not for the two stable copper isotopes ( 63Cu and 65Cu) which do not decay.

[0034] As the copper atom decays, an energy emitting positive beta decay occurs, according to the following equations:

P = N + e+ + v,

where

P = proton

N = neutron

e+ = positron

v = neutrino

[0035] The positron forms the electron antiparticle, and hence, as positrons impact against the nickel electrons, the electron-positron pairs are annihilated, thereby generating a huge amount of energy.

[0036] In fact, few grams of Ni and H would produce an energy amount equivalent to that of thousands oil tons, as it will become more apparent hereinafter, without pollutions, greenhouse effects, or carbon dioxide increases, nuclear and other waste materials, since the radioactive copper isotopes produced in the process will decay to stable nickel isotopes by beta+ processes, in a very short time.

[0037] For clearly understanding the following detailed discussion of the apparatus, it is necessary to at first consider that for allowing nickel to be transformed into stable copper, it is necessary to respect the quantic laws.

Accordingly, it is indispensable to use, for the above mentioned exothermal reactions, a nickel isotope having a mass number of 62, to allow it to transform into a stable copper isotope 62.

All the other Ni isotopes, on the other hand, will generate unstable Cu, and, accordingly, a beta decay.

[0038] Considering that about 10E6 tons nickel for year are produced through the world and since, as it will be disclosed hereinafter in Table 1, 1 g nickel would generate an energy amount equivalent to that produced by 517 tons oil, thus the yearly produced nickel amount, assuming that only 1/10,000 generates nuclear processes, will provide 1,000,000,000,000 * 517/10000 = 51,700,000,000 (oil equivalent) ton per year.

[0039] And this without considering the fact that the yearly nickel production could be easily increased, depending on demand, and that, like mineral oil, nickel can be recovered and remelted from nickel scraps of steelwork and electronic applications.

[0040] Actually, nickel is one of the most abundant metals of the Earth crust.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0041] Further characteristics and advantages of the present invention will become more apparent hereinafter from the following detailed disclosure of a preferred, though not exclusive, embodiment of the invention, which is illustrated, by way of an indicative, but not limitative, example, in the accompanying drawings, where:

[0042] FIG. 1 is a constructional diagram of the apparatus according to the present invention;

[0043] FIG. 2 is a picture, taken by a 1.400 electronic microscope, showing the nickel powder (on a 1.400 scale), withdrawn by [from] the apparatus;

[0044] FIGS. 3 and 4 are electronic microscope diagrams related to the powder atomic composition, at the two points shown by the arrows in FIG. 2.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT

[0045] With reference to the number references of the above mentioned figures, the apparatus according to the present invention comprises an electric resistance 1, enclosed in a metal tube 2, further including therein a nickel powder 3.

[0046] A solenoid valve 4 adjusts the pressure under which hydrogen 5 is introduced into the metal tube.

[0047] Both the temperature generated by the electric resistance or resistor and the hydrogen injection pressure can be easily adjusted either to constant or pulsating values.

[0048] More specifically, the electric resistance, or other heat source, is switched off as the exothermal reaction generating energizing status is triggered.

A thermostat will hold said heat source operating, depending on the temperature in the circuit.

[0049] The assembly comprising said electric resistance and nickel holding copper tube is shielded from the outer environment by using, respectively from the inside to the outside:

[0050] a) a jacket 7 including water and boron, or only boron

[0051] b) a further lead jacket 8, which, optionally, though not necessarily, may be coated by a steel layer 9.

[0052] The above mentioned coatings are so designed as to restrain all radiations emitted by the exothermal reaction and transform said radiation into thermal energy.

[0053] The heat generated by the particle decay and nuclear transformations will heat the primary fluid, comprising borated water, thereby said primary fluid, in turn, will exchange heat with the secondary circuit, in turn heated by said primary fluid and conveying the produced thermal energy to desired applications, such as electric power, heating, mechanical energy, and so on.

[0054] In the absence of a primary fluid, the fluid to be heated will exchange heat directly with the lead and steel jacket.

[0055] According to a further embodiment of the invention, the apparatus further comprises the following features.

[0056] Nickel is coated in a copper tube 100, including a heating electric resistance 101, adjusted and controlled by a controlling thermostat (not shown) adapted to switch off said resistance 101 as nickel is activated by hydrogen contained in a bottle 107.

[0057] A first steel-boron armored construction 102, coated by a second lead armored construction 103, protect both the copper tube, the hydrogen bottle connection assembly 106, and the hydrogen bottle or cylinder 107, thereby restraining radiations through the overall radiation life, allowing said radiations to be transformed into thermal energy.

[0058] On the outside of the lead armored construction, the copper reactor cooling water, circulates through a steel outer pipe assembly 105, and this conveyed to thermal energy using devices.

[0059] The above disclosed prototype can also be used as a heating module which, in a series and/or parallel coupling relationship with other like modules, will provide a basic core desired size and power heating systems.

[0060] A practical embodiment of the inventive apparatus, installed on Oct. 16, 2007, is at present perfectly operating 24 hours per day, and provides an amount of heat sufficient to heat the factory of the Company EON of via Carlo Ragazzi 18, at Bondeno (Province of Ferrara).

[0061] For better understanding the invention, the main components of the above mentioned apparatus have been schematically shown in Table 2.

[0062] The above mentioned apparatus, which has not been yet publicly disclosed, has demonstrated that, for a proper operation, the hydrogen injection must be carried out under a variable pressure.

[0063] The electric resistance temperature controlling thermostat has been designed to switch off said electric resistance after 3-4 hours of operation, thereby providing self-supplied system, continuously emitting thermal energy in an amount larger than that initially generated by said electric resistance, which mode of operation is actually achieved by an exothermal reaction.

[0064] As it will be shown in a detailed manner in the following Table 1, it is possible to calculate that, supposing a full transformation, a mole, that is 58 g nickel, generate the same amount of energy obtained by burning about 30,000 tons of oil.

[0065] FIGS. 2-5 show data measured on Jan. 30, 2008 which basically demonstrate that the invention actually provides a true nuclear cold fusion.

[0066] The photo of FIG. 2, (obtained by a 1.400 electronic microscope) shows the nickel powder on a 1.400 scale, as withdrawn from the apparatus: in particular said photo clearly shows the flake granules, greatly promoting an absorption of the hydrogen atoms by the nickel nuclei.

[0067] The two arrows in the figure show the two positions of the powder sample thereon the electronic microscope tests for detecting the powder atomic composition have been carried out.

[0068] The two graphs of FIGS. 3 and 4 have been made by the electronic microscope of Dipartimento di Fisica dell'Universita di Bologna, under the supervision of Prof. Sergio Focardi, on Jan. 30, 2008, and are related to the powder atomic composition at the two above points of FIG. 2.

[0069] In particular, said graphs clearly show that zinc is formed, whereas zinc was not present in the nickel powder originally loaded into the apparatus said zinc being actually generated by a fusion of a nickel atom and two hydrogen atoms.

[0070] This demonstrates that, in addition to fusion, the inventive reaction also provides a nickel nucleus fission phenomenon generating lighter stable atoms.

[0071] Moreover, it has been found that, after having generated energy the used powders contained both copper and lighter than nickel atoms (such as sulphur, chlorine, potassium, calcium).

[0072] This demonstrate that, in addition to fusion, also a nickel nucleus fission phenomenon generating lighter stable atoms occurs.

[0073] It has been found that the invention fully achieves the intended aim and objects.

TABLE 1

[0074] Determining the energy produced by a nickel mol.

[0075] 1 nickel mol=58 g

[0076] Avogadro number 6.02210E23 mol-1=number of nickel atoms in 58 g nickel.

[0077] The energy generated in each hydrogen capture process has been evaluated (for each nickel isotope) from the difference between the initial mass (nickel+hydrogen) and the reaction end product mass.

[0078] A reasonable estimate, considering the different values for the different isotopes, is 10 MeV electron (a MeV corresponds to a million electron-volts and is the energy measuring unit, as conventionally used in nuclear physics).

[0079] Since 1 Mev is equivalent to a variation of mass of 1.7810E-30 kg, the mass variation corresponding to an energy emission of 10 Mev is 1.7810E-29 kg.

[0080] The mass loss corresponding to a transformation of an entire Ni mol can be calculated by multiplying the Avogadro number (6.02210E23) time the mass variation of the single reaction.

[0081] Thus is obtained (for 58 g Ni)

[0082] M=(6.02210E23)1.7.810E-29 kg=1.0710E-5 kg

[0083] From the Einstein equation we have

[0084] E=mcE2 where c is the light speed c=310E8 m/s.

[0085] Thus, by replacing:

[0086] J=1.0710E-5(310E8)2=9.6310E.- sup.11 J which can be approximated to 0.310E9 kcal (which can be approximated by defect to reserve).

[0087] This is an energy equivalent to about 30,000 ton oil considering a pci of 10,000 kcal/kg for mineral oil; thus, 58 g nickel will generate the same energy as that provided by 30,000 ton oil, that is 517 tons/gram.

TABLE 2

[0088] List of materials used for making prototypes for experimentally testing the inventive apparatus

[0089] Electric resistance: Frei, Brescia

[0090] Thermoadjuster: Pic 16--cod. 1705--Frei

[0091] Lead shields: Picchi Srl--Brugherio (Milan)

[0092] Hydrogen: Linde Gas Italia, Arluno (Milan)

[0093] Pressure reducer: Linde Gas Italia

[0094] Powder nickel: Gerli Metalli--Milan

[0095] Boron: Danilo Dell'Amore Srl--Bologna

[0096] Copper tube: Italchimici--Antezzate (Brescia)

[0097] Laser beam temperature measuring device: Raytheon, USA

[0098] Pressure gauge: Elaborazione--Dipartimento di Fisica--Universita degli Studi di Bologna

[0099] Neutron measuring device: Elaborazione--Dipartimento di Fisica--Universita degli Studi di Bologna

[0100] Chemical-physical analyses:--Dipartimento di Fisica--Universita degli Studi Bologna.

--------

Andrea Rossi wrote on July 14th, 2010:

Dear Prof. Celani:

1- with a charge of 1 g of Ni we consume 94 kWh of energy, considering the consume of Hydrogen and of power, and produce 750 kWh. Margin of variance: 10% moreless. This gain is the limit above which dangerous situations begin.

2- We think that all the Ni participates to the reactions, even if some isotopes should be more efficient. Anyway, we use regular Ni, because the isotopes separation is too expensive, at least right now, and the answer 1 relates to regular Ni with the natural isotopical composition

3- I do not think we have H+H reactions: much higher energies would be necessary to produce He. We use low energies, high energies make the nucleons too energetic to build something useful. This, at least, is my opinion, which, as everything in theoretic physics, can be wrong.

Thank you for your questions,

Warmest Regards, Andrea Rossi

-----------

Andrea Rossi wrote on July 13th, 2010:

Dear Prof. Celani,

I am really pleased from the fact that you looked at our work. I know who you are and I thank you really for your attention.

Our standard module consumes 500 watts and yields constantly and with absolute reliability, with no risks that radiations exit the reactor and with no risks of explosion, 4 kW.

We obtained much higher efficiencies, as you can read on the Focardi-Rossi paper published on the Journal Of Nuclear Physics, but now I had to find a compromise to manufacture power plants with absolute reliability under the point of view of safety.

The excess of energy follows a K = 8 [Coefficient of Performance, COP] at the moment. We reached a K = 400, but we got explosions.

I can get risks when I am alone, but to sell a reliable product I have to go down to 8, right now. We are manufacturing a 1 MW plant made with 125 modules. With 1 g of Ni I got 750 kW.

-----------

at 10 AM Italian time Saturday Jan 15 [2011] in Bologna, Sergio Focardi and Andrea Rossi will give online demo (after press event in Italy Jan 14) 10 kw output power from tiny input power via cold fusion of H and Ni to form Cu with heat and low energy gamma:

-----------

Commentator 3 wrote:

At the risk of appearing to 'beat a dead horse' let me make a couple of other comments relevant to the 'big picture' of nano-nickel technology.

Randell Mills and BLP may try to distance themselves from Rossi due to one critical detail: *radioactivity*. Randell Mills' entire patent protection is vulnerable if it is discovered that the Ni-H system goes radioactive in a short time ...

-----------

Commentator 16 wrote:

In Rossi's most recent post he says,

" ... the inventor, in this case me, has to disclose to the Public all the clues of the technology. Of course, such clues remain confidential until the Patent is granted."

This may indicate that he's only holding back until they have resolved all other issues with the patent examiner, and then he would amend the patent one final time to include the catalyst(s)

He and his investors must consider the possibility that if he doesn't patent the catalyst, then his patents are pretty useless; and if someone else figures out what the catalyst is, then they lose their legal ability to amend their patent and add the catalyst. The stakes are very high ...

------------

Commentator 3 wrote on Sun, 16 Jan 2011:

The device only works with a secret catalyst, together with the nickel. Rossi says this himself.

``My colleague asked Focardi directly "do you know what the catalyst is?" He said without hesitation that he did not know, and that no one except Rossi knows.''

Commentator 5 wrote:

I suspect it's one of Randell Mills' recent molecular catalysts.

-----------

Commentator 3 wrote:

A good spillover catalyst ... merely makes the [hydrogen] molecule monatomic ...

If you look carefully in [Randell Mills'] patents, you will find the term "spillover" being used. However, much of what Randell Mills mistakes for hydrinos is instead "pycno" or dense hydrogen at ground state, but in a quasi-BEC form and it is only stable in a cavity.

Based on what is admittedly "too little evidence" my feeling is that first you want "densify" or convert molecules to "pycno" or the "inverse Rydberg state" which is even denser. For some strange reason the molecule does not permit this, but the monatomic atom does permit it and at the normal ground state. Go figure.

Yes, it is all Randell Millsean sounding, but without the reduced ground state. The smoking gun of the failure of CQM theory is sodium.

Sodium has been long known to be a good spillover catalyst, but not a hydrino catalyst - until one day, lo and behold, Randell Mills finds it works like a hydrino catalyst ...

[Does] it always go nuclear eventually? ...

---------

Commentator 3 wrote on Mon, 17 Jan 2011:

First off, [Rossi] will sell not a single unit in the USA without an NRC license, which is complicated, costly and takes years.

---------

Commentator 5 wrote:

Note that were it not for the Cu then the whole shebang would be quite consistent with pure Hydrino creation, and no (or few) nuclear reactions. That would certainly explain the apparent lack of ionizing radiation, and also the thermal output. It might however mean that they would need to pay a royalty to Randell Mills.

I'm also missing the Ni-59 which should be the primary product of the fusion reaction they propose. In the Focardi-Rossi paper, they suggest a whole chain of fusion reactions which eventually converts the Ni isotopes into Cu-63, however they fail to mention that the Cu-59 initially created (which soon decays to Ni-59) would be in such small amounts that it would be lost amongst the ever present Ni, and have almost no chance of reacting until the device were quite old and a fair percentage of the original Ni had reacted.

There should be trace amounts of Ni-59, in the "after" material that they had tested, and they should have made a big deal of this because Ni-59 doesn't occur in nature; so it would have been indisputable proof of a nuclear reaction. However it could also be confused with Co-59 (stable) which might have been present as a contaminant. What's really needed is a clear "before" and "after" assessment, to allow comparison.

---------

Commentator 3 wrote:

Again, my overriding comment is that Randell Mills [may have] effectively shot himself in the foot ... with the continuing assertion that Ni-H is not a nuclear reaction. It may cost him billions ...

Yes, Ni-H may be a "delayed" nuclear reaction, and it may be new physics (in the lower gamma emission level), and it may require Casimir cavities as a first step... and it may involve EUV emission but in the end it is nuclear, as the Ni => Cu transmutation shows.

There is almost no possible way that two groups can react nano-nickel and hydrogen - yet in one experiment nuclear reactions always occur, but in the other they never occur.

------------

Commentator 15 wrote:

* I do not see any need for an RF generator. I think the system can self sustain if the temperature is hot enough, but the problem is that there could be a runaway explosion if that happens.

Commentator 3 wrote on Thu, 20 Jan 2011:

Again, the need for RF is NOT as a heater, but as a means of spin flipping hydrogen to attain negative temperature in this (highly speculative) hypothesis.

Rossi cannot mention RF as an input in the patent, since RF has been previously patented as a way to heat a hydrogen nuclear reactor.

And since Rossi is probably unaware of the quasi-BEC modality (assuming that it could be accurate to some extent) then he probably thinks the advantage of RF over other input is the great unknown mystery, and which he admits to not comprehending.

If it turns out to indeed be RF input, then we can say that he found out that it is advantageous through trial and error, yet apparently thinks that it works for the same reason that it is used in prior-art, in tokomaks, etc. So he could be right for the wrong reason.

Although my underlying hypothesis of operation - with the quasi-BEC - is admittedly "way out there" on the fringe of the fringe, it is pretty clear that Rossi has done what Randell Mills could not do.

Has Rossi invented nothing more than a better version of the Mills' reactor? That is most unlikely, since Mills has not gotten his to run in a continuous mode for long enough to begin placement in the grid plants of his licensees, and he is far better funded.

Rossi claims a year of operation already. OK maybe that is an exaggeration, but it is clear to me that he has made a major breakthrough advance over Mills, even though he may have borrowed the basic starting ingredients ...

It may not be RF as the input, but it is probably going to be new physics; and the hypothesis of dense hydrogen (pycno) leading to a quasi-BEC has not been shot down yet. Of course, that could happen later today.

-----------

Commentator 8 wrote:

Dear Commentator 3,

Randy Mills would not agree with your assertion. He is waiting for the scientific analysis (that of Bologna professors) to make an opinion of the demonstration and the generator.

If hydrinos have played a role, they can be found with the method described in this paper: RL Mills et many: "Commercializable Power Source from Forming New States of Hydrogen" Int J. Hydrogen Energy vol 34 (2009) 573-614

------------

Commentator 11 wrote:

Rossi on his blog explains that the heat output during the demo came from the nuclear reaction of several picograms of Ni -- about 3 X 10E-12 gm ... a millionth of a microgram, while the mass of the nuclear reacting H would be 1 atom of H for each atom of Ni reacting, with the most common isotope being Ni62, so the H mass used would be several times (1/62) = about 3 X .016 picogram = about 5 X 10E-14 gm.

So computers, cars, trucks, railroads, boats, subs, planes, high altitude airships, and spaceships can operate with very tiny food tanks -- but the reaction may alter or disrupt the nanoparticles of Ni, and make cumulative reaction poisons -- his plan is to replace the Ni every 6 months in the 1 MW commercial plant this year with 125 units similar to the 10 KW demo, which had about 1 gm Ni nanopowder.

A square of 125 units will be about 11 X 11 units, perhaps 5.5 X 5.5 m for .5 m size units. A few feet of dirt would easily provide enough radiation shielding. In aircraft, the reactor can be placed at the back end, far away from passengers, while in seacraft, the reactor can be in a pod in the water behind the craft.

Desalination of seawater and deep ground water for fresh water and minerals on a huge scale allows quality food production in vast greenhouses with added electric lights, providing employment for millions of new villages everywhere.

There is plenty for all world citizens to have a right to live in nonurban, self sustaining, free and unique communities that can express the best of their traditional cultures with minimal social disruption, while cities can be as modern as they please ...

--------

Andrea Rossi wrote on 1-20-11:

Thank you for your important questions, here are the answers:

1- the Ni powder I utilized were pure Ni, no copper . At the end of the operations in the reactor the percentage of copper was integrally bound to the amount of energy produced. A charge which has worked for 6 monthes, 24 hours per day, at the end had a percentage of Cu superior to 30%

2- About the Ni isotopes: the isotopes after the operations were substantially changed in percentage. We are preparing a campaign of analysys with a Secondary Ions Mass Spectrometer at the University of Padua (Italy), at the end of which the data will be published on the Journal Of Nuclear Physics.

Warm Regards, Andrea

----------

Commentator 15 wrote on Thu, Jan 20, 2011:

Then why does BLP not produce a product?

Commentator 4 wrote:

I think Commentator 3 has pointed out why. They may generate radioactive ash.

---------

Commentator 11 wrote on Thu, 20 Jan 2011:

Rossi on his blog explains that the heat output during the demo came from the nuclear reaction of several picograms of Ni -- about 3 X 10E-12 gm ... a millionth of a microgram, while the mass of the nuclear reacting H would be 1 atom of H for each atom of Ni reacting, with the most common isotope being Ni62, so the H mass used would be several times (1/62) = about 3 X .016 picogram = about 5 X 10E-14 gm.

Commentator 5 wrote:

This is simply wrong. If the device produced 6kWh of energy during the test, then that would require the transmutation more like milli-grams than picograms of Ni.

Rossi's sums are wrong in the patent too.

However the actual mass would only change by the energy output divided by c squared [speed of light squared].

------------

Commentator 1 wrote:

Deuterium kills the reaction? Amazing if true.

You have to hand it to Rossi: he finds things out. He discovers things others do not. Like Mizuno.

-----------

Commentator 10 wrote on 01/20/2011:

Nevertheless, and for the sake of argument, assuming this is a scam, it seems to me that there is a crucial item that hasn't been explored to any great length. What would Rossi and Focardi's exit strategy be?

"Rossi", /not/ "Rossi and Focardi". I haven't read anything indicating Focardi knows what the "secret ingredient" is -- as far as I know, /only/ Rossi knows ...

As to his exit strategy, I don't know, but it really doesn't matter. Exit strategies are often apparently not planned in advance, and the lack of an obvious, viable exit strategy is not a sufficient argument for concluding it can't be a scam ...

All that said, an exit strategy is trivial in this case: All he needs to do is "lose the process", and voila, Rossi's off the hook, and nobody can prove there was ever anything sleazy going on. Processes in this area are so flaky, and so ill-understood, that it's really not a problem.

Did anyone try to arrest Patterson when he lost his process? No, of course not -- as far as anyone could see, it was a legitimate case of "Jekel/Hyde syndrome" -- there must have been one more "secret ingredient" in the first batch of beads, unknown to everyone including the experimenter.

--------

Commentator 5 wrote:

Surely that [RF] would only preclude him from getting a patent if it were the only claim? Many patents include aspects of other patents.

Commentator 3 wrote:

Well, maybe not - but I am backing off the RF possibility anyway without more evidence for it.

It was offered as a an effective way to stimulate the reaction via resonant spin flipping at 1.42 GHz. There could be distinct advantage to any kind of RF over resistence heating, if dense hydrogen is there; but it looks like there are technical problems in powering RF from the Blue box. The case of the missing coax.

The only possible way would be to set up the reactor itself as a triode, where the fuel cylinder was the anode, and there is a concentric cathode, external to the anode with a grid in between. In this way a P-in of mid voltage DC current to the cathode and the grid could be modulated by onboard circuitry which tolerates heat. That is: the grid could be modulated by say an onboard array of Gunn or tuned cavity diodes. IOW there probably are tunable diodes available which could tolerate the heat.

But the signal would likely be easily detectable in the room, even with a Faraday cage. I wonder if anyone checked for RF in there?

Top -- Home

[Conspiracy Theory]

Commentator 3 wrote:

If he claims the entire [ash] sample has been lost, he will lose all credibility in my book. ALL. No one loses such a sample. He is essentially dead in the water, in the eyes of 99% of Physics, if this sample is unaccounted for now.

Commentator 1 wrote on 1-21-11:

I believe the samples have been sent out for analysis. I heard that somewhere, not sure where. I do not think he would claim the sample is lost. Based on my communications with him so far, I think he is likely to say he is sorry but the analysis is confidential because of trade secrets.

... I can understand why Rossi is keeping secrets. The Patent Office is partly to blame, because they have embargoed cold fusion.

---------

Commentator 6 wrote:

Regardless of the exact amount transmuted, there is an explanation of all this given on Rossi's website. (/When all else fails, read the documentation!/)

www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=62

He says that Ni^x + p -> Cu^(x+1) does, indeed, typically produce an unstable result, but it decays back to Ni^(x+1), after which it can pick up another proton, and repeat the process until it ends up as Cu^63, which is stable.

He also asserts that the relative proton capture rates of all isotopes of Ni must be identical, as they're determined by electrostatic issues: "The capture rate of protons by Nickel nuclei cannot depend on the mass values of different isotopes"

Finally, he says that they've been testing the ash and it's /not radioactive/: "No radioactivity has been found also in the Nickel residual from the process." I don't understand that.

If a tiny fraction of the nickel is transmuted each second, and if nearly all the transmutation events produce unstable copper which eventually decays back to (higher weight) nickel, and if it takes multiple steps to get to stable copper, then by the time we've got a lot of stable copper running around, nearly all the nickel must have been transmuted at least once, and the whole lot should be radioactive.

In particular, there should probably be a really large fraction of Ni^59 present (31 neutrons), with a 75 ky half-life, and I'd think that would make the sample pretty "hot". Or so it seems; I haven't done the calculations to back up the intuition.

In any case the text on that page is interesting and certainly worth reading.

--------

Commentator 5 wrote:

Ni-59 decays almost completely by electron capture directly to the ground state (hence no gammas), and all the energy is taken by the neutrino; so this decay is not detectable (however about 1/25000 decays are via positron). See

atom.kaeri.re.kr/cgi-bin/decay?Ni-59%20EC

--------

Commentator 6 wrote on 1-21-11:

If [Rossi] gets the 1 MW plant online that'll /certainly/ silence the critics.

If he still is the only one who knows the "secret ingredient" at that point, then I would definitely start fearing for Rossi's personal safety. There are some very big players out there who would probably not be too happy about being kept in the dark over how to make this miracle device go -- and the opinions of Robert Parks and his ilk do not matter a whit to the ones who have the "reach and grasp" necessary to reach out and grasp Rossi.

Whoever gets him first gets the secret, and everybody else has to be content with reverse engineering any reactors which are left behind.

Publish, man, it's the only way to stay safe when you invent world-shaking technology!

------------

Commentator 6 wrote:

* If he still is the only one who knows the "secret ingredient" at that point, then I would definitely start fearing for Rossi's personal safety.

Commentator 3 wrote:

The rabbit hole may go deeper than that.

There is another even more ominous scenario out there in cyber-space that has been fueled by recent comments from a well-known journalist - concerning the roles of one particular individual on the "Board of Advisors" and his wife.

I will not dignify the cynical rumors with actual names or citations, but suffice it to say that it goes something like the Movie "Chain Reaction" . where the culprit organization is the US Navy, which has had a successful black project underway for 20 years, and has already been powering ships and lasers with Ni-H. As true patriots they must protect this knowledge.

The plot is so insidious that the Navy has set up their own 'false front' in the SPAWAR group - to make it appear that they have nothing much more going on than what some would call nickel-and-dime advances in theory and measurements. It is the perfect cover in a way. Not just plausible deniability, but an inside track on everything happening in the field. Following from in front, following from behind.

They [may] have also set-up Rossi more or less as a patsy, so as to totally discredit the entire field when the surprise ending is unveiled. Probably at the aforementioned ICCF16 ...

----------

Commentator 6 wrote:

Aside from the obvious question of why this particular bunch of nickel powder should show a shorter half-life than all the other bunches of nickel powder that have been tested in other laboratories, the problem with what you said is that this is just a simple "urn problem, with replacement" from probability theory. Even if the half-lives were scaled up or down by an order of magnitude it wouldn't make much difference to the conclusion.

By the time 30% of the nickel atoms have been "chosen" by hydrogen atoms /five times/ (which is what it takes to get from Ni^58 up to Cu^63), nearly all the rest will have been "chosen" /at least once/. And a lot of those are likely to have been chosen /exactly/ once, and the ones which have been selected just once are the ones with the 75 kY half life.

Working out the details to get an exact answer would be messy, in part because a bunch of the nickel is actually Ni^60, but the point is that if any significant fraction of the resulting material were Ni^59 there should be measurable radioactivity. And there's not.

---------

Anrea Rossi wrote:

Yes there will be a Scientist talking about us [at ICCF16], no demo anyway: no more demos before the start up of the 1 MW plant.

Commentator 10 wrote:

... and so most of use who reside in the honorable peanut gallery section will wait with bated breath for January 24 [2011] to roll around, "ANYTIME" soon. I certainly hope University of Bologna's highly anticipated report will put to rest many concerns. I'm a patient man. I can wait a little longer.

I suspect the statement, "no more demos before the start up ..." is likely to frustrate many - perhaps rightly so. It strikes me primarily as being a strategic corporate maneuver.

Expressing an opinion similar to the lines of Commentator 1's commentary, I too suspect corporate maneuvering of this nature will eventually turn out to be a futile attempt to establish complete and total dominance of the CF field from the ground floor. More glory to the Roman Empire,

Assuming they eventually do let the cat out of the bag, I suspect good old fashion corporate espionage and reverse engineering are likely to end up spreading-the-wealth in no time flat.

Seems to me that it will be inevitable that espionage and reverse engineering will feverishly occur, ESPECIALLY in many developing countries where the desperate need for such devices will make a huge impact on living conditions of the local population.

Shoot! Actually, it doesn't have to be illegal at all. All a smart-ass engineer has to do is tweak a copy of the original reactor just enough to make it different and a new patent can be filed.

Patent permutations are likely to start happening at blinding speeds. As Commentator 1 has already eloquently expressed, even if it might seem insulting at first glance, the truth of the matter is that collecting 1% of a trillion dollar business is nothing to sneeze at!

Granted, and in respectful deference to [Commentator 6's] continued concerns about recent proceedings, they do not strike me personally as the actions of a scam operation in progress. It strikes me more as corporate maneuvering to position themselves at the top of the pecking order.

---------

Commentator 8 wrote on Fri, 21 Jan 2011:

That device working for 6 months has produced approx. 50,000 kWhours heat. Can this be explained by the reaction of transmutation of Ni to Cu? Considering first 300 grams of nichel...? Rossi can tell how much Ni is uesd - if he will. Am important rough energy balance anyway.

Commentator 5 wrote:

If all Ni isotopes react equally, and 2/3 of Ni is Ni-58, and we assume single proton fusion, then the primary reaction would be:

Ni-58 + H -> Cu-59 + 3.42 MeV

which then decays rapidly via positron decay according to

Cu-59 -> Ni-59 + e+ + neutrino + 4.8 MeV

(however a considerable portion of this will be lost via neutrinos; say 1/2?).

so the total reaction energy is 3.42 + 2.4 = 5.82 MeV / Ni-58.

2/3 *50000 kWh / 6 MeV = 1.2E23 Ni-58 reactions, which is 12 gm Ni-58, or about 18 gm Ni altogether (assuming the other isotopes all yield about the same amount of energy / atom). So quite within the realm of possibility.

OTOH, if he had 300 gm of Ni, and 1/3 was converted to Cu, then that represents considerably more energy, and one has to wonder where it all went?

-----------

Commentator 3 wrote on Fri, 21 Jan 2011:

The *isotope shift* from the natural ratio after 6 months is extremely important. This can only be determined by specialized equipment.

It is so important to establishing proof of a nuclear reaction, or to changing the (presumed negative) opinion of experts like Director Chu, that nothing else comes remotely close.

Commentator 5 wrote:

There may be a slight spanner in the works here. If cluster fusion is involved, and it's a relatively slow (in nuclear terms) reaction, then the reaction itself may take place in such a way as to preferentially produce stable isotopes.

In other words, it may take as many protons and electrons from the cluster as may be required to produce a stable isotope, or perhaps, it fuses the entire cluster, then rearranges internally into a stable isotope, and spits out whatever is left over, carrying the energy of the reaction.

Note however that in this case I would not expect to see positron decay with consequent electron annihilation gammas.

----------

Commentator 6 wrote:

If he still is the only one who knows the "secret ingredient" at that point, then I would definitely start fearing for Rossi's personal safety. There are some very big players out there who would probably not be too happy about being kept in the dark over how to make this miracle device go ...

Commentator 1 wrote:

Naaaa. Not a problem. The big players have heard nothing, and if they did hear something they would not leave a word of it. They would call up their big gun physicist friend such as Richard Garwin. Garwin will tell them, "Don't think twice about it. It is a scam." He'll go on saying that until Rossi has $100 million in the bank, and hundreds of installations and employees.

Big players usually realize what is happening only when it is too late for them to do anything about it. Back in the 1980s, IBM took little notice of Microsoft, and it did not take the competition seriously, until Microsoft was on the verge of putting IBM out of business.

------------

Commentator 4 wrote:

Rossi should escrow the ingredients with a stipulation that it is released to his trustee upon his death.

-----------

Commentator 6 wrote:

I actually was thinking of the military and the NSA, rather than sclerotic companies like IBM, or stick in the mud organizations like the ... DOE.

You know, the guys who think phrases like "stockpile stewardship" are household words, and who singlehandedly keep RSA in business by purchasing tractor trailer loads of electronic keys from them. Those folks, they get input from places like SRI, Los Alamos, NRL, and so forth -- not just Richard Garwin ...

And this is taking place right next door to France. I don't know much about the French intelligence service, but I know they've tended to play hardball in the past when they thought France had something to gain by it. They are, as you may recall, the reason for the /II/ in Greenpeace's "Rainbow Warrior II". They also tried to warn the CIA about a possible attack using hijacked jets back before 9/11, but there was nobody available to take the call...

[See The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7

www.avonhistory.org/mil3/spy10.htm#n5 ]

----------

Commentator 8 wrote:

That device working for 6 months has produced approx. 50,000 kWhours heat. Can this be explained by the reaction of transmutation of Ni to Cu? Considering first 300 grams of nichel...? Rossi can tell how much Ni is uesd - if he will. Am important rough energy balance anyway.

Commentator 13 wrote:

There are some very fundamental issues, and mysteries involved. The fundamental questions relate to exactly what reactions are involved. Some do not produce copper, so the new copper content only establishes a lower bound on energy at best. Further, the mechanisms involved may not be fixed or even energy conservative, so there is difficulty establishing even a lower bound based on copper production.

Generally, LENR has not been found to produce detectable high energy signatures. It also has not been found to produce radioactive products, especially neutrons. If weak reactions are eliminated, especially signature creating weak reactions that have more than femtosecond order, half lives, then what is left as feasible are strong force reactions without radiative products. Such reactions for nickel can be found starting on page 16 of:

www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RptB.pdf

which is described in

www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/dfRpt

as noted earlier.

Note that a lot more output possibilities are feasible than just copper, but let's get on with assuming copper is the only output.

Those aneutronic strong force copper producing reactions involving 4 or fewer proton fusions with Ni are:

62Ni28 + p* --> 63Cu29 + 6.122 MeV [-1.984 MeV] (B_Ni:28)

62Ni28 + 2 p* --> 63Cu29 + 1H1 + 6.122 MeV [-10.582 MeV] (B_Ni:33)

64Ni28 + p* --> 65Cu29 + 7.453 MeV [-0.569 MeV] (B_Ni:60)

64Ni28 + 2 p* --> 65Cu29 + 1H1 + 7.453 MeV [-9.080 MeV] (B_Ni:65)

64Ni28 + 3 p* --> 63Cu29 + 4He2 + 17.922 MeV [-7.605 MeV] (B_Ni:83)

Note that equations (B_Ni:83) and (B_Ni:65) the extra proton involved merely plays a catalytic role, holding the nucleus together for a longer period and in an initially much more de-energized state. So, excluding weak reactions, and reactions involving large clusters of protons, the most likely candidate reactions producing CU are:

62Ni28 + p* --> 63Cu29 + 6.122 MeV [-1.984 MeV] (B_Ni:28)

64Ni28 + p* --> 65Cu29 + 7.453 MeV [-0.569 MeV] (B_Ni:60)

64Ni28 + 3 p* --> 63Cu29 + 4He2 + 17.922 MeV [-7.605 MeV] (B_Ni:83)

Looking at the first two reactions as likely candidates, with mean atomic weight near 63.6, and mean reaction energy about 7.2, we have an estimated energy density of

E = (1/(63.6 gm/mol))*Na*7.2 MeV = 1.09x10^10 J/gm

The production of 50,000 kWh then produces, using the above two reactions and considering Ni abundances, roughly produces a mass of copper M:

M = (50,000 kWh)/(1.09x10^10 J/gm) = 16.5 gm

We are left with some obvious questions. What about the other isotopes of nickel? Shouldn't they be involved? What prohibits radioactive nuclei from forming?

We have involved the naturally occurring 58Ni, 60Ni, 61Ni 62Ni, and 64Ni, as well as trace amounts of 59Ni, as well as the other unknown and intentionally not disclosed ingredients. Given that 58Ni has 68% natural abundance, it is of interest as to why we do not see:

58Ni28 + p* -> 59Cu29

which normally decays into 59Ni38 quickly, or possibly, given the deflation fusion scenario, the involvement of an apparently instantaneous electron capture:

58Ni28 + p* -> 59Ni28

which has a 76000 y half life. Apparently, neither this nor any other radioactive material shows up in the output, however. Not a surprise, as few, or at least no confirmed, heavy LENR reactions produce radiative byproducts, except possibly tritium.

Tritium production, is from a different process, tunneling of hydrogen to a cloaked hydrogen location, not tunneling of cloaked hydrogen to lattice nuclei locations which is responsible for heavy transmutation LENR.

It seems a reasonable premise then that no radioactive material is *ever* produced in Rossi's experiment. Why this happens in general in LENR needs an answer. Nothing will be fully understood until why this happens is answered.

A clue as to what might be happening is offered in pp 20-24 of:

www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf

n ( 939.57 MeV/c2) + e -> lambda0 (1115.7 MeV/c2) + K0 ( 497.6 MeV/c2) + e

[The "lambda" part of lambda0 is the appropriate Greek letter.]

[Commentator 13 says that lambda0 is made up of a down quark, an up quark and a strange quark "dus".]

p (938.27 MeV/c2) + e -> lambda0 (1115.7 MeV/c2) + K0 ( 497.6 MeV/ c2) + antineutrino

p (938.27 MeV/c2) + e -> sigma+ (1189.3 MeV/c2) + K0 ( 497.6 MeV/ c2) + e

[The "sigma" part of sigma+ is the appropriate Greek letter.]

[Commentator 13 says that sigma+ is made up of two up quarks and a strange quark "uus".]

[See background material for the deflation fusion scenario below]

These are sub-reactions, that are confined within the boundaries of the new heavy composite nucleus, except possibly for the escape of the K0. Given the extended stay of the electron in the de-energized nucleus, the probability of strange quark pairs in the vicinity increases, as does the above three reactions.

These reactions, due to the catalytic effect of the nuclear electron, produce mass from the vacuum. The energy actually released from the reactions immediately to the environment is similar to that released by ordinary deflation fusion, and due to zero pint energy transactions while the nuclear electron is present. The product, however, differs. Strange quarks remain.

The K0 particle created by such kinetically de-energized reactions may be itself de-energized, thus stable and neutral, similar to a neutron, except not capable of activation like the neutron.

On the other hand, the lambda0 and sigma+ are known to be able to bind in nuclei, replacing their non-strange counterparts, the neutron and proton respectively.

Due to the highly de-energized state of the creating nucleus, the lambda0 and sigma+ that result in heavy LENR may be initially highly de-energized themselves, but should eventually pick up thermal energy from the ZPF, the hot nuclear environment, for reasons I describe here:

mtaonline.net/~hheffner/NuclearZPEtapping.pdf

Nuclei with strange hadron replacements can be called hyperons. The presence of hyperons may be difficult to pick up in mass spectroscopy. The masses of lambda0 and sigma+ do not differ much from protons and neutrons, so have little effect in heavy element spectroscopy. They would act similar to ordinary matter, until highly perturbed, possibly in a chain reaction. The key signature, and the enormous extra mass, is in the form of the K0 particles, or nuclear additives. These may act like light neutrons in heavy nuclei.

The ability to catalyze the long term existence of hyperons from the vacuum would have an enormous impact on space travel cabilities, as well as free energy capabilities. It means infinite Isp drives, and faster than light speed travel, as well as large amounts of on board energy. The mass imbalance of the above reactions, plus the ability to recover the original electrons and protons from the decay of the hyperons, is of great practical importance.

Assuming the Rossi-Focardi experiments are not a fraud, it may be that these experiments produce something that looks like copper, but is not. The copper-like material may not readily decay, even though ordinary nuclei with similar mass would. Mass spectrometry may produce some surprises, including possibly unexpected decay of the nuclei when they hit a target. This is all speculation, but speculation with a logical basis, as established on pp 20-24 of:

www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf

Most everything regarding the Rossi experiments and patent applications are highly speculative, so what is one more speculation.

-----

Commentator 17 wrote:

Article uses Robert Park as an authority on the subject.

news.discovery.com/tech/cold-fusion-claims-resurface.html

Commentator 10 wrote:

As predicted by Commentator 1, it would appear that the majority of popular news organizations, willing to stick their necks out and file a brief report on the Italian event, will do little more than screw up the data. Seems nobody wants to stray far from the safety of the herd.

Incidentally, I noticed that Dr. Park has yet to publish his next "What's New" issue, presumably to be dated January 21 ...

--------

Commentator 3 wrote:

Lest we forget the travelogue aspect of this story

The choice of this magnificent old city for the Rossi demo has a few lingering overtones for curious observers, yet to be noted in print.

The fact the University of Bologna, founded in 1088, is the oldest operating University in the World could be of future significance and deeper meaning, should things turn out well. The symbolism is the triumph of human learning, as an organized activity, over natural obstacles.

The 1000th year anniversary of that University may coincide with Italy returning to the glory-days by first becoming energy self-sufficient. He who controls the most efficient energy, controls the world. Who knows that the device could not usher in a new grand age or even modern empire for the region? Heck, they might even finally finish the Basilica San Petronio.

On the other hand, the famous sausage meat known to millions of children and adults in the USA as baloney, is closer to what the skeptics will focus on, should things become less tasty and this is equally iconic in the age of spam. A more edible spam, you might say, for those who are taken in by lard colored to resemble meat.

If the planned demo in Chennai turns out to be baloney, then we will never hear the end of it from the nay-sayers. And guess what cinema fans, this melange of various ingredients could be part of the art of the planning behind a larger conspiracy theory (in the screenplay of course). Bologna is famous for theatre and opera, so there are lots of dramatic threads to weave into the emerging story. Beware the Ides [of March].

Seriously though, one of the most interesting things about the town is the history of the towers. Forget Pisa, this place was once tower-central ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Towers_of_Bologna

The fact they are leaning makes me wonder if that too is some kind of omen for things to come.

----------

Commentator 8 wrote on Jan 21, 2011:

Cold Fusion was D + D fusion, this one cannot be.

[D is deuterium; Pd (or PD) is palladium]

Commentator 13 wrote:

Nonsense! This is like saying analyzing microfossils is not part of paleontology because it doesn't involve digging big bones out of the ground and making museum exhibits out of them. Fields expand horizons.

Fleischmann and Pons used D in PD, but that was just the beginning of the field. When you put hydrogen in atomic lattices you sometimes get anomalous nuclear events.

The Ni-H system was considered part of cold fusion; was it not? That is not D+D fusion. Heavy element low energy transmutation is not D+D fusion, true? The discovery of heavy transmutations was a direct outcome of cold fusion studies, true?

Remember Bockris and TAMU? These things were all lumped under the same "cold fusion" umbrella until terms like LENR, CANR, LANR, CMNS were invented. Even after invention of these new terms, each of which has distinct and useful meaning, all the same physical things continued to be discussed on sci.physics.fusion under the "fusion" umbrella, and reported on at ICCF - The International Conference on Cold Fusion.

Yes, Cold Fusion, then and now. The new terms each have distinct meanings, but still fall under the umbrella of the general field of cold fusion. Cold fusion is the fusion of atomic nuclei without the kinetic energy to overcome the Coulomb barrier, and without the high energy signatures or branching ratios of similar reactions in high kinetic energy environments. The fathers of the field are Fleischmann and Pons. Everything in the field of cold fusion followed from their seminal experimental work.

I say this with the clear knowledge that muon catalyzed fusion was also called cold fusion, at least at one time. This I think is outside the definition of cold fusion because the branching ratios are conventional and the signatures are not suppressed - but it is debatable since both the Pd-D and ... muon catalyzed fusion announcements then or shortly after had the term universally applied to both of them. Certainly most cold fusion antagonists are happy to exclude muon catalyzed fusion from the cold fusion umbrella, and stigma!

This recent tendency to divorce special nooks of the field seems utterly nonsensical - unless perhaps it is an attempt to steal credit, or establish property rights or bragging rights in some way by creating false boundaries.

There is also the attempt by some to escape the stigma associated with the term "cold fusion". Again, nonsense! The journalists instantly lumped Rossi's experiments and patent applications under that umbrella, despite his statements that it was not cold fusion. You put hydrogen in metals and get nuclear changes - bingo! It's cold fusion. To say otherwise is merely confusion. Otherwise, all papers not about D-D fusion should be banned from ICCF - now that's nonsensical isn't it!

I think an end should be put to the con-fusion, and everyone should own up to the origins of the field and not be changing definitions for political or financial gain. Fusion is fusion. Cold fusion is nuclear fusion - cold. This is true regardless the events which might precede or follow the creation of any intermediate fused nucleus within a lattice, be they weak reactions, fissions, or other reactions. Besides, when the field comes to fruition, the vindication will be even more sweet, for those cold fusion scientists still alive to see it.

-----------

Commentator 1 wrote:

This is important! Rossi is saying that on Monday [1-24-11], they will upload a report by Levi et al. describing a self-sustaining run. This is the Holy Grail of cold fusion: a self-sustaining device that produces commercially useful levels of power.

People may have some doubts about Rossi's credibility, but I think there is no reason to doubt Levi and the others. If they say they saw the thing self-sustain, I for one will believe it. As I said before, this development is not all that surprising. There is plenty of supporting evidence from other experiments. There is no reason to doubt that a scaled up machine can be built.

It is a little surprising that the breakthrough came with Ni-H. The temperatures and power density with Ni-H have usually been low in the past, as far as I know. Pd-D has achieved greater power density.

---------

Commentator 3 wrote:

Yes, this development [a self-sustaining run] is important, but not exactly for the reason specified. In fact, ... it makes the device far riskier in the eyes of "authorities." (and more subject to eventual political interference by Oil interests).

Not to nitpick, but going from 20:1 P-out/Power-in is ALWAYS self sustaining, if *controlling the reaction via input energy is not required*, i.e. if the "quality" of the input does not need to be specific (i.e. RF or ultrasound, etc).

If a special kind of input energy such as resonant ultrasound is not needed, then with a high COP [Coefficient of Performance] - it is merely a matter of insulating against heat loss well enough to retain what would be the equivalent input heat, or to extract less heat than the input.

So if you believe the demo as presented, then this announcement is a strong negative, not a positive.

The fact that they can do it without Power-in indicates to me NOT that there is any fundamental improvement or change from before - but that a 'runaway' is more likely due to failure of controls. The so-called 'holy grail' can easily exist in circumstance with Power-in required, and in fact that could easily be preferable. You want a failsafe control mechanism.

Otherwise a runaway is more likely. In fact as far as the 'grail' metaphor goes, I think most engineers would STRONGLY prefer to control the reaction via Power-in.

Instead shutting it off such a by controlling H2 pressure - is much trickier.

If you want to keep the Nuclear Regulatory people from shutting down your entire operation - then the very first thing you MUST avoid is a runaway reaction, even if the radioactive release is minimal.

A runaway could squelch everything from the start. It would not surprise me at all if our NRC were not already in talks with the equivalent agency in Italy over this very issue - and some of that could be due to political pressure from either Oil or the multi-billion [dollar] hot fusion recipients.

---------

Commentator 18 wrote:

The early Christians had it right when they scrawled the acronym ROMA on walls within the City of Rome -- Radix Omnium Malorum (est) Averitia -- the root of all evil is greed.

---------

Commentator 4 wrote:

If N quenches the reaction, tweeking by nitrogen injection is not a bad idea.

Top -- Home

[Background for the deflation fusion scenario]

Commentator 13 wrote:

Particles which interact via the strong (nuclear) force are called hadrons. Protons and neutrons are hadrons. The nucleus is made up of hadrons, plus (messenger) particles which carry forces between hadrons and which hold the hadrons together, i.e. provide a binding force.

Hadrons are made of bound quarks, typically either three quarks (baryons) or two quarks (mesons) per hadron.The quarks in hadrons are bound together by the color force. There is some evidence of short lived particles made of more than three quarks, but this is not ordinary stable matter.

Ordinary matter hadrons are made up of up and down quarks, designated u and d respectively. There are other kinds of quarks besides u and d. Another example is the strange quark, s.

Each type of quark has an associated anti-particle. These are typically designated with an overstrike, a horizontal bar above the quark letter. Here I'll just use an apostrophe to designate an anti-quark, e.g. u', d', s'. Quark pairs, e.g. d and d', u and u', s and s', can have a brief existence momentarily out of nothing, i.e. emerge from the vacuum as fluctuations.

These are called virtual particles because the lifetime of their existence is limited by Heisenberg's principle. Real hadrons, made up of many different feasible quark pairs or triplets can be created from high energy collisions. Quarks are not thus far found alone, only in hadrons.

A proton is comprised of two up quarks and a down quark, and is typically designated "uud". A neutron is comprised of two down quarks and an up quark, and is thus designated "ddu". A delta+ particle, where "delta" is replaced with a greek delta, is "ddd".

Hyperons are particles which contain strange quarks. The sigma+ particle is a hyperon typically designated "uus". The K0 particle, or kaon, is designate "ds'", and the lambda0 particle is designated "dus". These particles, and their normal decays, are described in more detail in my article, but using the appropriate greek letters.

In order to describe the deflated state, and to provide some notion of the coordinated, it was necessary to define a slightly new form of notation, involving parentheses, so that I could easily show the relationship of the proposed deflated quark state to quark and hardon interactions.

DEFINING SOME QUARK RELATED NOTATION

Suppose a proton is designated (u,d,u) and a neutron designated (d,u,d). This is somewhat representative of how, upon inspection, we might expect to find the quarks oriented, with the like charge quarks tending to be separated, co-located at opposing sides of the proton or neutron wavefunction ...

The proton tends to have an outer shell of positive charge, and an inner core with diminished charge. In an overall deuteron wavefunction, this distribution of charge tends to slightly increase the p-n bond, as of course does spin coupling.

In addition there should be a kind of hadron version of the van der Waals force between the hadrons, due to location uncertainty combined with inter-hadron Coulomb colocation of quarks exposed on the surfaces of the interacting hadrons. This is a form of a Casimir force that results in some degree of bonding or attraction between any two hadrons, including two neutrons, even if for a very short half-life in the case of the di-neutron.

Now enter the momentarily nucleus bound electron, the deflated electron. A singly deflated proton p* looks like (d,u,(u e)), and is neutral, a doubly deflated proton, -p**, looks like ((u e),d,(u e)), and is negative, while a deflated neutron -n* is denoted (d,(u e),d) and is negative.

The momentary (u e) couplet can be called a deflated up quark, and simply designated u*, and has -1/3 q charge. In the deflated proton, (d,u,(u e))), stress is highly reduced. The charges are of the form (-1/3, +2/3,-1/3) as opposed to the proton's (+2/3, -1/3, +2/3).

The central up quark in the deflated proton is able to fully shield the repelling force between the down quark and the deflated up quark. The deflated proton thus carries much less energy into a nuclear reaction. A deflated proton thus highly de-energizes the fused nucleus, above and beyond the electron de-energization due to the suddenly increased charge of the newly fused nucleus.

This energy reduction in the deflated proton also accounts for its longevity, which is estimated to be on the order of attoseconds. Note that the opposite applies to the deflated neutron, (d,(u e),d). Its internal charges are of the form (-1/3, -1/3,-1/3) as opposed to the neutron's normal (-1/3,+2/3,-1/3). It is thus expected a deflated neutron would have a brief half-life, and cold fusion would thus be dominated by deflated proton mechanics.

The situation is more complex if strange matter is involved, however, and thus the neutron can be expected to be much more involved in strange matter reactions than in fusion reactions.

-------------

On Jan 26, 2011, Commentator 16 wrote:

I don't think anyone mentioned this article, and since its fundamental to QM, as well as to much of the hypothesizing going on around here, I think its worthwhile to take time to read it:

Which-way detector unlocks some mystery of the double-slit experiment

www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-which-way-detector-mystery-double-slit.html

"With a filter over the right slit, electrons are more likely to undergo inelastic scattering and act like a spherical wave. Electrons passing through an uncovered slit are more likely to undergo elastic scattering and act like a cylindrical wave."

One of the scientists involved with this series of experiments is at the U of Bologna ...

Comemtator 13 wrote:

Thanks for posting this. This is excellent confirmation of the waveform collapse interpretation of QM. The reality of this view is essential to various theories I have proposed. I describe the wavefunction collapse view in my 1996 article "THE BOSE CONDENSATE HYPOTHESIS OF COLD FUSION":

mtaonline.net/~hheffner/BoseHyp.pdf

Top -- Home

[Defkalion to make Rossi Ecat Boilers]

Commentator 1 wrote on 1-28-11:

Summary:

1. Defkalion Energy Group goes public.

2. Work at University of Bologna will continue.

3. Rossi has a backup plan to preserve knowledge of the invention in the event something happens to him (in the event he is killed).

DEFKALION Energy Group, January 27, 2011

www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=395&cpage=1#comment-21160

Marion Macy provided a [report] on the Rossi experiment of January 14 [2011], which we would like to clarify as representatives of the Defkalion Group, based in Greece:

"A public announcement providing a more comprehensive overview will be made in the coming weeks by Defkalion- an industrial company. For the time being, it is confirmed that Defkalion will manufacture units up to 20KW for different*non-military*applications within 2011, exclusively.

Among such applications, Defkalion's units will also ensure CHP or micro-CHP interoperability. Rights and licenses for international markets will be assessed according to ensuing corporate interest.

This is a momentous and exciting historical technological breakthrough, whereby energy will no longer be a scare commodity. The Rossi Energy Catalyzer will provide totally green, cheap, and renewable energy. Defkalion intends to use this technology in a*socially*responsible manner, adhering to the global energy transition.

------------

Pierre Carbonnelle wrote on January 27, 2011:

www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=395&cpage=1#comment-21234

Mr. Rossi,

Here is a quote from Dr. Celani's report:

blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/01/18/rossi-and-focardi-lenr-device-celani-report/

"They also had a twin gamma ray detector assembled in order to detect e+e- annihilation. In this run, almost no such results were detected. Focardi was confident that they were going to get large amounts of such signal, as in previous experiments. This time, the counts were close to background for coincidences, and only some uncorrelated signal was over background."

Could you confirm this?

Any other comments / explanations?

---------------

Andrea Rossi wrote on January 27, 2011:

www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=395&cpage=1#comment-21251

Dear Mr Pierre Carbonelle,

This is a very important question. We will continue the research regarding the gamma rays, with the University of Bologna's professors Levi, Villa, Bianchini. I have a precise theory about this fact, but more tests are necessary. I am not ready to answer this question, also because I should have to talk about how the reactor is made inside.

Warm regards, A.R.

----------------

mtiffi wrote on January 27, 2011:

www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=395&cpage=1#comment-21238

Congratulation for your work. I believe in it and hope the next steps working fine and fast.

One Question:

Did you etablished backup mechanismen (safe provisions) if something (i don't hope so) happens to you or your team?

Good luck and many success for the next steps.

--------------

Andrea Rossi wrote on January 27, 2011:

www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=395&cpage=1#comment-21246

Dear M. Tiffi:

The answer is yes,

Warm Regards, A.R.

--------------

Commentator 7 wrote:

There are many Greek companies with this name, difficult search but I will try to find out. The first guy with this name was an important personality of the Greek mythology, vaguelly reminding a Biblical figure:

"When people became very bad, Zeus decided to exterminate them with a cataclysm. Titan Prometheus advised his son Defkalion to build an arc in order to save himself. When the rain started Defkalion locked himself in the arc with his wife Pyrra. Everyone was killed and the arc, after nine days, landed on top of Mount Parnassos.

Defkalion offered sacrifices to Zeus who was very pleased. Zeus told Defkalion he would grant him one favour and duly, Defkalion asked for people. Zeus obliged and ordered the two survivors to cover their face and start moving while taking stones from the ground and throwing them behind them. Where the stones thrown by Defkalion landed the earth gave men and where the stones of Pyrra landed the earth gave women.

Thus, a new people were born, with no connection with the past. Later, Defkalion and Pyrra had their own children, Hellene, Amfiktion, Protogeneia, Melantho, Thia and ... Hellene, their first born who became the father of the Greeks.

---------

Commentator 13 wrote:

Some fun with mnemonics:

Defkalion: Deflated kaons from lithium ions

Commentator 3 wrote:

Sure beats fun with pneumonia, and get this: if the Rossi catalyst turns out to be lithium, and since the K0 (containing a down quark and a strange anti-quark) decays into an electron, then wouldn't this be some kind of a cosmic hint as to what is going on?

Could Rossi be from the future?

"The future is here. It's just not evenly distributed yet." - attributed to William Gibson

-----------

SHIRAKAWA Akira wrote on 1-29-11;

Original link:

22passi.blogspot.com/2011/01/energy-catalyzer-funziona-e-non-e.html

This is my human translation. Enjoy!

``Energy catalyzer:

It works and it's not cold fusion

Interview with Eng. Andrea Rossi

22PASSI. Good day Eng. Rossi, I thank you for accepting this interview. Everybody are asking themselves how you did manage to perfect your Energy Catalyzer. Somebody even suspects that you stole the idea, for example, from Professor Piantelli from the University of Siena, who in the '90 worked together with Prof. Focardi on cold fusion research. Could you explain us where, why, how and where you started working to this project?

ROSSI. I started in 1987. As facts show, my process strongly differs from previous efforts: nobody has managed to manufacture a working device so far. Facts count, not words.

22PASSI. 1987 means two years before the strongly disputed Fleischmann and Pons experiment; recently you stated that it's not proper to define as "cold fusion" the reaction occurring in your catalyzer and that it's more correct, at the moment, to generically define it weak nuclear reaction, in other words low energy or LENR. Are you telling us that you went on a different road, parallel to that of cold fusion research?

ROSSI. Exactly. In fact, mine is not cold fusion, but weak energy nuclear reactions. Fleischmann and Pons did heavy water electrolysis with a palladium cathode and platinum anode. I don't do electrolysis, I don't use either platinum or palladium and I use temperatures that manage to melt nickel.

22PASSI. The idea that you've built something which works, even without a scientific theoretic model, frightens some regarding the safety of such device. What could you tell use regarding it? I imagine that you have some idea of what happens in the catalyzer even if you're unable to prove it, right?

ROSSI. Yes, I have a very precise idea and I think I've understood perfectly the mechanism, but to explain it it's necessary that the patent gets approved. For now we can demonstrate that the reactors work, and that they do not emit radiations, in addition of being able to be utilized without risks. The rest will come over time.

22PASSI. Regarding the patent, on the Internet it can be read that the request was made on behalf of your wife. Why?

ROSSI. I'm sorry, but I don't see how this has something to do with scientific research.

22PASSI. Could you clarify the role that you and Prof. Focardi have regarding the apparatus development?

ROSSI. I've invented the method and the apparatus. Prof. Focardi had a fundamental role as a consultant, according to a definite agreement. He gave important contributions during the experimental phase, on the research method and on security systems, thanks also to his deep experience with nickel-hydrogen reactions.

22PASSI. What is the role of the University of Bologna regarding the apparatus you're about to patent?

ROSSI. With the University of Bologna we made a research agreement which will be extended in order to study radiations and to research and develop certain particulars.

22PASSI. Clearly once the catalyzer will be commercialized, there won't be trade secrets anymore. Will you allow independent laboratories to check the inside of the device only after that, or will that happen before?

ROSSI. We have to build plants that will need to honor warranties made during the agreement phase. Clients will have to follow instructions for safety reasons too. That being said, clients will be free to perform any test they wish with their plants, as long as they honor their agreements. It's clear, though, for us to renounce to trade secrets, that the patent, currently pending, will have to be accepted. If it won't, we'll keep trade secrets for obvious reasons.

22PASSI. Many doubt your credibility, due to the Omar-Petroldragon scandal from the '90s. On your site you provide an explanation of the events which frees you completely from any blame, pointing that the judicial documents confirm that you have nothing to do with the environmental pollution and fraud accusations. Why then didn't you bring a lawsuit to the Italian State in order to obtain a compensation, given the huge economic (and image) losses you've had?

ROSSI. The answer to this question is thoroughly described in the website:

www.ingandrearossi.com

I don't want to answer that here briefly: who is interested to that matter should read carefully what I've written on my website.

22PASSI. Among those who believe that the Energy Catalyzer works, there's doubt that it could be subject to cover-ups. There are fears that who currently controls the energy market (fossil fuels and uranium) would be willing to pay you enormous amounts of money in order to keep your invention locked in a safe.

ROSSI. They will have to step over my dead body. This technology is the meaning of my professional life and the reason of my personal life.

22PASSI. One more reason why we should all wish you a long and healthy life. Without stepping into conspiracy theories, do you think that your discovery is putting you in danger? That somebody could be planning to take you out, and it's now almost certain, as happened almost fifty years ago to Enrico Mattei?

ROSSI. I think they will try to take me out more subtly, like they did years ago with the Omar-Petroldragon incident. However, today there's the Internet and newspapers do not have the power to annihilate people anymore.

22PASSI. If your product will manage to impose itself, it's clear that the energy market will change radically. How could the energy produced by your catalyzers and that produced by green sources like solar or wind coexist and what kind of synergy there could be?

ROSSI. We will merge and each will take its role.

22PASSI. You've stated that you will soon disclose a new 1 MW prototype (by arranging in parallel or serially - I haven't understood clearly - units similar to that demonstrated in Bologna). Could you better explain this step and tell us when you expect a public demonstration?

ROSSI. It's exactly as you say: modules like that verified in Bologna will be serially connected in order to increase temperatures and in parallel to increase energy at a constant temperature. I hope we will be able to unveil it by September-October 2011.

22PASSI. On the Journal of Nuclear Physics you've stated that a new company has been founded in Athens, the Defkalion Energy, which will manufacture catalyzers. Could you tell us some more details?

ROSSI. It's a european Newco, affiliated with the largest businesses in the sector. They will issue soon a press release to announce themselves to the public.

22PASSI. One last thing. Fossil fuel dependency, or otherwise dependency from non-renewable resources, has almost accustomed ourselves that energy costs can only rise, but nickel and hydrogen utilized in your device are cheap and inexhaustible elements. Does this mean that thanks to technologies like yours, energy prices from increasing will become decreasing?

ROSSI. Honestly, this is the reason why I think it's worth working on it.

22PASSI. On behalf of every visitor of blog "Ventidue passi d'amore e dintorni", thanks again for your time.

ROSSI. Thanks to you all.''

--------

Rossi said:

``22PASSI. If your product will manage to impose itself, it's clear that the energy market will change radically. How could the energy produced by your catalyzers and that produced by green sources like solar or wind coexist and what kind of synergy there could be?

ROSSI. We will merge and each will take its role.''

Commentator 1 wrote:

Nonsense. If his gadget works, he will blow away solar, wind, oil, coal, nukes and everything else. In 20 years they will cease to exist.

-------

On Jan 28, 2011, SHIRAKAWA Akira wrote:

``ROSSI. Exactly. In fact, mine is not cold fusion, but weak energy nuclear reactions. Fleischmann and Pons did heavy water electrolysis with a palladium cathode and platinum anode. I don't do electrolysis, I don't use either platinum or palladium and I use temperatures that manage to melt nickel.''

Commentator 13 wrote on 1-29-11:

Well! There you have heard it almost directly from the source! Rossi is using the most narrow possible definition of cold fusion. A definition only marginally acceptable since 1989.

Can you imagine how boring and irrelevant the ICCF (International Conference on Cold Fusion) would be if limited only to papers that were restricted to Pt anode, Pd cathode, heavy water, and near room temperature.

There would be almost no literature in the field! No experiments on Ni-H systems, gas discharge, sulfonated plastic beads with Ni-Pd layered coatings, fluid beds, Pd black, CaO, transmutations, T-D systems, electrolytic arcs, electrospark, magnetic influences, Ti, Zr, Nb, and Al cathodes, co-deposition, electro-migration, superwaves, radioactive stimulants in and out of the cathode, anode glow, metallic glasses, nano-powders, and many more things presented at ICCF. How ridiculous is that!

A temperature of 1500 C is nowhere near hot fusion, or even near the kinetic energy involved in Claytor's tritium creating gas discharges. It is cold fusion.

[It is not surprising that Rossi wants to avoid the tag "cold fusion" since the U. S. Patent Office refuses to issue "cold fusion" patents.]

-------------

Commentator 8 wrote:

There is the looming issue of scale-up.

You say: "it seems that the 1 MW demo will be an assembly of say, 125 cells working together. I hope not. I am an engineer and I don't like the idea."

Commentator 3 wrote on 1-29-30:

Yes, that was my initial reaction as well. However, if this device is basically driven by a QM reaction, then scale-up may not work well. I think that is indeed the case. QM devices often have an inverted economy of scale, especially those dependent on tunneling. They make up for that limitation by maximizing the number of small units per device ...

However, I am now thinking that a new manufacturing paradigm could be called for, and that this turns out to be an easily a workable situation with mass production and quick "swap-outs" somewhat like the auto SLA battery which seldom lasts for over 1000 hours of continuous use.

That is why I had previously mentioned the auto assembly line. If a 10kW device does turn out to be a good choice, and if it has a useful lifetime of over 1000 hours (hopefully more), then that is similar to what we find in many autos - where at 60,000 miles major parts must be replaced.

In mass production, we find that a 2000 kg luxury car is sold to the dealer for less than $20 US per kg of mass. The Rossi device might be worth more than that figure in per-kg cost - but only weigh 100 kg. The average citizen will spend more that $2000 per year on home and auto energy and could afford that much to pay for the periodic swapping of the nickel core.

This could work out well for all concerned, even without scale up over the 10kW size. However, we are no longer talking about cheap energy - merely competitive energy at about ten cents per kWhr, including taxes and fees. BUT POLLUTION FREE (except for nickel mining) and with little greenhouse or other toxins.

I agree that it is desirable to go higher in scale up if that is possible, but even if not possible - then the device is easily workable at exactly the form factor which has been demonstrated ~10kW.

---------

Commentator 19 wrote on 29 Jan 2011:

Besides, free energy wouldn't be free, just from the standpoint that, "extra money" being diverted from energy into the otherwise same economy will not increase goods or services nor will it give you more spending power since the prices of everything else will inflate. Your increased spending power will simply vanish into the ravenous, slobbering, gaping, burping mouth of the Beast we call Inflation.

Commentator 5 wrote:

You couldn't be more wrong. *Real* wealth is built upon two pillars:- energy and information/knowledge. Nearly free energy will have a tremendous impact on the *real* wealth of the whole planet. We can only hope that that impact lifts everyone far enough out of poverty to ensure a global reduction in the birth rate. (The population is actually falling in some Western countries, and rises most rapidly in the poorest countries).

-------------

Commentator 18 wrote:

Accelerating artificial intelligence advances (automation, robotics, etc.) will worsen the unemploymnet problem in the United States. Factories will employ just a few people to manage and repair the robots. U. S. factory productivity will soar, and it will be cheaper to manufacture in the U. S. than anywhere else in the world, cheaper than even in the slave labor factories of Asia.

-------------

Commentator 8 wrote on 29 Jan 2011:

Good analysis, Commentator 3 however I would add this: - the cell shows that two problems are solved- *intensity* and * reproducibility*; however what remains is *scale up* ... It seems that the 1 MW demo will be an assembly of say, 125 cells working together. I hope not...I am an engineer and I don't like the idea.

Commentator 5 wrote:

Well consider this, a series-parallel arrangement has advantages. If one of the parallel lines has a failure, then you just have somewhat reduced power output while it gets repaired. If you have a failure in a large single unit then you lose power completely while it gets repaired.

--------------

Commentator 3 wrote on 28 Jan 2011:

What if it gets down to needing a completely new heat reactor every six months? That could happen.

Commentator 5 wrote:

I think "refurbishment" every 6 months is more likely. That would probably entail swapping out the Ni. However the Ni that is removed is not lost. It can be reprocessed and end up in new reactors, so overall Ni consumption would depend on the amount that is actually converted into Cu, and that would be small. 8% of current world production would meet all our energy needs, even if the reaction only yielded 6 MeV.

Note also that the Rossi patent [application] includes copper as a potential fuel, which makes me wonder why the reaction should stop there and not proceed to higher elements, in which case we might expect many 10's of MeV per original nickel atom.

----------

Commentator 8 wrote:

Not so fast. How can you assume LENR?

Most of us here "want to believe" it is LENR, but where is the evidence of anything nuclear? Are you saying that excess heat over and above chemical makes it LENR by default?

Commentator 3 wrote:

Maybe - It is clearly "new physics" but the lack of radioactivity at the demo (Levi paper) makes it less likely to be nuclear.

This leaves three or four basic categories of non-nuclear or crossover reactions, as options:

2) Mills, or fractional ground states

3) Langmuir/Moller atomic hydrogen (active Casimir heating)

4) ZPE (other variations of the above) including Heffner's "nuclear ZPE"

5) MIMS - or "metastable inner-shell molecular states". This is really another name for "ballotechnics" aka "supra-chemistry" since it deals with inner orbitals.

6) Any combination or permutation, including ZPE reactions which eventually accelerate nuclear decay to stable isotopes

There is plenty of overlap in this list - and most of these have been considered to be in the fold of LENR in the past, by default, but clearly the inventor has said over and over that this is not related to "cold fusion"; but also that he doesn't understand it.

And in any event, there is too little real data available to contradict Rossi's own appraisal that it is not cold fusion. It could be a completely new reaction, the 'black swan' or 'Goodyear moment' which was not a predictable outcome from the P&F [Pons and Fleischmann] experiment.

---------

Commentator 4 wrote:

Most processes do not scale linearly and offer new engineering challenges at certain cusps. A good example could be the nanopowder core of the reactor. If heat is generated uniformly within the core and extracted only at the surface of the core the process can mimic the heat engine of corpulent people.

As a human's weight increases, heat is removed from the body by the square of the radius (assuming a spherical human); but, is generated by the cube of the radius.

Ask Jabba.

---------

Commentator 3 wrote:

Clearly the inventor has said over and over that this is not related to "cold fusion".

Commentator 5 wrote:

Yes, but remember Rossi uses a very limited definition of CF, so all he's really saying is that it's not CF using heavy water in an electrolytic cell ...

------------

Cmmentator 1 wrote:

Thanks to the U.S. Patent Office, there is no intellectual property in cold fusion. It is in the public domain. That is generally considered a problem that is holding back the field.

I think that opposition from established energy companies will inevitably arise, once they realize the effect is real. When that happens, the fact that it is in the public domain may turn out to be more of a blessing than a curse ... [because if cold fusion shows any promise commercially, existing energy companies could simply buy up the intellectual property if it were not in the public domain.]

------------

Commentator 20 wrote:

Actually, there are ways around the patent restriction, as SPAWAR has shown. Don't claim "cold fusion," but claim a method of creating conditions for a specific observable effect that others may wish to study, so your device is "useful" in studying the effect, whether or not "cold fusion" is real. The cause of the effect might be totally ordinary. Or not.

------------

Commentator 4 wrote:

[According to My Teknik] they have almost 100 Ecats already built in a Miami Leonardo factory. You place them in series to increase the temp and pressure to 500 c @ 55 bar (for turbines) and parallel for more energy. Rossi got his PhD in Milan where he got his B both in engineering. The MW plant will be in Athens. And there's a factory in Greece.

----------

Commentator 3 wrote:

The Ny Teknik article is filled with errors.

----------

www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3081694.ece

"We will open up a heating plant of one megawatt in Athens, Greece this Fall," Andrea Rossi told Ny Teknik.

"Here in the factory in Miami, we have one hundred reactors like the one we showed in Bologna, almost ready. The problems now have to do with authorization, but I expect that the heating plant in Athens will be inaugurated in September or October 2011," Rossi told Ny Teknik, calling from Miami, Florida.

--------------

Dear Commentator 1,

I am answering to your email of today.

1. Leonardo Corp exists and it is sound. It is clear that you have found another leonardo corp ( there are many Leonardos). My one is sound, believe me. info@leonardocorp.com

2. Same for Defkalion: you found another one. Also Defkalion is a common name in Greece.

3. I will make no more tests on modules ... The answers will arrive from our 1 MW plant which will start in October [2011]. At that point all the discussions will be over, in front of a reactor working 24 hours per day, at a power of 1 MW, in the factory of a Customer.

----------

from Rossi's blog

www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360#comments

DEFKALION Energy Group

February 3rd, 2011 at 6:28 AM

On behalf of Defkalion, we wοuld like to clarify the following:

The full name of Defkalion comapny is: Defkalion Green Technologies S.A. registered in Athens Greece.

A photovoltaic comapny by the name Defkalion has no connection with us nor do they know anything on this technology.

For inquiries please forward your messages only to stsalikoglou@gmail.com or to info@defkalion-energy.com

------------

Commentator 4 wrote:

Domain name: leonardocorp1996.com

Registrant Contact:

Andrea Rossi ()

Fax:

Via Carlo Ragazzi 28

Creation date: 22 Sep 2009 07:55:32

Expiration date: 22 Sep 2011 07:55:00

---------

Commentator 1 wrote:

[It seems I got a rise out of him ...]

Rossi wrote:

Dear Commentator 1,

Please find my answers along your text:

Commentator 1 wrote on 2-3-11:

You completely misunderstand my comments. I have NEVER doubted the results of the Levi test. I have pointed out that others including Prof. Villa still have questions.

You [Rossi] wrote:

1. Leonardo Corp exists and it is sound. It is clear that you have found another leonardo corp ( there are many Leonardos). My one is sound, believe me. info@leonardocorp.com

2. Same for Defkalion: you found another one. Also Defkalion is a common name in Greece.

Commentator 1 wrote on 2-3-11:

Okay. Why did you repeatedly refer to it as "Defkalion Energy" when the name is "Defkalion Green Technologies"?

Rossi wrote:

ABOUT ALL THIS NAMES ISSUE: I DO NOT FOLLOW THE COMMERCIAL ISSUES. JUST CONSIDER THIS: TODAY I STARTED TO WORK AT 4 A.M., NOW IT IS EXACTLY MIDNIGHT, I AM WORKING FROM 20 HOURS AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHEN I WILL FINISH TODAY. I HOPE YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THAT I CAN WRITE WRONGLY A NAME,

SOMETIMES. ANYWAY I AM NOT CONVINCED I DID CALL IT DEFKALION ENERGY, I MOST LIKELY SAID DEFKALION. ANYWAY THE ISSUE HAS BEEN CLEARED TODAY DY THE INTERESTED GUYS WHO DEAL WITH THE NAMES.

LEONARDO CORPORATION HAS AN ... INCORPORATED IN FLORIDA WHICH IS DEFUNCT: SO, WHAT?

IF SOMEBODY MADE A COMPANY IN FLORIDA, NAMED IT LEONARDO, AND MADE IT DEFUNGE, WHERE IS MY FAULT?

I NAMED LEONARDO AFTER LEONARDO DA VINCI, ... MY COMPANY IS NAMED LEONARDO CORPORATION, AND IT IS SAFE AND SOUND, THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.

Commentator 1 wrote:

Why do you claim you have a degree from a non-existent university?

Rossi wrote:

I GOT MY DEGREE IN THE UNIVERSITA' DEGLI STUDI DI MILANO (ITALY), VIA FESTA DEL PERDONO,20100 MILANO.

I ALSO HAVE BEEN AWARDED A HONORIS CAUSA DEGREE FROM THE KENSINGTON UNIVERSITY, IN 1987, DUE TO A PATENT OF MINE REGARDING THE PRODUCTION OF BIODIESEL FROM ORGANIC RESIDUALS. I WAS PROUD OF IT, GOT IT, AND HAVE IT. NOW YOU SAY THIS UNIVERSITY IS NOT EXISTENT? I DO NOT KNOW, ...

I HAVE STILL THE CERTIFICATE, ANYWAY. FOR SURE, IT IS FROM 1987 THAT I DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING FROM THEM.

Commentator 1 wrote:

Why don't you post the name of the company in Florida? You cannot have a factory there without a proper registration and telephone number. You should give the name, address and telephone number.

Rossi wrote:

LEONARDO CORPORATION, AS OBVIOUS, HAS AN ACCOUNTANT AND AN ATTORNEY. THEY TELL US WHAT WE CAN DO AND WHAT WE CANNOT DO. AS FOR TO MAKE PUBLIC THE ADDRESS OF OUR FACTORY, I AM CONTRARY, BECAUSE THERE WE MAKE A WORK WHICH IS EXTREMELY CONFIDENTIAL, AND I WANT NOBODY AROUND THERE. YOU ARE TOO SMART NOT TO UNDERSTAND IT.

Commentator 1 wrote:

You are saying things and doing things that make you look bad.

Rossi wrote:

I DO NOT KNOW WHAT I DO OF BAD, I AM WORKING AT THE LIMITS OF MY RESISTANCE TO MAKE MY REACTORS. THIS IS MY JOB, AND THIS IS WHAT I HAVE TO PRODUCE

Commentator 1 wrote:

You are inviting attacks by skeptics.

Rossi wrote:

SKEPTICS ARE UNAVOIDABLE, FACTS WILL MAKE THE REALITY. NOW I HAVE ONLY ONE REAL PROBLEM: TO ARRIVE TO MAKE MY 1 MW PLANT BY OCTOBER, DEAD OR ALIVE.

Commentator 1 wrote:

You should publish COMPLETE and ACCURATE information,

Rossi wrote:

I GAVE ALL THE INFO I COULD. I CANNOT GIVE INFOS THAT CAN LEAK TECHNOLOGY, YOU MUST UNDERSTAND THIS

Commentator 1 wrote:

instead of mixing up the names of your companies.

Rossi wrote:

AGAIN, I DO NOT MIX NAMES OF COMPANIES, YOU MIXED NAMES OF COMPANIES, SAYING THAT MY LEONARDO IS DEFUNCT, AND THAT DEFKALION IS A VOID BOX, WITHOUT BEFORE VERIFYING IF THE LEONARDO AND THE DEFKALION YOU FOUND OF WERE THE RIGHT ONES.

Commentator 1 wrote:

Journalists and newspaper reporters worldwide are trying to get accurate facts about you, but you have spread so much confusion they think you are a fake.

Rossi wrote:

THEY WILL CHANGE IDEA WHEN WILL SEE MY PLANT OF 1 MW IN OPERATION

Commentator 1 wrote:

I have been trying to reassure them for months that your claims have merit.

Rossi wrote:

AND FOR THIS I THANK YOU; FOR THIS I WILL INVITE YOU TO SEE MY PLANT.

Commentator 1 wrote:

You are making it impossible for me and your other supporters.

Rossi wrote:

WHAT I HAVE TO DO FOR YOU ALL IS A PLANT, AND YOU CANNOT ASK ME TO WORK 20 HOURS PER DAY (SPENDING, BY THE WAY, ALL MY MONEY, BECAUSE NOBODY IS FINANCING ME ...

----------

Commentator 4 wrote:

Florida Profit Corporation

LEONARDO CORPORATION

Filing Information

Document Number P10000091220

FEI/EIN Number NONE

Date Filed 11/08/2010

State FL

Status ACTIVE

Principal Address

1331 LINCOLN RD., APT 505

MIAMI BEACH FL 33139

Mailing Address

1331 LINCOLN RD., APT 505

MIAMI BEACH FL 33139

Registered Agent Name & Address

ROSSI, ANDREA

1331 LINCOLN RD., APT 505

MIAMI BEACH FL 33139

Officer/Director Detail

Name & Address

Title PD

ROSSI, ANDREA

1331 LINCOLN RD., APT 505

MIAMI BEACH FL 33139

Title SD

TRAVIS, JAMES R

8 TOWN FARM ROAD

NEW BOSTON NH 03070

-----------

Commentator 4 wrote:

I did a research on Defkalion energy. It seems that the company is located in number 3, Xenofondos street, in Halandri, Athens. A few days ago, I emailed stsalikoglou@gmail.com Defkalion Energy

---------

Commentator 1 wrote:

Rossi confirmed this is the correct website for the U.S. company that will manufacture the devices:

leonardocorp1996.com/

This is in Bedford, NH. I gather they are manufacturing in Florida.

Rossi gave the corrected name for the company in Greece as "DEFKALION GREEN TECHNOLOGIES."

----------

Commentator 6 wrote:

Did everybody catch this?

[On 02/03/2011 06:49 PM, Commentator 1 wrote:]

Rossi wrote:

WHAT I HAVE TO DO FOR YOU ALL IS A PLANT, AND YOU CANNOT ASK ME TO WORK 20 HOURS PER DAY (SPENDING, BY THE WAY, ALL MY MONEY, BECAUSE NOBODY IS FINANCING ME)

Commentator 6 wrote:

No financial backers or investors?

If this is true, it puts everything in a very different light.

My skepticism has been founded, among other things, on the belief that Rossi is taking money from investors at this time. If he isn't, then the whole notion that this could be a "con" comes tumbling down, because nobody is being "conned".

------------

Commentator 5 wrote:

Have you see the movie "A beautiful mind"?

---------

Commentator 10 wrote:

All I can say is that if I had developed such a magic wunder box, and my intention was to get it demonstrated in a way I hoped would be "convincing" (like, totally, man!) to a skeptical world, the last thing I would EVER want to have to deal with, especially during the construction phase, would be hoards of reporters, believers, gawkers, and debunkers snooping and poking about the premise.

Damned straight I would generate disinformation, even if it meant temporarily sacrificing my reputation, anything to get unwanted eyes off my back.

-----------

Commentator 16 wrote:

It's not just the hoards of reporters and gawkers, they're just annoying...

There are numerous entities whose power is severely threatened by this type of technology; they have much to lose, and would probably go to great lengths to either buy it, squash it, or at least delay it's introduction as long as possible. I wouldn't want to give them a calling card to, what will soon be, their nemesis...

-------------

Commentator 1 wrote:

People from Defkalion Green Technologies were on national television in Greece. See:

talefta.blogspot.com/

Top -- Home

2-6-11: ICCF16 (International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science) in India

Commentator 1 wrote:

I spoke with Celani about the Rossi demonstration. He attended the demo, as you see in the video. He will describe it formally but I asked for an informal sense of it, and whether he found it "convincing." He said a few things which I describe here along with some of my comments:

The demonstration and presentation were somewhat chaotic, with many people asking questions and a spirited discussion underway (as you see in the video even if you do not speak Italian). It was hard to concentrate on the actual test that was underway. [My comment: that's not anyone's fault. You cannot do a definitive test in front of 50 physicists, nor should you try.]

They had difficulty starting up the reaction.

Celani was personally disappointed and I think upset that they prevented him from using the particle detector he brought along. He said, "what is the point of calling in scientists if you don't let them do independent testing."

He said the vapor regime is complicated and difficult to judge. I pointed out that with the power input the water should only be 20 deg C warmer, so even if there was wet steam that is still evidence of considerable excess heat. He agreed.

He said the ability to generate steam means the temperature is high which is very important from a technological point of view. But for a demonstration of this nature it would be easier to evaluate the result if they would increase the flow rate and keep the water temperature below 90 deg C. The calorimetry becomes much more complicated above that temperature. [My comment: good point, and that is what they plan to do with the 1 MW reactor test.]

I wouldn't say Celani considers that a reason to doubt so much as a reason to say the results may be a large approximation. You need to know more before you can conclude it was 4 kW excess or 12 kW excess. [True. I am not qualified to determine if steam is wet or dry, but I think a reasonable default position is to assume that Dr. Galantini knows what he is doing, and he picked the right instrument. If it turns out he does not know what he is doing, I have committed a Fallacious Appeal to Authority, and the excess is much lower than 12 kW, but still significant.]

He said he did not look at the end of the hose in the sink in the bathroom, but he did note that it was making a lot of noise from steam. I think any noise rules out the "diverted water stream" hypothesis. It is a distinct noise, after all, and a flow of 0.3 L per minute of warm water makes no noise at all at the end of the hose.

We will know a lot more tomorrow, but took the opportunity to ask him a few questions about issues that have been discussed here.

Regarding the academic caution expressed by Levi, David Nagel, and now Celani in his conversation with me, let me put myself in their positions. I know how to speak academese even though I am not a member of that tribe. I might tell a reporter "it is not fully convincing." I would have some specifics in mind:

* They have not proved beyond any conceivable doubt that it is far beyond the limits of chemistry.

* They have not allowed independent experts to look at the transmuted copper.

* They have not allowed many independent tests yet.

* There are still a few plausible hypotheses floating around about how it might be faked.

I do not take them seriously, but any plausible hypothesis deserves to be tested. It would be unreasonable to test every silly notion that pops into the minds of pathological skeptics, such as the idea that hundreds of rats drank the water in Mizuno's heat-after-death event, or the notion that Rossi has invisible hidden wires or chemical fuel in the cell. You have to draw the line at plausible, grown-up hypotheses.

Those are not complaints. Rossi, Levi and the others did a lot. They are doing more. All in good time these others steps can be done, and I think they will be done. But it would be wise to reserve a small slice of doubt until then ...

There is no harm in saying: "It looks good so far, and I cannot think of any reason to doubt it, but let's go through a series of steps that will confirm it beyond any doubt."

-------------

Commentator 1 wrote:

India's population is ~1.2 billion, slightly behind China. This is both a curse and perhaps a small blessing -- if they can take advantage of the opportunity now presenting itself.

The blessing: They have more 'honors students' than we have students. And ten times more in math and engineering. There is a lot of potential brain-power, mixed with overwhelming poverty, resulting in an extreme level of motivation for an energy breakthrough - and LENR is the ideal technology for that country.

With an energy breakthrough in India, wealth will follow. In the 21st century: wealth = energy. Does anyone doubt that?

Side note: if you are old enough, you probably remember the preppy clothing style popular in Colleges in the 1960s - influenced by the bright plaid light cotton known as "Madras". That was the former name of the city now called Chennai ...

ICCF16 (International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science) Convenes in Chennai in February, 2011

From the Deccan Times:

Chennai, February 6, 2011: It may be still in the realm of science fiction for many but a nanotechnology expert has claimed that green, clean, safe and cheap energy can be produced using a low energy nuclear reactor in room temperature.

"One does not need materials like uranium, plutonium or thorium or for that matter any kind of reactors," said Prof David Nagel, research professor, micro and nano technologies, George Washington University, USA. "There will not be any radiation or radioactive waste in this mode of power generation." Prof Nagel was addressing students and faculty attending the tutorial school on "Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions [LENR]" in Madras on Saturday.

According to him, two Italian scientists, Prof Sergio Focardi and Andrea Rossi, had demonstrated a 10 KW LENR reactor at Bologna on January 14. "But the International Patent Office rejected their application for patent because the authorities were not convinced about the feasibility of the LENR," he said. "Scientists who have made breakthroughs in LENR are reluctant to come out in the open because of the fear that they may be deprived of their intellectual property rights."

-----------

Commentator 1 wrote:

Getting back to my favorite example, the Wrights proved they could stagger off the ground and barely fly in a semi-controlled fashion in December 1903. In 1904 they proved they could do it again sometimes, but often they proved only that they could crash spectacularly or that in hot weather with low air pressure they could not fly.

-------------

On Feb 6, 2011, Commentator 5 wrote:

If you look at a barometer you will see that hot weather almost invariably comes with high (not low) air pressure.

-------------

Commentator 1 wrote:

It took more tests to prove to non-expert observers that the first flight was not a fluke or a carnival stunt. (The Wrights themselves were expert enough to judge the first 4 flight tests on Dec. 17 as complete success, but they were the only experts in the world on that day.)

In the case of Rossi, many loopy skeptical objections have been raised, but one or two plausible ideas that might explain away the results have been proposed. It would be good to disprove these objections by doing a long run.

---------------

Commentator 1 wrote:

It reminds me of 19th century ballooning, when people tested prototype parachutes the first time by jumping out of balloons several thousand feet up. (Sensible people urged the inventors to try dropping the parachutes with a weight.) Or Davy's experiments concocting new gases in which he checked for toxicity or medical benefits by breathing in the new gas!

Heck, it reminds me of the first jet passenger airplane, the Comet, which disintegrated several times before the authorities decided to ground it. See the book "Jet Age: The Comet, the 707, and the Race to Shrink the World." People's attitudes toward danger and risk was radically different in those days. It was considered unseemly to be afraid.

[Consider] ... people who lived from 1790 to 1840 during the "Age of Wonder" of science (the title of a new book by Richard Holmes), and the Los Alamos generation of people such as Schwinger and Dyson, who lived through the upsurges of the 1930s and the dawn of modern nuclear physics. That dawn turned out to be a lot like the French Revolution as described by Wordsworth. Great fun at first until they started chopping off people's heads, and blowing up cities, respectively:

-----------

Commentator 8 wrote:

Commentator 1, you are a good historian too. To which extent was the airplane patented?

Commentator 1 wrote:

It was patented in 1906. The legal battles over the patent exhausted Wilbur Wright and contributed to his death in 1912 at age 45. See:

www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Wright_Bros/Patent_Battles/WR12.htm

invention.psychology.msstate.edu/i/Wrights/WrightUSPatent/WrightPatent.html

The patent covers only the control system, not the motor or propellers. The propellers were the most difficult component to engineer.

For more on the Wright brothers, see

www.avonhistory.org/mil3/lenr9.htm#n3

-------------

Commentator 1 wrote on 2-7-11:

Rob Duncan was supposed to give one of the keynote addresses. Unfortunately, the blizzard in the U.S. shut down Chicago and he was unable to come. He e-mailed his comments and they were read by Melich. They were excellent. I hope to get a copy soon. Anyway, one thing he said was that the heat in many of these experiments is "definitely real." I think he also said it is definitely not chemical.

Rossi's work was discussed by Celani and then Melich.

Celani's description of the demo was more critical than his discussion with me, yesterday. He was quite upset that they did not let him make nuclear measurements, and I suspect that has colored his thinking. Rossi told him "we can't let you take a gamma spectrum because that will tell you exactly what reactions are going on, and we cannot reveal that information until we can get a patent." That remark alone is revealing, isn't it!

I am not good at taking notes while listening to a lecture, but here are some of my notes from Celani's talk.

This was not a typical cold fusion experiment, especially in the choice of materials, which was nickel plus two other unnamed mystery elements. It is "conceptually mistaken" to call this Ni cold fusion. Celani believes these other elements are the active ingredient and the Ni assists the reaction in the other elements. [I have the opposite impression; that the other elements are dopants which enhance the Ni reaction that Piantelli and Focardi discovered years ago.]

There were many problems with the demonstration. The device was working a lot better on January 13. Unfortunately, on the day the people assembled, the A/C heater failed "catastrophically" and then some other parts were acting flaky. The audience become restless and upset. When they finally got it going, they were only able to reduce control power down to 400 W, and it was not as steady as it had been in recent tests at U. Bologna.

On Jan. 13 and in some previous tests they could bring it down closer to 100 W, which is more impressive, with a "gain" of 30 - 40. [I quibble with use of the term "gain" in this context.] Celani referred to the 100 W level as the "self-sustaining level." In other words, almost heat after death.

The hygrometric probe [Relative Humidity meter] was not reliable and the readings were not continuous.

There was the sound of steam but it was not loud. There was a lot of noise in the crowded room.

The data acquisition system failed, as noted by Levi in his report, which is why they had to use a photo of the screen.

Celani thinks there were "questionable assumptions" about the dry steam. He showed a graph of the estimates made here about 1% of the steam by volume reducing the enthalpy by a large margin. (Commentator 2 says that estimate is wrong -- the reduction is much too big.)

Celani thinks the outlet temperature probe was too close to the body of the machine.

Celani reiterated what he told me yesterday, that calorimetry by vaporization is problematic, and it would be better to increase the flow rate and use water below 90 deg C instead.

Levi and Rossi are preparing a more detailed report about the recent set of tests ...

After the talk, Celani mentioned that he held his hand over the exit pipe, which I think is rubber. Someone asked if he touched it. He said it was too hot. That would put it at about 50 deg C, as the person pointed out. That's very hot.

Melich, Commentator 2 and I feel that some of this is nitpicking. Celani did not address the most important issue, which is that even if there was a only a tiny bit of steam, that means the water temperature was close to 100 deg C, so there must have been massive excess heat, on the order of 400 W in, 1,800 out. You can ignore the steam altogether. In most cold fusion experiments this much excess heat would be considered a definitive triumph.

McKubre remarked that Rossi presence in the room during the test "weakens" the claim. I don't think anyone would argue with that.

Melich followed with a shorter discussion, without viewgraphs. He was more circumspect because some of the work he based his discussion has not been published yet so he cannot reveal full details. He is confident that it will be published. He agreed that Rossi's results are still somewhat "fuzzy" but warned people not to judge a project by a one-off test on one day, especially a test with 50 impatient people in the room. That is bound to be somewhat chaotic.

Levi remarked somewhere that he felt confident in the machine after the December 16 test [Test 1] and also when he saw it run with no input, in heat after death. Levi's judgement does not rest entirely on the January 14 demonstration [Test 2]. People such as Melich and Levi, who know the most about this machine, seem to have the highest confidence that it is real. That is a good sign.

-----------

Commentator 3 wrote 2-7-11:

Thanks to Commentator 1 for the update. There are lots of Monday morning quarterbacks around today, so hopefully a few serious ones, with expertise in a very narrow field have focused on saving-the-world from OPEC, ... (apologies to cheese-heads).

--------

Commentator 4 wrote:

No one, including Mills, is going to get patent protection.

Commentator 3 wrote:

... despite the Rossi showing in Italy, "this" (meaning the big enchilada) is still Mills' game to lose. He has been funded better than anyone, and it shows.

[But] if Rossi can get the MW unit out in six months, then that's what they call a major momentum shift (the kind that didn't happen yesterday for Steeler fans)

Commentator 4 wrote:

I agree that it is he that is first to the market who is likely to profit. Produce a million 10 kW Ecats and damn the patents! Take the $$ and and unleash the lawyers!

---------

Commentator 3 wrote 2-7-11:

Consider this detail:

Rossi told (Celani) "we can't let you take a gamma spectrum because that will tell you exactly what reactions are going on, and we cannot reveal that information until we can get a patent." That remark alone is revealing, isn't it!

Comment: Revealing ?? well, not really or should I say "yes and no". I hope that experts will weigh-in on this detail - of precisely what reactions could possibly have turned up as an obvious signature - one which is truly revealing.

Assuming everything else reported by Levi is true - that the reactor was lead shielded and that a positron annihilation meter was allowed, any potential revelation poses a number of difficult questions.

We can assume that positrons are out (did not register) and that low energy betas are out (would not get through lead anyway) that alphas are out - yet the "signature" that Rossi wants hidden is obvious enough on a handheld meter that even if was known, it would given something away in the patenting situation.

This pretty much leaves by default the 2.45 MeV signature (for D-D fusion) as the most obvious one which he would not want to share. BUT DEUTERIUM WAS NOT USED.

So yes, that one is strange enough to be revealing if it were seen, but the probability is near zero. Are there any others even close (besides 23.5 MeV) ?

Problem with any know signature for fusion is that prior art in LENR going back to 1989 has most reactions so well covered that it is almost irrelevant to include it in a patent. And moreover, the known signatures for hydrogen fusion would already include the positron annihilation which did not register.

The nickel-to-copper scenario has literally dozens of lesser spectra, none of which are revealing. On his blog, Rossi has already listed the nickel-copper spectra and finding one would help his credibility -- not hurt.

Bottom line: what signature, even if fully known, could be so revealing that it would really matter for a patent which is already filed?

----------

Commentator 3 wrote:

* Bottom line: what signature, even if fully known, could be so revealing that it would really matter for a patent which is already filed?

OK - delayed flash of the old memory banks .

Yes, there is one detail from the recent past that does come to mind, which might show up as "revealing". Anyone who follows LENR would have known. But it is relative to the "Rusi affair" at Purdue (will not attempt to spell the last name, but you know what I am referring to).

In that sonofusion experiment, the reactor was "seeded" with a small amount of radioactive isotope emitter. I think it was californium but it does not matter, but whether it was fully disclosed or not became the issue. The purpose of the 'seed' was as a trigger.

My personal belief is that a small seed (tiny - micrograms) can alter the "probability field" for QM [Quantum Mechanics] in such a massive way that gigantic effects will follow - but that was not exactly Rusi's claim. He merely found that it worked, and he may or may not have adequately disclosed it up front, depending on who's side you are on.

No one doubts that the end effect on the sonofusion neutron emission was many orders of magnitude more than the seed could have accounted for ( 4 orders more, if memory serves).

Anyway, moving on - could Rossi have seeded his reactor in the same way?

Yes, that would be revealing!

Many medical tracer isotopes would have been available for this purpose. The probability field for QM is poorly understood. However, as a practical matter, why not include it in the patent to begin with?

This reaffirms the belief of many of us who read the patent in the context of thousands of other patents over the past 50 years in energy - that Rossi's is among the poorest drafted patents of all time, and in the end, it will provide him zero protection anyway (at least in the USA).

The irony is that adding a "seed" to a Focardi style experiment could be patentable in itself - so WHY NOT PATENT IT FROM THE START? After all, this could be his one and only big advance.

----------

Commentator 3 wrote:

Americium is THE prime candidate so far, if it should turn out that the Rossi reactor has been 'seeded' with an isotope emitter which serves to stimulate a cascade of QED enhanced nuclear reactions which then effectively convert nickel to copper.

Here is the corrected detail for the best isotope that has turned up so far. Consider the Am-243 isotope with a 5.44 MeV decay energy, used in NMR and smoke detectors.

A commentator notes [that] the 2.6 MeV threshold level for transmutation of nickel to copper via proton capture (you may or may not want to label that as fusion).

Which -- you guessed it -- is about half the expected mass energy of the Am-243 decay. The idea being that *hydrogen in a QED cavity* (Casimir cavity) might be expected to be resonant for coupling to a photon of the threshold value, when there is an enhanced probability field at a harmonic of that value.

Coincidental?

Admittedly not a great fit, as catalysts go - but is it close enough for government contracting ?

Maybe you do not want a 'great fit' - since it comes with the risk of a chain reaction?

---------

Commentator 20 wrote:

I just read the following, and I think it ties in nicely with your [Commentator 3] comments about using a beta emitter...

"When working with protium, an explicit source of electrons must be supplied as the reaction starts with four protons and no neutron but ends with two of each resulting in a net absorption of two electrons for each 4He created."

Man, things are really beginning to converge... Its like several groups are nearing successful results at the same time. Or, the Rossi demo has caused these other groups [to] feel like its time to make their presence known.

-----------

In reply to Commentator 3 message of Mon, 7 Feb 2011:

Admittedly not a great fit, as catalysts go ...

Commentator 5 wrote:

One problem is that each alpha particle would at most produce two photons, and each photon at most 1 fusion reaction, so your power output is limited to at most two fusion reactions per alpha particle. That means that since a fusion reaction and an alpha particle each represent about 5 MeV, that about 1/3 of your output power has to be supplied by alpha particles, and that's assuming the best possible conditions, which in itself is extremely unlikely.

---------

Commentator 3 wrote:

You misunderstand. The purpose of the radioactive "seed" emitter in this scenario is NOT to produce power, per se.

It is to alter the QM probability field. The result is many orders of magnitude enhancement.

QM fusion is all about probability enhancement. It sounds illogical -- like magic, but there are positive experiments for this, yet the underlying logic is difficult to present. I am trying to write up a decent description of it, but for now the Wiki entry for "propagator" is the best thing which can be offered.

Take another look at Rusi's sonofusion experiment - where with ultrasound alone there can be a few neutrons per second, or with the isotope seed and no ultrasound there can be a few per second, but with both together there are thousands. The Letts/Cravens effect with laser irradiation may or may not be in this same category.

The bottom line is that there is a tiny stimulus, and usually it is photonic, but the result is massive.

----------

Commentator 3 wrote:

Two more details worth mentioning about "seeding" in LENR, such as with a radioactive isotope, only this time it is not an exotic isotope ...

The secret could be thorium. The second confirming detail for this is Rossi's transmuted copper. As it turns out, the transmutation of thorium-to-copper, specifically, has been oft reported in the history of LENR going back 15 years.

In a situation where there is nickel seeded with thorium, the copper that shows up may come from the thorium. That would be the Rossi/Cincinnati/Celani connection.

Obviously Rossi would not want to admit that thorium was present in the first place, if it turns out to be the secret catalyst. And it would explain a number of other troubling details in this unfolding mystery, as well.

Recently, a commentator mentioned the Cincinnati group, from the mid-1990s, where thorium was transmuted rapidly to other elements, and a major end-product was said to be copper with a similar claim of *visual levels* of copper from transmutation (as was Rossi's claim of visual levels):

www.lightparty.com/Energy/TransmutationNuclearWaste.html

Also worth mentioning - Lewis Larsen is now on the thorium LENR bandwagon,

www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/thoriumseed-lenr-networkfigslattice-energydec-7-2010-6177745

Lots of coincidences here. Not the least of which is this - from Celani no less!

docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:1qybllxuy_QJ:lss.fnal.gov/archive/other/lnf-98-019-p.pdf+cincinnati+thorium+transmutation+copper&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESg-RjXcYVaL4W9ZX1mRFvc1FBFIQgVjc5tf6iC5ORVOxMhMZUcTUYLTNEda7GrLRhw0SI5RwQf3cQKrbj6lKlRwp3ZX_7rVq4H_ocmxKiDpKKkcNWE79gCvwg2zKrCRku7yC53e&sig=AHIEtbTGJvvnMSbJh0nwaiomIUqo5STNTQ

Had Rossi been using thorium as his secret catalyst, he would have surely known of Celani's connection via this article above. In fact, it may have been his inspiration for trying it.

Years later, at the demo in Bologna, [Rossi] would have guessed that Celani probably suspected thorium was present, and had his meter calibrated to find it! Thus, Rossi stopped only Celani, when at least two other meters were looking for other kinds of emissions that he did not care about!

A previous stab at verbalizing probability enhancement was:

www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg39553.html

The purpose of the radioactive "seed" emitter in this scenario is NOT to produce power, per se. It is to alter the QM probability field.

You may think these comments are a bit premature, but:

There are some heavy hitters in DoE and the major Universities behind thorium as a replacement for uranium. But that is for use in an expensive breeding cycle which has most of the negatives of any fission scheme.

Imagine how surprised they will be to find that there is (could be) a low energy version. A cheap version, suitable for home use, perhaps. One that has been known for 15 years or more. It would most likely is based on a new form of accelerated decay, instead of fission.

This speculation presumes what almost no one has sensed so far -- that the Rossi device is actually based on thorium, probably in the form of thoria -- with nano-nickel being the spillover catalyst that deposits hydrogen into the dielectric, which is the thoria.

Wow! The Cincinnati group came so close: if they had only changed a few details, and known about the advantages of "nano" then, this could have happened at least a decade ago.

Don't laugh too hard just yet. Of all the speculation which is out there now about Rossi, this one is starting to sound better and better; and it can explain the very robust nature of the device. Nickel-hydrogen, in contrast, has been fickle in the past.

Only a fool would be trying to produce 100 units of any device, at such an untested state, unless it was extraordinarily robust, well beyond expectations of prior nickel-based LENR; and Rossi is no fool.

Thorium is about four times more abundant than uranium, and is about as common as lead.

The USA is well positioned with massive supplies. Australia and India have large deposits as well.

One problem, as Commentator 5 hinted in another post, is that the energy extractable by "accelerated decay" (if that turns out to be the Modus Operandi) is probably only a fraction of what it would be available in Th-fission.

Even so, the prospect is most exciting. Let's go prospecting, so to speak!

-------------

Commentator 21 wrote:

The company behind the thorium + uranium cycle is Lightbridge. The improvements this fuel provides are very significant and solve many of the major problems with present reactors with just a change in the fuel rods. Read about the technology on their website.

www.ltbridge.com/technologyservices/fueltechnology/designs

At the risk of encouraging further speculation, here are some more details about the Cincinnati Group results. The device used zirconium electrodes and high current AC electrolysis resulting in both high temperature (280 F) and significant pressure ( 4 atm.) inside the bolted together mostly metal device.

Extensive analysis work was done in several labs mostly by ICP/MS. The starting solution was thorium nitrate. The thorium was apparently transformed into titanium and copper with 10 times as much titanium as copper. The isotopic ratios of both elements were very far from normal.

Much information is available in IE Vol. 3 No. 13 & No. 14 double issue 1997.

------------

Commentator 5 wrote:

Here's a nice little clean (no radioisotopes) fission reaction for you, using H clusters:

Th232 + 8H (cluster) => Ti50 + Os190 + 183.9 MeV

A fission reaction is essentially guaranteed given that for heavy metals such as Th, U etc. it doesn't take much to cause them to fission. When you add a neutron to U235, you are only adding 6.5 MeV which is apparently enough, yet when you add 8 protons to Th232 you are adding 35.7 MeV, which should be more than enough.

Third Millenium -- Top -- Home -- What's New