(This is a translation of my blog in Swedish)
As a professor in physics I have been asked to comment on what “Ny Teknik” (a weekly newspaper on technology in Sweden) called “Rossi’s energy catalyst” and it will be a pleasure to do so because I will have to revisit my skills from the time when I was doing research on various nuclear reactions. It will be a fairly detailed review.
First I would like to mention that Professor Sven Kullander – who is chairman of The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences’ Energy committee, since the beginning of the year – is also a professor emeritus in my research group at Uppsala University. He sits in the room next to mine so Rossi’s experiment has come up every time we have met in recent weeks. I always try to be as critical as possible, but at the same time it is exciting to be pretty close to the center of something that is either a hoax or something new and exciting. There are scientists who criticize Sven for associating himself with the experiment, but also many that think he is doing the right thing. As scientists we have a responsibility to investigate whether a reported phenomenon is real or a hoax. Sven’s involvement is quite natural since he is chairman of the KVA’s energy committee, but if anyone thinks that he has simply accepted the results then they are completely wrong. By attending and examining the experiment, he also has the opportunity to confirm or reject. As a researcher, you want an explanation for what is happening and right now there appears to be no suitable explanation with the knowledge we currently have in chemistry and physics. This means that it may be entirely new physics that must be explained or it may be a scam that must be explained and exposed.
The biggest problem is that there is a “black box” in the center of the experimental setup. Sven and I talked about the experiment before he left for Italy and today we again discussed what they saw and recorded. You can read the trip report here. To calculate how much energy it takes to heat water to boiling point and how much energy it takes to evaporate the water required only elementary thermodynamics. I think the amount of produced energy is OK. It is time to take a closer look at the black box.
When Rossi was in Uppsala some weeks ago he brought with him two samples. One was the nickel powder as it looks like before it is placed in the black box and the second was a sample which reportedly had been used as fuel in the energy catalyst for two and a half months. Energy effect during this time was stated and the total amount of energy can be calculated. Researchers at Angstrom have examined what the spent fuel contained in addition to nickel and it was concluded that there was 10% copper and the isotope ratios of copper was about the same as in natural copper, 70/30. Known chemical reactions cannot explain the amount of energy measured. A nuclear reaction can explain the amount of energy, but the knowledge we have today says that this reaction cannot take place. It’s time to revisit my nuclear physics skills.
Nickel is an element with 28 protons and the number of protons determines the charge that the nucleus has, +28. Hydrogen has the charge +1 and the Coulomb force makes the two positively charged particles to repel each other. This means that in a test where there are hydrogen and nickel and in which hydrogen is moving with thermal energy it cannot be a nuclear reaction. The energy measured can be explained by a nuclear reaction, but the knowledge we have about nuclear reactions does not allow for the nuclear reactions that can explain the amount of energy. These facts are of course something that Sven also know and he thinks that the isotope composition must be studied more. Those of you who have followed my struggle for Peak Oil know that I am not afraid of a challenge, but then I am a nuclear physicist, I must be critical and try to explain everything that shows that it cannot be true.
The fact that Nickel has 28 protons makes the nucleus extra stable and we have many nickel isotopes that are stable, they do not undergo radioactive decay. The stable nickel isotopes are Ni-58 (68.1%), Ni-60 (26.2%), Ni-61 (1.1%), Ni-62 (3.6%), Ni-64 (0.9%). In the trip report which is available on the “Ny Teknik” website, we read that in the sample that Rossi brought with him to Uppsala there are 10% copper by isotopic distribution 70/30. Copper has two stable isotopes, Cu-63 and Cu-65, and these two isotopes can be formed from nickel if the hydrogen nucleus, which has the mass unit 1, merged with the Ni-62 and Ni-64. If the original sample is natural nickel, then Ni-62 and Ni-64 together are 4.5% of the sample, and if all these nickel isotopes are converted to copper, you get only 4.5% copper and not 10% as measured. If all the Ni-62 and Ni-64 is converted to copper the isotope ratio would be 80/20 which is close to the natural ratio 70/30.
To make stable Cu-63 from stable Ni-58 the following must happen. Ni-58 picks up a hydrogen nucleus to form Cu-59 which decays to Ni-59, which in turn picks up a hydrogen nucleus to form Cu-60 which decays to Ni-60, which in turn picks up a hydrogen nucleus to form Cu 61 which decays to Ni-61, which in turn picks up a hydrogen nucleus to form Cu-62 which decays to Ni-62, which in turn picks up a hydrogen nucleus to form Cu-63 which is stable. If this reaction chain would be true even though none of the reactions that I mention can be made with the knowledge we have today, then the isotopic distribution Cu-63/Cu-65 must be greater than 80/20, probably closer to 99/01. Right now, my conclusion is that the isotope distribution measured and the fact that the sample had 10% copper indicate that it is contaminated with natural copper. Of course I am willing to change my opinion if you can prove me wrong.
If the reactions discussed here will happen in reality, there will be products that are highly radioactive and these radioactive products will decay and emits heat. These are the similar process that gives rise to the excess heat in a nuclear reactor and the meltdown of the Japanese nuclear reactors, but the difference is that it only takes some hour before “the new reactor” cools. The fact that there is lead around the heart of the plant may indicate that we have radioactive decay that have deposit heat in the lead so it will be hot and this heat warms the water. If I could mount up Rossi’s energy catalyst in the basement of the Ångstrom Laboratory, mount the appropriate detectors so that one can directly measure the “pulse of the heart” of the plant, then it would be easy to record the gamma-ray energies that the test should produce. The radioactive isotope that can be formed, especially Cu-59, decays by beta plus decay and this decay has always the gamma energy 511 keV, an energy that is easy to detect. So far has the gamma ray has not been detected.
What will be the final comment? The water that passed the heart of the facility has been heated so that the flow is evaporated to steam (Sven was allowed to check the seam) and there are currently no chemical processes that can explain this energy flow if the heart contains the components that Rossi states. He has not told the whole secret. The nuclear reactions that in principle can explain the energy, but physically not possible cannot explain the amount of copper with the isotopic composition measured. If there is a capture of a hydrogen nucleus, which with today’s knowledge is not possible, then, there will be radiation in the form of gamma rays. With known technology it would be easy to detect this radiation.
Let us finally play with the idea that Rossi has found a new way to boil water, how can this affect the future supply of energy? Today we use fossil fuels and uranium to boil water. In a nuclear reactor we get the energy from the motion of the fission fragments when uranium is split and from radioactive decay of fission fragments, the so-called residual effect. What we are discussing here can be compared with the residual effect, that is 10-15 percent of the energy of a nuclear reactor in operation. To get an energy flow of meaning, there must be facilities of a nuclear power plant size and the number must be quite a few.
What shall we do as scientists? Shall we say madness as many do today, or should we try to understand what is happening? I myself have nothing against to reveal a scam, or join in and verify something that no one could imagine. Both extremes belong to that which makes life as a researcher incredibly interesting.
(Comments by anonymous persons will be removed. This important issue should be discussed by persons that stand up for their opinions. Professor Sven Kullander will not answer questions on this blog).
Aleklett's Energy Mix 
Ed Pell
April 11, 2011
I read a paper from SRI that has the necessary science to make me believe something is happening in “cold fusion”.
Cold Fusion at SRI
An 18 Year Retrospective
(and brief Prospective)
Michael McKubre
Director of the Energy Research Center
Principal Staff Scientist in the
Materials Research Laboratory
SRI International, Menlo Park, California.
Presented at the APS meeting, Denver CO, March 5, 2007.
As far as Rossi goes it could be either way (true or false). So we will have to wait until he tells us what he does and we can reproduce or until he fails to deliver a 1MW generator to Greece in October. If we get excuses in October and November then it is a hoax.
pete mason
April 11, 2011
YOur only choice is to wait until Rossi has patented his work, however long that takes, and revealed his secrets. Until then, all bets are off. My instincts tell me it is a hoax. Disappointing, but we have to wait until the balck box is opened.
James Bowery
April 12, 2011
Commentators are making a strategic error when they look at anything but the quantitative flows into and out of this device. Information from Rossi is a distraction. Information from the instrumentation on the flows should be the only focus at this stage.
The flows:
Water mass flow and temperature in.
Water mass flow and temperature out.
Electrical energy flow in.
That’s all that’s relevant at this stage. All else is idle speculation.
Wm. Scott Smith
April 12, 2011
An associate and I have been studying the possibility that small cavities, like those in the crystal lattice inside Nickel alert the rate at which the contents of those cavities pass through time-space, based on imposing Lorentz invariance on the space inside the cavities. In other words, larger wavelengths are physically blue-shifted from our perspective and they are expanded along their time axis. In other words, things happen a lot faster in there. Patent 7,379,286 does not specifically cite this effect, but this effect would explain why the electron orbitals are altered in atoms that inhabit these cavities. Likewise, this could explain the release of heat—the supposed fusion products may in fact be fraudulent—simply a side show since everyone assumes this must be nuclear. Instead, perhaps this is a Zero-point energy phenomenon.
I discuss a yet different approach for producing a mechanical force from the Quantum Vacuum on my website. An upcoming paper describes an Virtual Photon Diode that produces an net force as well as a Quantum Radiometer.
Synthesis
April 12, 2011
Hello!
First of all I must say that I have no ideea if Rossi’s Ecat is real or it’s a scam. But I want to offer some food to think:
1) Look closer at Millikan’s experiment. Why the measured values for the electron’s charge have differed for each experiment? It’s only A) the measurement errors inherent to every experiment? Or it’s B) the value of the charge it’s not constant at all and it can vary in an small interval? Or is A) + B) (more probably)? The so called demonstation of quantic stuff it not a demonstration at all! It postulated! Just because this MODEL of quantum world has proved itself to be exactly in a lot of experiments we’ve investigated so far, it does NOT mean it is 100% accurate. As an engineer I want to emphasis the difference between the MODEL and the OBJECT being modeled. I think that the author of this article know it very well, too.
2) Look closer at the ORANUR experiment of Wilhelm Reich. A small quantity of radioactive material is inserted into an orgon accumulator(mainly a box made by alternating layers of organic(wood) and anorganic material(a metal) – some say that the materials must a one dia- and the other para-magnetic). (I’ve played with some orgone generators and I know from my own experience that it is real. Not “pseudoscience”!) As a result the amount of radioactivity detected by a Geiger counter is increased many times(depending on the orgone’s accumulator’s construction). And the explanation is a sad one for nuclear physicists: The atom does not contain any energy in it. It just looks like it contains it in most of the known experiments. But in this case we can clearly see that the atom draws energy from another place! Although the initial intention of the experiment was totally different, Reich rediscovered what Tesla did and publicly stated: That all the energy in the Universe has a single source: the so-called Ether (in an acception different from that used in Michelson-Morley experiment.(Tesla conceived a dynamical Ether, not a static one.))
My personal opinion is that the discrepancy between observed phenomena and the established science can be explained by errors and (too many hypothesis) in the known atomic/quantum model.
James Bowery
April 12, 2011
A couple of questions:
How was the electrical energy flow into the device measured? How were the meter’s readings validated?
How was the water mass flow out of the device (in the form of dry steam apparently) measured? If it was inferred by the water flow in, then was it obvious from the set up of the device that there was no other path for the water to leave the device except as steam?
Dr D R Jones
April 12, 2011
I am a retired University experimental physicist. A number of observations came to my attention after reading the report of Essen and Kullander.
First (please correct me if I am wrong).
Both persons are theoretical in background and not current hands on experimental physicists. This could, I suspect, leave Essen and Kullander open to wonder more about the process of what is happening then simply concentrating on proving that the experiment is not a hoax. After all, this is the only point of examining a ‘black box’ experiment.
Second (looking now at the experiment).
Reading the report, it suggests (or states) that with the water flowing the external 300W heater is switched on. What could possibly be the purpose of this 300W external heater? Neither Essen and Kullander examined this heater carefully enough considering its position. This heater will simply heat the copper container first, then the flowing water and finally the stainless steel reaction chamber to 60 Celsius. This is not hot enough to initiate the ‘cold Fusion’ process if Rossi is to be believed as he has previously stated that the reaction is initiated at a temperature of 450 Celsius plus.
In the report they state “At the end of the horizontal section there is an auxiliary electric heater to initialize the burning and also to act as a safety if the heat evolution should get out of control”. No additional information is given, but this statement strongly indicates that it is this internal heater that initiates and controls the reaction and not the external 300W resistor. But, for this heater to be effective it has to be inside the stainless steel chamber – otherwise it will also simply heat the water. Placing the wires for this heater in their current position appears unusual in that it would seem unnecessarily complicated – a simpler solution would be to route the heater wires up and out via the hydrogen infill pipe. Of course there may be a good scientific reason for their current position – but this question should have been asked.
The report states that the outlet water pipe is black (i.e. opaque) and the exit is positioned in a sink in an adjacent room. Thus the outlet water flow rate can not be monitored by eye during the experiment. This is another observational experimental weakness that should have been addressed by Essen and Kullander. The final observable experimental weakness is there is no real-time water flow monitor – this should also have been addressed.
Now if this is simply a hoax then it would have been relatively simple to carry out given the observations above. Instead of an internal heater, substitute a water flow valve (the wires are in the correct place). Let the external 300W heater heat the initial water flow up to 60 Celsius – then get peoples attention by stating that they should watch the computer as the reaction is initializing – then simply close the flow valve so that the water flow is greatly reduced – the insulated device and the 300W external resistor will do the rest. Thus the question to be asked – did either Essen or Kullander monitor the water flow during this transition from flowing water to steam generation?
Finally, the experiment was run for almost 5 hours, converting a total of 32 litres of water to steam. Where was the experiment conducted? Was it in a poorly vented room? If so then the room should have been dripping with 32 litres of water. As an experiment, put on a 3kW and a 1.5kW ring on a cook and boil water for a few hours, the kitchen will be totally dripping with water. No observation was made of the amount of steam generated or the condition of the room. A simple comparison with a 3kW kettle might convince Essen and Kullander that the steam generation was correct.
One final point. It is stated that the experiment is shielded with lead, but there appears one exception – directly above the stainless container at the hydrogen inlet. Did either Essen or Kullander examine or enquire whether this was plugged with Lead?
Tom Andersen
April 12, 2011
Is the water flowing next to the stainless chamber, or is the copper fixed tightly to the stainless chamber, with the stainless chamber having a hole in the centre to let water through? If the heater is heating up the chamber, and the chamber heats the water, then you would have to keep the heater on. The outside wall of the copper chamber could be 400C if the copper is clamped onto the stainless chamber.
This also makes sense from the way the temperature of the water rises with time for the first few minutes. If the heater was heating up water directly, then the outgoing temp would be almost a step function to a delta T for 300W with the water flow. Instead we see a slow rise, which means some object is absorbing heat.
Dr D R Jones
April 16, 2011
On reflection, my statement that simply ‘reducing the water flow would be sufficient’ is not correct. This is because a simple calculation shows that the heat capacity of the device dominates that of the flowing water. Analysis of the graph in the report reveals three gradients of temperature rise. The first, as a lower bound, can be attributed to the 300W resister. The second, from 60 to 80 Celsius requires a minimum of 700W input. The last, from 80 to 97 Celsius requires a minimum of 1100W. Thus, there is clearly an additional power source.
There is though, one test that would have been very telling – vent the hydrogen. If the power source is due to some hydrogen/nickel interaction venting should stop this dead.
Jed Rothwell
April 27, 2011
You wrote: “Finally, the experiment was run for almost 5 hours, converting a total of 32 litres of water to steam. Where was the experiment conducted? Was it in a poorly vented room? If so then the room should have been dripping with 32 litres of water.”
The steam tube goes into a sink. The end of the tube is covered with layers of plastic to keep the room from turning into a sauna. The steam condenses and the hot water runs down the drain.
This is what several people who observed the Jan. 14 test told me.
James Bowery
April 27, 2011
If its liquid water going down the drain then that leaves 4kW of vaporization power to be radiated somewhere. Where was all that thermal power dumped?
jabowery
April 27, 2011
To get an idea of the dimensions of the thermal power dumping problem, we can use an areal power similar to desert sun on summer solstice at noon of around 1kW/m^2 and, say, a 4cm diameter drain pipe dumping that 4kW:
4cm*pi;4kW;1kW/m^2?m
([{4 * (centi*meter)} * pi]^-1 * [4 * {kilo*watt}]) * ([1 * {kilo*watt}] / [meter^…])^-1 ?
= 31.830989 m
That’s a long length of pipe if we’re comparable to areal insolation.
Jed Rothwell
April 28, 2011
For some reason I cannot respond to James Bowery, but anyway most of the thermal power was dissipated in the sink drainpipe. I expect that pipe was filled with steam. I did not mean that all of the steam condensed before it went down the pipe. That seems unlikely.
This may be a good way to flush out a drain!
No doubt a lot of the heat radiated into the room. It is a big room, as you see in the video. But very little steam did. A large home furnace is around 24 kW which is bigger than this, so releasing all of the heat would not make the room intolerably hot. It would merely prevent the thermostat from turning on the main building heater.
It is not hard to confine most steam to one small room or sink, as you see in a health-club sauna, for example.
James Bowery
April 28, 2011
It should be easy enough to test the hypothesis that a 4kW condensing steam stream is a good way to clear out a drain. Lots of people have stoves near their kitchen sinks. I know I am not going to put my PVC plumbing at such risk.
Jed Rothwell
April 28, 2011
James Bowery wrote: “I know I am not going to put my PVC plumbing at such risk.”
Well, if you do not wish to put your PVC plumbing at risk, I recommend you refrain from testing a revolutionary nuclear reactor in your house by boiling water and flushing the steam down your drain. You could, perhaps, do a hot water test, which Levi et al. did on Feb. 10. Or you could vent the steam outside. Or perhaps you do not plan to test a nuclear reactor?
In any case, I fail to see what your reluctance to flush steam has to do with this discussion. Are you suggesting the tests did not take place because you have PVC pipes and you would not do the test the way they did? Perhaps they have pipes made of some other material. Perhaps they don’t care if they damage the pipes. Who knows?
James Bowery
April 28, 2011
Sorry to be a one-song-sally about measurement of the flows into and out of Rossi’s black (and quite legitimately so) box — but it really is the only reasonable approach to the actuarial arithmetic. If Rossi’s device is real, it is clear he cannot file a patent disclosure with the United States until he has utterly destroyed the political and industrial pseudo-skeptics arrayed against low energy nuclear reactions. That harsh reality leaves the sane little choice but to obsess about the consistency of the observable flows as reported by witnesses.
Bringing my own reluctance into the picture is merely my way of saying that if I were better equipped to sustain the destruction of my plumbing, I very probably _would_ put a pressure cooker filled with water on my stove, verify the mass flow of the steam represented 4kW vaporization power for water and vent the steam down my drain.
The arithmetic I previously presented is a good starting point: Is it plausible that there is an equivalent surface area of drain pipe dissipating a total of 4kW thermal energy? Is the 1kW/m^2 grossly conservative? I honestly do not have the answers. Do you?
James Bowery
April 28, 2011
Checking the 1kW/m^2 as a reasonably conservative estimate for US schedule 40 2″ PVC pipe (3/8″ wall thickness):
3in/8;0.19W/(m*deltaK);10deltaK?W/m^2
([{3 * inch} / 8]^-1 * [{0.19 * watt} / {meter * deltaK}]) * (10 * deltaK) ? watt / …
= 199.47507 W/m^2
So I was being grossly optimistic if the change the outside of the pipe is maintained at 90C (10deltaK from 100C).
However, there is another possibility I have overlooked. Household plumbing systems have a roof vent. If there is a similar roof vent at the site of the demonstrations then steam may have escaped there See:
http://www.plumbing-basics.com/drainage/sizing-4.bmp
“90deltaK”
Tom Andersen
April 28, 2011
Was the tap running in the sink? That would take away all the heat without a problem. It is really not a problem to dump 4 or 20kw down a drain if there is even a small slow of cold water to take the heat. 4kw is two kettles boiling at the same time. Or the drain could have been metal, as is common in industrial/ commercial / older buildings.
Tom Andersen
April 28, 2011
That’s another place for the steam to go – up the vent, which is usually a 4″ steel or plastic pipe. There is supposed to always be one!
James Bowery
April 28, 2011
It appears that the strongest argument left the skeptic is the thermal coefficient of expansion of the vertical plumbing to the roof vent. (Looking around at the relevant discussions it seems clear that PVC itself, including the glued joints, can withstand 100C).
James Bowery
April 29, 2011
The expansion on PVC is about a quarter of a centimeter over a 10m length. Any opinions on whether this is significant? Looking at my own PVC plumbing, it seems apparent that there is that much flexibility.
10m;50.4e-6m/(m*deltaK)*80deltaK?mm
(10 * meter) * ([{0.0000504 * meter} / {meter * deltaK}] * [80 * deltaK]) ? milli*meter
= 40.32 mm
(10 * meter) * ([{0.0000504 * meter} / {meter * deltaK}] * [80 * deltaK])^-1 ? milli*meter
= 2.4801587E6 mm
Tom Andersen
April 12, 2011
Note that the ratio of Cu isotopes is similar to the ratio of the two major Ni isotopes – and each are 5 nucleons away:
ie assume that: (holding eyes firmly shut on HOW this would happen)
68.07% 58Ni ==> through the E-Cat ==> 63Cu
26.22% 60Ni ==> through the E-Cat ==> 65Cu
The resulting Cu would have an isotope ratio of 72% 63Cu and 28% 65Cu
Since natural Cu is 68.15% 63Cu and 30.85% 65Cu, it is not so far away from natural, but also easily told apart from natural. So it can be both a natural ratio and a un natural one, depending on how close one looks!
Another test they could do is only use 58Ni in a cell, see what isotope ratio comes out.
With gammas – if this effect works, then we are bypassing the coulomb barrier in some way other than just running at it hard. This would be an unknown nuclear mechanism – perhaps the required release of electromagnetic energy takes place not with a single MeV gamma, but rather with a series of soft X-Rays? In other words the geometry, etc is such that the transition occurs in slow increments. The reaction seems to need a lattice, and a lattice of protons (or perhaps the nucleons or both) could act as one entity in the reaction.
Tom Andersen
April 15, 2011
I see now where Rossi says they are using Nickel with more of the heavy isotopes. So it looks like the Ni64 and Ni62 are the ones.
From AR:
“Dear Dr Joseph Fine:
The stainless steel I use is AISI 316 L, which is an alloy of Ni,Cr,Fe: no Cu, so I do not think the wall of the readtor has been “sputtered”. The reason of the slight delta of the isotopes of Ni depends on the treatment we make to the Ni before the reactions, so that at the end of the work substantially 62 and 64 Ni have reacted and the final composition returns close to the normal, not exactly of course.
The treatment of the powders is part of the invention and is confidential so far: the difficult part of it stays in the low operational cost.
Warm Regards,
A.R.”
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=473&cpage=1#comments
Daniel de França
April 13, 2011
Maybe just Ni64 and Ni62 are used. But the final of proportion of copper is 30/70 because in the separation process of Ni, low isotopes were avoided and a large safety measure adopted, since Ni59 is extremely radioactive.
JohnSteb
April 13, 2011
Could Rossi’s nickel-copper story be a hoax and / or a sideshow? Could the real secret be the “consumption” / reduction of hydrogen to a very low ground state forming hydrino’s? Why else this pressurized hydrogen?
Dr. Randell L. Mills, later assisted by a host of scientists (some of them Nobel-laureats) has done groundbraking work by proving that the quantum energy level of atomic hydrogen may be catalytically reduced in several steps, contrary to todays axiomas.
Quote: [ Dr. Randell L. Mills of BlackLight Power, Inc. is the inventor of a new extremely economical, sustainable, primary energy source. It is based on a new chemical process of releasing the latent energy of the hydrogen atom, the BlackLight Process, with the formation of a prior undiscovered form of hydrogen called “hydrino.” ]
See: http://www.blacklightpower.com/index.shtml. You’ll find a incredible amount of information there.
By lowering the groundstate of hydrogen ( possibly even more effective than Mills does ??? ) the excessive heath in Rossi’s may be explained. If true, Rossi might have a problem that Mills has solved: For a patent you have to prove that this catalytic reduction proces is possible at all and hydrinos are for real. Exactly this has now be confirmed.
http://www.blacklightpower.com/recentadvances.shtml
By taking it slowly and very very thoroughly, ( Mills is on this ball for at least 10 years ) Mills should have the better cards. BlackLight Power claims very modest gains at the moment: approx. 1 : 2. This might well be a smokescreen.
James Bowery
April 13, 2011
Reiterating my prior emphasis on the empirical measurements of the flows, I’d like to point out that no one has yet come up with an explanation for the reported measurements that does not involve either:
1) fraud, or
2) an unprecedented technological revolution
Until someone comes up with a plausible scenario for the reported flows that is simply gross experimental error, I think the question can be reduced determining whether fraud is a reasonable suspicion under the circumstances.
Until this morning, I might have considered fraud a reasonable suspicion. However, this morning I viewed for the first time this video, with subtitles, of the University of Bologna demonstration (approximately 10kW):
Repeating: This morning was the first time I viewed the subtitles. The interaction with the university’s professors shows more disinterest than I had thought might be present. That’s one of the reasons I didn’t take this demonstration as seriously as I did the later, lower power (4kW) demonstration for the Swedes — who clearly had nothing to gain by being overly credulous.
This reduces the likelihood of fraud. There is still a residuum of suspicion of fraud (not by the University of Bologna!) allowed by the nationalistic interest that the University of Bologna might have in an Italian being the inventor of such a revolutionary technology. Again, this is not implying in any way that the University of Bologna is party to fraud. It is simply pointing out that the critical skepticism that would be present in a more adversarial situation — and which would be required to uncover deliberate and sophisticated fraud by Rossi — might have been softened during the 10kW demonstration.
All in all, I find it difficult to believe that this is a fraud and therefore am inclined to believe we are truly witness to a technological revolution.
Carlo Ombello
April 14, 2011
Hello there,
One important thing amazes me both here and on Ny Teknik. Chemical analysis has been done over the Copper sample isotopes, but not on the Nickel samples! I therefore find it quite naive to comment on how difficult it would be for natural Nickel to turn into such Copper isotopes. Haven’t you wondered whether the nickel used might be “enriched”?
Surprise surprise, many of us have asked, and Rossi confirmed he uses “enriched” Nickel with more 62 and 64 isotopes than in the natural mix. I find it quite obvious.
And personally, I wouldn’t even focus on this theoretic stuff too much. We have a device which has been checked while providing heat for long hours from a very small “black box”. Nothing contained in such volume (batteries, chemicals, etc.) would provide such heat for such long time, as it’s been confirmed by several sources. Therefore, something is going on there, most likely a yet unknown reaction at nuclear level.
But even if it were microscopic mice running on a wheel, who cares, so long as it works. Rossi himself is not too focused on explaining the theory, he’s interested in results, and so should everybody. Hopefully, by October we will see if this is true or scam. In the latter case, it would be the most amazing scam ever! and a suicidal mission for Rossi and the Italian researchers. Mind you, a Ni-H reaction causing excess heat was studied in Italy’s University of Siena since the early ’90s, by Focardi and Piantelli. Rossi is just delivering an industrial, scalable result based on the optimisation of a macroscopically known reaction.
Regards
Carlo Ombello
Rockyspoon
April 16, 2011
“microscopic mice running on a wheel, who cares…” Well, not to sound too facetious, but you’d have to feed the little buggers, and if that’s more expensive than the energy output, well you get my drift. But while I’m not a nuclear physicist (perhaps a plus?), like many of you, I don’t see any way the energy levels from these experiments can be faked. There’s undoubtedly something highly significant going on, and as long as it can be optimized and controlled so no safely issues are raised and put to use commercially, then this would indeed be a world-class game changer. What exciting times we live in!
James Bowery
April 16, 2011
Alan Fletcher is taking the correct approach to the question of fraud.
ameram1
April 17, 2011
Thank you Professor Kullander. Shame on those who “do not wish to be associated”. There is a requirement that theory shall explain observed results – there is no requirement for observed results to comply with theory. That is the scientific method. All else is religion. To determine that power out exceeds power in requires no more than competent sixth form physics – not a bunch of professors. Don’t waste time on it. How it happens is fundamental to science, the planet and AR – and that does require the academics because you can’t patent a perpetual motion machine and anybody working in the field – including AR – will need to be able to protect their IP. So come on folks – let’s have a working hypothesis – and quickly. Mike Ross
Arash Saeidihaghi
April 18, 2011
I am not a nuclear scientist, but a heat and energy engineer. I have been following this story. I have come accross two independent explanations of the this phenomena by respected nuclear scientist which are published in peer reviewed journals. I would like to hear the reaction of the nuclear scientists on this forum to these theories. First one is put forward by A. Widom of Northeastern University: “Ultra low momentum neutron catalyzed nuclear reactions in metallic hydride system surfaces
are discussed. Weak interaction catalysis initially occurs when neutrons (along with neutrinos) are
produced from the protons which capture “heavy” electrons. Surface electron masses are shifted
upwards by localized condensed matter electromagnetic fields. Condensed matter quantum electrodynamic
processes may also shift the densities of final states allowing an appreciable production
of extremely low momentum neutrons which are thereby efficiently absorbed by nearby nuclei. No
Coulomb barriers exist for the weak interaction neutron production or other resulting catalytic
processes.”
The other explanation is published in Annals of Nuclear Energy 35 (2008) 2059–2072 by John L. Russell Jr. and states that: “An explanation is proposed for the nuclear reactions that occur in the electrolysis class of LENR processes.
The proposed explanation postulates that a proton, or deuteron, dissolved in the hydrogen bearing metal
cathode, absorbs its associated atomic electron to become a short lived state of the neutron with the
resulting neutrino in a singular wave function centered on the neutron. The energy required to initiate
this endothermic reaction is supplied either by the ion current during electrolysis type experiments, or
by ion bombardment in plasma type experiments. It is the energy of this bombardment of the cathode
with heavy ions that creates a coherent polyplasmon field within crystalline metallic grains that are present
in the metal cathode of typical active electrolysis cells. The LENR process consists of a second order
reaction mediated by a coherent plasmon field excited in the conduction electrons in a hydrogen bearing
metal that is in the form of crystalline grains of the order of a few microns in dimension. The coherent
plasmon field in each grain is called a polyplasmon. The metallic grains typically form during solidification
of a metal, the impurities being forced to the grain surfaces. The resulting grain thus forms a resonant
structure that can be filled with a number of coherent plasmons, i.e., a polyplasmon.
Energy from the polyplasmon is coupled to the nucleus via electron capture by hydrogen. Because the
neutrino has mass, its wave function has a second class of solutions. This description can take the form
of a short lived pairing with the neutron that results from electron capture by the hydrogen nucleus. This
short-lived compound particle is named the ‘‘dion” and in the case of deuterium results in a ‘‘dineutron”.
Because the dion and dineutron are formed with essentially thermal kinetic energy, they can capture in
nearby nuclei, either in hydrogen or in the host metal. Most of the resulting exothermic nuclear energy is
absorbed in the plasmon field by a variety of mechanisms that increase the intensity of the plasmon field
and hence the rate of electron capture – that then increases the rate of nuclear reactions. This stochastic
chain-reaction process continues in the grain until it is terminated by the random occurrence of losses
preventing the continuation of sustaining nuclear reactions before the plasmon field decays away, or
until the rise in temperature of the metal grain alters the physical properties of the metallic grain sufficiently
to disrupt the polyplasmon field.
Multiple reported experiments confirm that most of the nuclear energy released is absorbed by the host
metallic cathode and the electrolyte. Calculations from first principles are consistent with many of the
reported quantitative and qualitative phenomena.”
Ott deKreg
April 24, 2011
Quantum physicists make new rules with each discovery. It’s only reactionary science, not to be taken too seriously. If they say it doen’t make sense, it means they haven’t yet made sense of it. Nothing more.
Grinding the numbers I get 2100 Khrs of thermal energy per pound of Nickel. Can anyone check my figures?
Ott deKreg
April 24, 2011
I posted to hastily. I calculate 2100 KWHrs of energy per pound of Nickel, where each reaction chain from a naturally occuring isotope converts to 30% Copper. Any order of magnitude confirmation or disagreement would be appreciated.
Jed Rothwell
April 25, 2011
Those are good comments.
I would like to point out that cold fusion with palladium and heavy water has been reproduced thousands of times in hundreds of major laboratories. The nickel-light water version has also been replicated, although not as widely. So Rossi’s results are not surprising. This is not a so-called “black swan” event.
I invite readers to learn more about this research. I have a large collection of cold fusion papers, including 1,400 copied from peer-reviewed journals at Los Alamos and Aarhus U. I have uploaded more than 1,000 of these papers here:
Jed Rothwell
April 25, 2011
Still didn’t work . . .
I uploaded all those papers to LENR-CANR.org, is what I am trying to say.
Jag bara undrar?
April 28, 2011
I have read many times that Rossi uses nanopartikels because it,s a “surfuce fenomen” Use a fluctuating electromagnetic field + a hard materials to “cut the edges” of the nano nickel partikel (inside the reactor) to create “single nickle atoms”. That can also explain the iron partikels in the rest material. You create single isolated atoms who react with D or H. + heat and presure
Giacinto De Paris
May 2, 2011
It seems that Mr Rossi will give an E-Cat to the Uppsala University for “indipendent use” (see here http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360).
Wonderful piece of news! Then we will know pretty soon if the E-Cat is a “big hoax or new physics”!!!
Hope to hear from you soon Professor Aleklett!
Best regards,
Giacinto De Paris
James Bowery
May 2, 2011
“It seems that Mr Rossi will give an E-Cat to the Uppsala University… pretty soon”
Wrong. See my plea to Mr. Rossi in the thread to which you linked.
The Swedes will receive no units until after the 1MW plant is finished.
James Bowery
May 2, 2011
Correction:
See the following link for my plea to Mr. Rossi:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=473&cpage=4#comment-34200
James Bowery
May 3, 2011
I now see the exchange to which you refer, Mr. De Paris:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=17#comment-36323
If the proper interpretation of this is that Mr. Rossi has decided to do as I implored him, then this is exceedingly good news!
In any event, the video taken of the new test is exactly the kind of video that needed to be done which is very good news in any case!
James Bowery
May 3, 2011
I see now that my original interpretation of Rossi’s schedule was correct:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=18#comment-36370
The Swedes will get their E-CATs after the 1MW plant is done.
Tom Andersen
May 2, 2011
The ‘new’ tests.
I can’t figure out how this is any better than the old tests, with the boiled water problem. If you work out the amount of energy in (about 378 – 65 watts) along with the water flow, you get a temperature rise to almost exactly boiling. And thats what we see. Boiling water.
(313*3600)/(3.8*4180) = 70 deg C rise. Given that the water was room temp to start with, it means that the 313 watt heater (thats 313 watts*3600seconds/hr) divided by the mass of water per hour times the heat capacity.
So just more questions.
On the other hand – they put the output pipe into a bucket, which only had 5.4 kg of the 11.1 kg that went through the e cat. Which would indicate that over half the water was boiled?!
It is certain that the water was not all boiled, or else the temp would have almost certainly been over 100C.
So based on the paper, It looks like they perhaps netted 1300 or so watts?
–Tom
Click to access Report+test+of+E-cat+28+April+2011.pdf
James Bowery
May 2, 2011
Where did you first find and/or hear about this “new test”?
Tom Andersen
May 2, 2011
James – I think you missed the details of the post above by Giacinto De Paris – I went to Rossi’s site and I found http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3166552.ece
–Tom
James Bowery
May 3, 2011
Thanks for clearing up the confusion I had about Mr. De Paris’ claim.
Joshua Cude
May 4, 2011
Neither the demo for Essen and Kullander, nor the later one for Lewan, produce evidence that the output of the ecat is dry steam. In fact, since the temperature of the output is essentially at the boiling point of water, the evidence indicates that liquid water is still present. The one degree above the normal boiling point in Lewan’s demo almost certainly results from a slightly increased boiling point because of slightly elevated pressure inside the conduit.
In the earlier demo, the only indication of dry steam is visual inspection and a measurement of relative humidity. Neither of these is convincing.
In Lewan’s demo, if the water were all converted to steam, with an input flow rate of 63 mL/min, then the output flow rate would be close to 2 L/s, far higher than what is observed at the end of the hose in the video, which appears to be no more than a few bubbles per second (maybe a few tens of mL per second).
Lewan claims that some steam condenses in the hose, but in fact it would have to be most of the steam to account for what is observed at the output of the hose, and that is not plausible. That would mean that about 2 kW of thermal energy would have to be dissipated by that hose, significantly more than from a 1.5 kW electric space heater; at 100C, that is not plausible.
The fact that only about half of the liquid is collected is also unconvincing, since a fine mist is likely escaping from the hose, which would carry away much of the liquid. Consider an ultrasonic humidifier. It’s easy to make liters of water disappear without heating the water at all.
But the question is: Why are all of Rossi’s observers satisfied with this sort of ambiguous evidence or visual inspection, when there are many trivial checks that could be performed to test the claim that the steam is dry:
1. Measure the flow rate of the fluid at the output of the ecat. If it is dry steam it will be about 1700 times higher than if it is liquid. In fact the flow rate can tell you the percentage of water vapour. And it is easy to measure.
2. Reduce the input flow rate and watch the output temperature. If it is pure steam, and you reduce the flow rate, the temperature will climb substantially above the boiling point. For example, a 10% reduction in flow rate should result in about 100C increase in the temperature of the steam (to 200C) (ignoring losses). (Lewan had the right idea observing a slight increase above boiling, but 1 degree is not enough.) In fact, producing steam at say 150C or more would shut a lot of skeptics up.
3. Increase the flow rate and watch the temperature. When the temperature starts to drop, then you can calculate the amount of heat that was going into steam. If the steam were dry, it would take a flow rate about 8 times higher to start to reduce the temperature. I doubt that would be necessary.
4. Monitor the temperature inside the reactor. The temperature of the reactor that produces pure steam would have to be substantially higher than the temperature that brings the water to just below its boiling point (say 99C), because it would have to transfer 8 times more energy to the fluid as it passes through the reactor. Does the reactor temperature change dramatically after boiling is achieved?
5. Monitor and report the relative humidity measurements after the bp is reached, instead of simply telling us they confirm dry steam. Do they actually change? Because if they don’t, they’re not likely they mean anything.
The evidence presented in both of these experiments, taken at face value, only *proves* that the water is heated to its boiling point. At 63 mL/s in Lewan’s demo, heating from 20C to 100C represents about 340 W, about the same as the input power. In the other case, the flow rate is higher, so there is evidence of some heat produced in the reactor, but not more than a few hundred watts, which doesn’t rule out chemical sources.
In both cases, the amount of steam produced is pure speculation, and for all we know represents only a few per cent of the total water flow.
So, there is no evidence for a nuclear effect.
James Bowery
May 5, 2011
Assuming no steam was produced in the Essan and Kullander test, the thermal power output was double the input electrical power:
6.47kg/hour;shm_water;(100-18)deltaK?W
([{6.47 * (kilo*gramm)} / hour] * shm_water) * ([100 – 18] * deltaK) ? watt
= 617.01802 W
Yes, this does not rule out a fraudulent attempt by Rossi using chemical sources but the set up of the device is essentially the same between the different runs. Aren’t you being rather tendentious here?
Joshua Cude
May 5, 2011
” Aren’t you being rather tendentious here?”
Yes. I’m heavily invested in hot fusion, and even though it might take 50 years to bear fruit, I will fight any competing technology, regardless of the benefits to me, my country, my descendants, and the planet. I’m that selfish.
Seriously, I am being appropriately skeptical for an extraordinary claim that contradicts much of what we currently understand about natural science. A claim like this needs more than “we confirmed it was dry steam by visual inspection”.
And I’m just getting started. In these experiments, the claim can be dismissed based on the reported measurements. But in others, like in Levi’s hush-hush 18-hour experiment, that’s not so easy. Even so, I will remain skeptical because independent verification is not possible. And because with claims like Rossi is making, of 10 kW power output, and an energy density a million times higher than chemical, an unambiguous, completely visual demonstration, without the need for expert observers, should be a piece of cake. For example, a standalone ecat, with no input power that heats a 1000L hot tub filled with ice-water to boiling by circulating the water through it would be pretty impressive. Instead Rossi uses self-appointed experts to tell the world what is happening.
It’s as if the Wright Brothers invited the media to a demonstration of heavier-than-air flight, but then insisted (maybe for their own safety) they remain inside a windowless trailer at the airfield, and have an expert in altitude read a remote altimeter and report back to them that yes, that contraption got off the ground. No one would believe them, even if they were telling the truth, because no one could imagine a reason to disallow independent eye witnesses.
James Bowery
May 5, 2011
“I am being appropriately skeptical for an extraordinary claim that contradicts much of what we currently understand about natural science.”
On what basis do you discount the extensive body of work, prior to Rossi’s, that purports to demonstrate anomalous heat usually attributed to “low energy nuclear reactions”?
Joshua Cude
May 8, 2011
“On what basis do you discount the extensive body of work, prior to Rossi’s, that purports to demonstrate anomalous heat usually attributed to “low energy nuclear reactions”?”
The complete lack of compelling evidence. In 1989 P&F claimed appreciable excess heat in a small-scale experiment. Heat is not a subtle concept, the temperatures were not prohibitive, the scale of the experiment was accessible, the claimed energy density monumental, but in more than 20 years, in spite of great effort, and millions of dollars, no one has been able to develop a standalone LENR-powered device that remains indefinitely hotter than its surroundings. (And that includes Rossi, whose device still cannot power itself.)
There are simply no definitive experiments in this field, and no evident progress. There are various different types of experiment, but all of them end up unconvincing and controversial. It’s not unusual for a new field to suffer from difficulty in reproducibility, but I can’t think of another example (esp. in modern science) of a 20-year old field in which not a single experiment can be relied upon to give an expected result. In fact as the experiments get better, the effects seem to get smaller, Rossi notwithstanding.
Moreover, a panel of experts examined the best of the evidence for the DOE in 2004, and 17 of 18 wrote that evidence for nuclear reactions was not conclusive. And since 2004, there has been nothing particularly different or more persuasive published.
Anyway, the advocates are all saying that Rossi’s device is the long-awaited LENR vindication, meaning all previous experiments give inferior evidence. If so, then finding insufficient evidence in Rossi’s demos automatically discounts previous less-compelling evidence.
James Bowery
May 8, 2011
Although I have not yet been able to verify it, my understanding from those in the field is that the palladium work has made one scientifically verifiable discovery:
When a batch of palladium is divided among various researchers performing the same experiment, the results are the same for all researchers:
Clear non-chemical energy or no non-chemical energy.
Tom Andersen
May 5, 2011
There is no way that the water is 100% steam, for reasons mentioned in the other comments here.
The fleeting glimpse in the video of the hose end looks more like a kettle coming to a boil than a 300w element. More than a few tens of mls per second. Thats only my opinion, though. But I agree that’s exactly what is needs to be measured. It isn’t.
The simplest way from point of view would be to plop the hose at the bottom of a 20 liter pail of cold water and measure the final mass and temperature. Throw some insulation on the bucket for good measure.
The hose seemed to be almost whistling invisible steam out the end, which is what one would expect.
A very simple experiment would be to get a kettle that is 2 kw, seal the output into a 3 meter hose and dump the steam into a bucket. That would be a way to tell the heat output from the device to within a thousand watts.
Joshua Cude
May 5, 2011
“The fleeting glimpse in the video of the hose end looks more like a kettle coming to a boil than a 300w element. More than a few tens of mls per second.”
I just plugged in a 1 kW kettle and at full boil, it is at least 10 times as turbulent as the bubbles in that video. And 1 kW into boiling water produces about 1 L/s vapor, under water. So I doubt the gas in that video is more than 100 mL/s. But again, we should not have to guess.
Dr D R Jones
May 5, 2011
I agree. These latest two experiments tell us nothing new. They were poorly performed by a person not really clued up in experimental rigor. Last time I did not bother to ask if all power leads had been measured (i.e. live, neutral and earth) considering that it was too obvious a point – I was wrong.
These latest experiments were just repeats of the original ones – but they were ill conceived and unnecessarily elaborate. The simplest solution would be to take to Rossi the following calibrated items; an electrical power meter (voltage and current), two water flow meters and two temperature probes.
As for the experimental. The obvious and simplest is to connect the hose to the cold water tap, adjust the flow to give a good delta T (say 60 Celsius) and record the following measurements. Water flow rate in and out, water temperature in and out (no steam generation). Measure all electrical leads for current flow and voltage. Job done.
Finally, at a time point determined by the independent observer – vent the hydrogen -though a pressure valve could be installed to guard against this if a scam is in play.
I think we just have to wait until the waters clear to see if this is an elaborate scam or for real. The only data that would satisfy me would stem from experiments conducted by independent experimentalists in their own lab without Rossi present.
James Bowery
May 5, 2011
I want to clarify that I highly value the suggestions for better and easier tests of Rossi’s device. We share that as a priority. However I am operating from two very different perspectives that may come off as contradictory.
Its entirely legitimate to seek various levels of confidence for various purposes and, as reported by others here, demonstrations that Rossi has done are grossly insufficient for executive-level decisions that allocate substantial capital in anticipation of the event that the 1MW plant proves economic.
Moreover, such a high-confidence demonstration is urgent for political reasons as the US election cycle is upon us and the impact of such a technology would clearly be so monumental as to restructure society so radically that the human cost (and possibly even the environmental cost) of the transition could be just as dramatic. (Although private financiers involved in energy and the environment are concerned; theirs is the ordinary concern of private parties.)
The real problem here is for public policy research analysts that are influencing current political platform committees.
Agreed, very few of us are in such a position so the vast majority of us can be satisfied with statements like “The only data that would satisfy me would stem from experiments conducted by independent experimentalists in their own lab without Rossi present.”
I, unfortunately, am a public policy research analyst in a position to influence political platforms. Not that this need concern any of you except insofar as there _are_ important public policy consequences here, if this device is real, and you _will_ be affected by those policies.
For practical business reasons these tests are obviously under Rossi’s control and he is, for equally obvious reasons, very focused on getting his 1MW hot water plant (he has stated that’s what its output will be) running by October. So when people assert that it would be “easy” to do this or that test that would put the whole matter, of whether it will produce cheap hot water or not, to rest to an executive decision certainty, then they are dealing with what my desired product. However, I really do have other pressing matters to deal with and I don’t want to bother with this whole affair at all if I don’t have to. This “have to” is a condition, far less rigorous than that required for an executive decision, that I am addressing when I call “tendentious” the discounting of, not only the minimum 100% gain observed by Essan and Kullander, but the rather extensive body of experimental work over the last 20 years that has reproduced the phenomenon going by the name of low energy nuclear reactions. I cannot put on the airs of an executive when deciding how to allocate my own time and neither should others who would help non-experts like myself. I am running actuarial arithmetic for various levels of decision and seemingly fine distinctions of levels of “skepticism” are important in that arithmetic.
From my policy research analyst’s perspective, I can invest my time mainly because of the likelihood that Rossi’s device is real multiplied by the public impact of this technology. I’ve run across fraudsters involved in extraordinary claims and extraordinary condition impact and the thing that sets Rossi apart is the fact that he’s reproduced this phenomenon to the satisfaction of various expert witnesses that do not have plausible conflicts of interest.
PS: I understand that the vast majority of folks following this story are doing so primarily because they find it more interesting than the assassination of a terrorist icon or royal wedding — and that therefore, from their own recreational perspective, it may be rational to demand an executive-decision level of confidence. But I would ask for a bit of indulgence from those who, like those present, possess greater technical expertize than my own.
Dr D R Jones
May 5, 2011
I think some clarity is required here. If Rossi’s claims are true, then this will be greatest single invention/discovery throughout the history of mankind to date. It will fundamentally change our society.
Thus, what does Rossi want, Fame or fortune? Well if he got his device independently verified he would have both in the shortest possible time. He would be the most famous person on the planet and unlimited money would be thrown at him to develop his devices.
Instead, what is he doing or saying he is doing? He is trying to build a 1 MW plant for a Greek company. Is the guy nuts or what?
What would be the most obvious and rational course of action for someone in his position? Simple, sort out the patent and prove to the world that you have developed a new energy source. Now, surprisingly these two go hand in hand.
What Rossi should do (as an example) is set up a device at a University (apparently this has been done). Then allow academics to inspect the device and conduct whatever tests they wish to provide conclusive proof that the device does deliver. He then holds proven prior art on the device – verified independently. The next step requires a scientific explanation of how the device works, this entails co-operation with the relevant patent office to determine (given the totally novel situation i.e. a possible paradigm shift in the laws of physics) what level of understanding is required to grant the patent. This should be his only goal at present – or at least it would be any sane, rational person’s goal.
Attempting to build a 1MW plant in his present situation is just plain bonkers or he is conducting a lengthy scam.
James Bowery
May 5, 2011
Dr. D R Jones writes: “Thus, what does Rossi want, Fame or fortune? Well if he got his device independently verified he would have both in the shortest possible time.”
Sadly, the original purpose of patent law has been turned on its head: If you publish prior to being granted the patent, you lose your rights. This precise inversion of patent law’s instructive intent wouldn’t be so bad for a hypothetical like Rossi’s were it not for the political noise surrounding “cold fusion” combined with the legal (mainly due to national security issues) noise surrounding nuclear energy patents. If you’re a lowly independent inventor, the international patent fees — in effect, an asset tax that targets the inventor and lets the risk-averse free-ride — alone can break you. But when you add to that the legal and political uncertainties of this situation, “irrational” behavior is understandable. After all, even someone as ensconced and the CEO and Chairman of the Board of Intel found it necessary to title his book on business “Only the Paranoid Survive”.
Rossi’s behavior here is of little comfort to serious analysts who would like to ignore this situation.
Jed Rothwell
May 6, 2011
Rossi is building the 1 MW reactor pursuant to an agreement with the company, Defkalion. The agreement is that he will deliver the reactor, and they will test it extensively. If it passes the tests, they will pay him $140 million for full rights to manufacture the machines in Greece and the Balkans. They will not pay him any more royalties in the future. It is a one-shot deal.
He is anxious to finish the machine and be paid because he has no more money. He had several million dollars from previous inventions, but he has spent it developing the thing, and he has nothing left. It is understandable that this is his first priority at present.
This was reported in the Greek press, and by Defkalion, and by Rossi.
I do not know why they decided to make it a 1 MW reactor. That seems excessively large to me.
Rossi says he is not interested in what scientists think or whether they believe him. He is not trying to persuade them. Actually, he thinks they are a damn nuisance. He is only interested in making and selling machines for money. He says the marketplace will confirm his claims. No one will buy these things unless they work. He has a point. If the machine does not actually, and it is some sort of scam, I suppose he might sell a dozen to gullible people or other researchers. But it has cost him millions of dollars to develop the thing (which is definitely true — I have loads of proof of that), so selling a few would not begin to make back what it has cost. He can only make a profit if the thing actually works.
Dr D R Jones
May 6, 2011
Many thanks Jed – this does make some sense – especially given Rossi’s age. $140 million, for starters, is more than enough to retire graciously on.
Joshua Cude
May 8, 2011
Jed Rothwell says:
“Rossi is building the 1 MW reactor pursuant to an agreement with the company, Defkalion. The agreement is that he will deliver the reactor, and they will test it extensively. If it passes the tests, they will pay him $140 million for full rights to manufacture the machines in Greece and the Balkans. […]
I do not know why they decided to make it a 1 MW reactor. That seems excessively large to me.”
Excessive and suspicious, I would say, if the idea is simply that it should pass tests like spewing out apparent steam, as opposed to actually using it to heat a building. The 1 MW reactor is simply multiple smaller reactors, which have already convinced the Defkalion people. Objections to the device have not been about its reproducibility, but about the ambiguous measurements. Given that, I don’t see how 100 ecats, each producing 10 kW, is any more convincing than 1 ecat producing 10 kW, if the same testing techniques are used. Everything will scale, including mistakes, ambiguity, delusions, and deceptions.
Now, if he used the output energy to power the input, and produced 1 MW without any input, that would be impressive.
“Rossi says he is not interested in what scientists think or whether they believe him. He is not trying to persuade them. Actually, he thinks they are a damn nuisance. ”
That’s not really consistent with the fact that he has worked with Focardi for 2 years, that he has funded Levi, that he has held several demonstrations for Italian and Swedish scientists. He claims the January demonstration was under protest, but there doesn’t seem to be any indication he was forced to demonstrate to the Swedes.
“He is only interested in making and selling machines for money. He says the marketplace will confirm his claims. No one will buy these things unless they work. He has a point. If the machine does not actually, and it is some sort of scam, I suppose he might sell a dozen to gullible people or other researchers. But it has cost him millions of dollars to develop the thing (which is definitely true — I have loads of proof of that), so selling a few would not begin to make back what it has cost. He can only make a profit if the thing actually works.”
But you just said that if the first 1 MW reactor passes tests to the satisfaction of Defkalion, he gets his windfall. And from the Magic of Rossi video, it seems they are pretty easy to satisfy. The 10 kW ecat has already passed tests to the satisfaction of many observers, without actually *working*, in the sense of being useful to, say, heat a hot tub. Instead, the heated water or steam has just been sent down a drain. (Yes, I know they claim they have been heating unnamed factories, yada yada yada.)
Giacinto De Paris
May 6, 2011
Dear Mr Bowery, the following piece of news is probably interesting for you:
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/05/06/nasa-working-on-lenr-replication-and-theory-confirmation/
Best regards,
G.D.P.
Joshua Cude
May 8, 2011
At first blush, interest from NASA does seem to lend the field some legitimacy. That’s until you google NASA and LENR to find that NASA has dabbled in LENR right from the start in 1989. Check out http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/sensors/PhySen/research.htm#newconcepts for reference to papers in 2007 and 2009 (with references to NASA activity in 1989).
The 2007 paper is on experiments in sonoluminescence fusion, a field that has come to nothing. The 2009 paper is a sort of summary of LENR research, indicating, as all summaries of the field do, the distinct lack of progress.
The theory mentioned in your reference is already more than 5 years old, and has been in NASA’s sites since at least 2007 (see http://www.science20.com/david_houle/leading_thinkers_and_scientists_on_energy_dennis_m_bushnell), but their published thinking on it has been extremely elementary. In spite of the time since the theory was published, there has been essentially no recognition among other theoretical physicists that it has merit. This is inconceivable for a theory that would revolutionize physics and save the world. Evidence from the dawn of modern physics to the first introduction of cold fusion suggests that other scientists would be clamoring for a piece of the action if they thought it had even a snowball’s chance of being right.
So, an organization that can go from primitive rockets to walking on the moon in less than a decade, has done nothing with cold fusion in 22 years. The difference being that one is based firmly on science, and the other on delusion.
James Bowery
May 8, 2011
The root delusion is argumentation over experimentation. This is de facto theology: a denial of the Enlightenment.
Those who argue against the production of anomalous heat on theoretic grounds are theologians, not scientists.
Likewise those who obsess over theories of unreproducible phenomena are theologians, not scientists.
That government, which is essentially a huge social laboratory with a lack of experimental controls let alone consent of those being “treated”, would engender theocrats posing as scientists is rather predictable.
Vincenzo Romano
May 9, 2011
The “technical” considerations inside this blog article sound quite relevant to me. Especially the ones about the isotopes.
What I don’t really understand is why there’s been not even a small side box in any science publication.
Rossi’s device is very likely to be a hoax or, at least, a rough oversight by both technicians and physicist (and investors’ scientific consultants).
But I think that the scientific world has an instinctive fear to fiercely fight against this kind of events. A few times in the past what was advertised as an hoax later turned into a science breakthrough.
This would explain why there’s so little coverage among scientific publications.
John Michell
May 10, 2011
Esentially there are 2 completely new inventions as it were in Rossi’s work:
1: The unknown nature of what exactly produces the large excess heat.
This has been discussed in many ways in this blog.
2: Rossi claims that he enriches the natural Nickel (58Ni28=68%, 60Ni28=26%, 61Ni28=1%, 62Ni28=3.6%, 64Ni28=1%) in order to work with 62Ni28 and 64Ni28 – which are the two isotopes required for his reaction.
Up until now such isotopic enrichment has been a very expensive and time-consuming process requiring centrifugal separation techniques – yet he claims that he does this at only a 10% increase in cost over the naturally-occuring isotope mix.
Surely if this were true that such a siscovery of a new isotope-enrichment proces would in itself be a major feat – I wonder why no-one has commented on that.
aleklett
May 11, 2011
A detailed analysis of radioactivity and isotope composition of the Ni sample that was installed in the device and of the sample with the rest products is under way. I think that this will be very interesting.
Dr D R Jones
May 11, 2011
Prof Alekett – would you have any further details of who is conducting this analysis and the possible date of the report being made public?
Regards – D Jones
aleklett
May 12, 2011
The first part is done and the isotope composition will now start. I don’t know when it will be completed.
abilivism
May 14, 2011
Most interesting!
Tom Andersen
May 11, 2011
Perhaps since they are only interested enriching the heavier isotopes, and not isolating a certain one, the process is 10x or 100x easier.
John Michell
May 11, 2011
You may be right – and since nickel is soluble and the density spread is so high, then the use of an simple preparative ultracentrifuge should enrich this isotope at a competitive cost – although quite slow for production purposes – maybe that is why Rossi needs 6 months to have the 300 units ready for Greece?
Simone
May 16, 2011
I believe the whole thing is a hoax, also given the past of Mr. Rossi. He has a degree in engineering he got in Kensington University (notably, a ‘diploma mill’ closed in 2003). He already is infamous for a huge hoax, the ‘Petrol Dragon’ one, where he claimed he could make oil out of waste in the late 70s, in Italy. He got money, he took waste and money for disposing of it from various companies, then simply added random cheap chemicals to it and buried it underground. Many sites have been severely polluted by his actions and are still under cleaning up. I don’t trust this man and don’t think he can have the right scientific background to do what he claims he’s done. Even if cold fusion was possible, he wouldn’t be the one able to realize it.
“Thank you for your comment. As I wrote I like to have full name befor I put out a comment like the one that you do. Can you reffer to some documents that show that you are rught? Kjell”
Hi,
sorry about my mistake… my full name is Simone Sturniolo. About the documents, I know plenty of them but unfortunately they are all written in Italian, starting from the Wikipedia article about the case and Andrea Rossi’s own internet site, where he claims he’s been a victim of a character assassination:
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroldragon
http://ingandrearossi.com/
This site features a full account of the Petrol Dragon case and some related events:
http://www.9online.it/blog_emergenzarifiuti/2010/09/07/i-rifiuti-sparenti/
You can use the automatic translation feature, it’s not perfect but it kinda works.
These are original newspaper articles about the episode:
http://ricerca.repubblica.it/repubblica/archivio/repubblica/1989/07/26/storia-di-rifiuti-tossici-miliardi-supertruffe.html
http://archiviostorico.corriere.it/1996/maggio/26/Petrol_Dragon_finisce_incubo_co_0_96052611014.shtml
http://archiviostorico.corriere.it/1997/marzo/30/Petrol_Dragon_conto_clienti_co_0_97033015515.shtml
Here’s the link to the sentence with which Kensington University was closed:
http://www.hawaii.gov/dcca/areas/ocp/udgi/lawsuits/kensington/
I’d like to point out (I didn’t write it in my post) that Rossi has NOT been condemned by the Italian court for illicit disposal of toxic waste – even though many people protested and considered this sentence to be wrong. He has been condemned for fiscal fraud, though, if I don’t remember bad, and his company has gone bankrupt. His industrial sites are nonetheless polluted and currently under cleaning up.
There is a lot more about Rossi – including something I just discovered, that is, that it looks like he worked for the US Department of Defense claiming he had built a thermoelectric generator able to recover more than 20% of the waste heat from other processes – the prototype he presented worked, but then when the machine was built in series it didn’t work anymore.
Click to access Thermo%282004%29.pdf
Finally, the so called “Journal” Rossi publishes his work in is clearly made up on the spot
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/
And features as an advisor a “prof. George Kelly” from University of New Hampshire who has never existed to begin with:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?page_id=2
(There was a George Kelly in NH, but he was a psychologist, and he died many years ago).
I see you’re from Uppsala’s GES group, so I guess you probably work with professor Kullander and know much more about the eCat than I do… I must say, in all honesty, that I don’t want to express a judgement directly on Rossi’s machine, which I never saw in action; who has can probably speak better than me about it. I have read many reports of people who seems genuinely baffled by Rossi’s eCat’s anomalous energy production. If I have to be scientifically correct, I can’t really express a judgment about it. In this sense, my last comment on the post was probably out of place. I am though very skeptical about this person, and can’t manage to think that he really managed to accomplish such an impressive feat, considering his background.
Best regards,
Simone Sturniolo
Dr D R Jones
May 17, 2011
I had a somewhat odd insight today – my brain works this way – it worries at problems until they are solved.
The argument goes as follows.
The public experiments on Rossi’s e-cat have all involved steam generation. Now, these experiments should be self regulating, in that once the water starts to boil, the temperature remains very close to 100 Celsius until all water is turned to steam. So, operating just above the threshold for steam generation effectively regulates the upper temperature operating conditions of Rossi’s device – the temperature conditions are stable and thermal runaway is constrained.
The opposite is also true. In the public experiments so far it has been concluded that almost all the water was turned to steam. This implies that all heating input to Rossi’s device could have been turned off at this point and the device would have continued to run stably with no power input. What would have happened is that the fraction of steam generation would have fallen to accommodate the reduced thermal (electrical) input.
This implies a number of points.
First. Given that Rossi is an engineer and has been working with these devices for years it is unlikely that he has not thought of this.
Second. The external insulation is not necessary for the device to operate. This is because of the following point.
Third. The external heater is irrelevant. The workings of the device just do not ‘see’ this heater. Turn it off under full load conditions and the device remains at the same temperature – it can not regulate the device under these conditions.
Fourth. The external heater does not initiate the device, 60 Celsius is not hot enough for this – and if the other undocumented experiment on Feb. 10 is to be believed the device runs happily at about 25 Celsius.
So what is this heater for then? In my mind it is to undertake a scam. If you look up the specs of these heaters you will find that they are indeed of 300W output. This though is for an un-cooled heater operating in air. If the device is cooled then 5 times the power (1.5 kW) can be accommodated and I would think that for short time periods the limit is much higher.
My gut feeling is that Rossi is engineering a scam using the external heater to provide the heat input with the external insulation ensuring that the power from the external heater efficiently heats the water. I hope I am wrong!
James Bowery
May 18, 2011
Dr. Jones, please note that the year of copyright is 2007 on the following passages from page 145, of chapter 6 “What Conditions Initiate Cold Fusion?” in “The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction” by Edmund Storms:
6.2.2 AMBIENT GAS
…Specially treated nickel (19-22) produces energy and evidence for nuclear activity when it is exposed to hot H2 gas. However, available information is not sufficient to allow easy replication by other scientists (see Section 4.3.2).
Of the various methods, exposure of specially treated metal powder to ambient gas is the closest to being developed into a practical energy source. (23) In principle, very little energy needs to be supplied to the apparatus to cause energy production, making this source of energy very efficient.
6.2.3 Proton Conductors
A modest voltage applied to a hydrogen-containing material will cause the dissolved hydrogen to move. This process is an example of well-known electromigration, by which a current passing through a material causes an increase in the transport rate of any dissolved ion. When electromigration of hydrogen occurs in a solid, the material is said to be a proton conductor and when this process occurs in palladium, the result is called the Coehn effect.(24)
Julian Brown
May 20, 2011
F&R have explained on several occasion that the heater serves two purposes
i) to initiate the reaction as a preheater.
ii) to allow steady-state control of the temperature. Were the cylinder thermally isolated such that the exothermic reaction was sufficient to keep it at the necessary elevated temperature (250 celsius), there would be no way it could be controlled and thermal runaway would ensue. By designing the reactor so that a few hundred watts extra watts are needed, it can be regulated and shutdown at any time.
Brad lowe
May 20, 2011
Maybe the heater is not a simple resistor but a cathode that shoots electrons into the hydrogen…. Creates heat yes but also electrons that are required for the reaction. This makes the device even more incredible since the reaction can be stop
James Bowery
May 20, 2011
Brad, do you have a cite for experiments in which that has been an apparent requirement?
Brad Lowe
May 20, 2011
I meant to give credit to a guy named Axil on the talk-polywell forum for this idea (but my post was truncated by my iphone).
He goes on to describe that it may be a cathode or cathode like behavior going on inside the tube.
http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?p=57247&sid=53dcc72f4dbbf3773ea0b9297edb8d11
James Bowery
May 18, 2011
Just thinking out loud for a moment:
Might the “degassing” of Ni be accomplished by heating it in pure N2 rather than the very hard vacuum currently used? As I understand it, the problem is the oxide. The nitride decomposes at 400C and is very difficult to form in the first place.
Brad Lowe
May 21, 2011
This is a great idea.. Wish I knew more to recreate the e-cat. Is anyone admitting to trying to get reverse engineer a working copy of the E-cat?
I am so disappointed in the number of “scientists” on physics sites that say.. well, all we can do is wait until October.. I would have thought anyone with a small lab would be thrilled to work on this in their free time.
James Bowery
May 21, 2011
A legitimate scientist wouldn’t be working on replicating Rossi’s device. A legitimate scientist would be working on replicating the finding that the controlling factor in a P&F experiment is the batch of Pd. In other words, they would be working with other scientists to try out a large variety of batches of Pd and, when one of them has excess energy, the rest of them get samples from that same batch. The control is Pd from a batch that has no excess heat.
That’s the frontier of science in the LENR field right now since no other reproducible result has been published.
James Bowery
May 21, 2011
Oh and just to be really rigorous about the experimental protocol, the Pd samples should be double-blind with post hoc validation that the protocol was followed so as to exclude fraud.
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
May 21, 2011
@James Bowery: this kind of work was done long ago. Two considerations:
In a P-F experiment, there is much more involved than the Pd, and some experiments (“co-deposition”) create the Pd matrix in the cell. Some think that oxides are critical. (The P-F effect takes place at the cathode surface, not deep in the material).
However, you are laboring under an illusion, that there is no reproducible and reproduced experiment that demonstrates fusion in P-F class experiments. There is, and it was first performed in the early 1990s.
I’ll describe the protocol: use state of the art to set up the P-F effect. (By the early 1990s, some researchers were seeing the effect in about two-thirds of the cells they ran). Collect and measure helium from the cells, as well as the “excess heat” generated.
Every group, there are over a dozen, that has done this experiment, has reported the same result: the helium and the heat are correlated, at the value known for D -> He-4 fusion. See Storms, “Status of cold fusion (2010),” Naturwissenschaften, for a recent peer-reviewed review of the experimental data. (Double blind measurement of helium was used in the original work on this by Miles et al.)
Note this: that the heat value is right for “d+d -> He4” fusion does not show that the reaction is “d+d.” There are other possibilities, but if the fuel is deuterium and the ash is helium, the total energy released will be the same value. My view is that the lack of radiation is almost conclusive, in fact, that the reaction is not d+d, but others disagree with me on that.
Dr D R Jones
May 18, 2011
James – so why use an external heater at all?
Regards – David
James Bowery
May 18, 2011
I guess I need to reiterate what I’ve said elsewhere and implied here:
Ignore everything Rossi says and pay attention only to the independently quantified flows. He has every incentive to mislead whether the reason is protection of incredibly valuable intellectual property or fraud.
As for the “heater”, I can’t tell from this image how the current flows inside the chamber. I went to the trouble of providing you with a direct quote from Edmund Storms book that should clue you into something Rossi may be hiding other than fraudulent heat.
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
May 21, 2011
Something overlooked in many comments. The claimed reaction is initiated at 450 C. Apparently, if the reactor is not cooled, the temperature rises and so does the heat, and it’s claimed that a number of E-Cats exploded. In one report, I think it was Focardi who thought one of these things was running away, but he was able to shut the reaction down by quenching with nitrogen. With the levels of heat being reported, this thing should be “self-sustaining,” but … controlling it would be the problem. My suspicion is that the input heat is used in combination with cooling to maintain a specific operating temperature. (There is no other apparent function for the “control electronics” to perform.)
If the thing gets too hot, it runs away.
Really, folks, this is down to the wire. There is no limit to human ingenuity in creating fraudulent appearance, but this situation is way beyond “artifact,” i.e., some prosaic explanation. It’s real or it’s a very sophisticated fraud, probably involving collusion. And that’s looking really unlikely. We won’t understand the science of this, i.e., the mechanism, until full information is available (and even with full information, physicists are still chewing on classical Pons and Fleischmann cold fusion, with no cigar. Rossi’s strategy is a reasonable one, even though many friendly to his ideas dislike it. If you can figure out a way to “fake” a 1 MW reactor, well, you are a genius. That reactor will make a splendid demo, and the fact is that it being composed of many smaller reactors means that Rossi’s plans for home energy devices will be right on track. These things heat water, which is directly and immediately usable in many home heating systems.
Let me put it this way: if I needed to replace a home furnace, it might be prudent to put it off for a year or so if I can. They are talking a few thousand dollars, comparable to existing systems, but the fuel cost will be far lower, apparently. Safety will be a big issue.
And if this is a fraud, it is a huge one, there has been nothing like this in the history of “free energy” frauds.
aleklett
May 22, 2011
Dear commentators on this post. I notice that my blog has become a forum for discussing Rossi and it is beyond the purpose of the blog. Therefore, I will close this post for new comments. When the analysis of samples that Rossi gave Sven Kullander is completed, I will write a post about this. Thanks for your interest