Обоснование кварков – это 50 летнее продолжение логики дробления первобытного человека: «Электрон также неисчерпаем, как его предшественники» (об этом писал «великий» Ленин).
Примечание.
1)А бабки в практическое обоснование этой теории вложены очень большие, ну очень большие, начиная от колайдеров до горячих токомаков с магнитным удержанием. Только отдачи от этого нет - мы не можем получить условия, сравнимые с условиями в центре звёзд и это было ясно с самого начала. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpb5Qre2T9M
2)
Альтернативный источник энергии/ ядерная батарея
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX5DA8lgOOo
России не выгодны альтернативные источники энергии.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjGiKO43kxs&feature=related
ECAT 1MW Pictures
Interior view of first generation ECAT 1 MW Plant. Note the racks are built of smaller ECAT kW units in parallell.
http://www.graphics.se/portfolio/e-cat-1mw
http://www.youtube.com/embed/7sZHOQ6P-Rw
http://www.youtube.com/embed/m-8QdVwY98E
http://www.youtube.com/embed/YrTz5Bq6dsA
http://www.youtube.com/embed/f6d2q-YxVvk
коды для вставок...
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/7sZHOQ6P-Rw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/m-8QdVwY98E" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/YrTz5Bq6dsA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/f6d2q-YxVvk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Full Story: http://tinyurl.com/73rq42j
Back to Andrea Rossi Energy Catalyzer Investigation Index Jan. 7, 2012
Andrea Rossi Energy Catalyzer Investigation Index
Investigation and Compilation by Steven B. Krivit (2011-2012) x
(Also accessible via www.rossiportal.com)
Master Timeline
Index of Major New Energy Times Stories and Video Reports
March 29, 2012 Rossi's Steam Trick: Lewan Knew
March 28, 2012 European Financial Editor Says No to Energy Catalyzer
March 27, 2012 Proof of Rossi’s Deception
March 7, 2012 Report #5: Rossi's Profitable Career in Science
Feb. 10, 2012 Report #4: Rossi’s NASA Test Fails to Launch
Jan. 7, 2012 The Failure of Rossi’s Energy Catalyzer, Caught on Video
Oct. 30, 2011 Noble Aspirations Are Not Enough
Aug. 28, 2011 The Scientific Verdict on Rossi's E-Cat
Aug. 7, 2011 Rossi’s Scientific Failure in Seven Steps (Italian)
Rossi’s Scientific Failure in Seven Steps (Swedish)
Rossi’s Scientific Failure in Seven Steps (English)
July 30, 2011 Analysis of June 30, 2011, Ny Teknik Video of Andrea Rossi & His Energy Device
July 30, 2011 Still images from the Analysis of June 30, 2011, Ny Teknik Video
July 30, 2011 Report #3 - New Energy Times #37, July 30, 2011
June 28, 2011 Report #2 - Energy Catalyzer: Scientific Communication and Ethics Issues
June 21, 2011 Report #1- First Report of Interviews With E-Cat Trio
June 19, 2011 Rossi’s Responses to “Preliminary Report”
June 19, 2011 Levi’s Response to “Preliminary Report”
June 16, 2011 Preliminary Report of Interviews with E-Cat Trio Rossi, Focardi and Levi
June 15, 2011 New Energy Times Video Interview of Andrea Rossi (Published Sept. 3, 2011)
Rossi Interview Part 1
Rossi Interview Part 2
Rossi Interview Part 3
Rossi Interview Part 4
Rossi Interview Transcript Excerpts
June 14, 2011 New Energy Times Video Interview of Daniele Passerini (Published Sept. 2, 2011)
Video interview
June 14, 2011 New Energy Times Video Interview of David Bianchini (Published Sept.. 1, 2011)
Video Interview
June 14, 2011 New Energy Times Video Interview of Giuseppe Levi (Published Aug. 17, 2011)
Levi Interview Part 1
Levi Interview Part 2
Levi Interview Part 3
Levi Interview Part 4
Levi Interview Part 5
Levi Interview Transcript Excerpts
June 14, 2011 New Energy Times Video Interview of Sergio Focardi (Published Aug. 25, 2011)
Focardi Interview Part 1
Focardi Interview Part 2
Focardi Interview Part 3
Focardi Interview Transcript Excerpts
June 14, 2011 The Failure of Rossi’s Energy Catalyzer, Caught on Video PART 2/2 (Originally published June 23, 2011)
June 14, 2011 The Failure of Rossi’s Energy Catalyzer, Caught on Video PART 1/2 (Originally published June 20, 2011)
Jump to Index of Older News
Energy Catalyzer - Primary Resources
European Patent Office Records
Image Gallery - Miscellaneous Images
Image Gallery - June 14-15, 2011
Image Gallery - Swedish Guests - March 29, 2011
Rossi's "Journal Of Nuclear Physics" Blog
Rossi Blog Reader
Andrea Rossi's Energy Catalyzer Network
Companies and Individuals Involved in Andrea Rossi's Energy Catalyzer (June 10, 2011)
Thermoelectric Device - Primary Resources
Report by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Petroldragon - Primary Resources
The Magic of Mr. Rossi - Selected Excerpts - May 5, 2011, Rai News 24 -TV, Italian Public Television
Petroldragon Story by Rossi- English
Petroldragon Story by Rossi- Italian
Rossi's Italian Financial and Environmental Criminal History
Excerpts about Andrea Rossi from Book by Luigi Bacialli, "Petrolio Dai Rifiuti"
Andrea Rossi - General References
Leonardo Technologies Inc. (Ohio)
Leonardo Corporation (New Hampshire and Florida)
ECAT 1MW Technical Data
Thermal Output Power 1 MW
Electrical Input Power Peak 200 kW
Electrical input Power Average 167 kW
COP 6
Power Ranges 20 kW-1 MW
Modules 52
Power per Module 20kW
Water Pump brand Various
Water Pump Pressure 4 Bar
Water Pump Capacity 1500 kg/hr
Water Pump Ranges 30-1500 kg/hr
Water Input Temperature 4-85 C
Water Output Temperature 85-120 C
Control Box Brand National Instruments
Controlling Software National Instruments
Operation and Maintenance Cost $1/MWhr
Fuel Cost $1/MWhr
Recharge Cost Included in O&M
Recharge Frequency 2/year
Warranty 2 years
Estimated Lifespan 30 years
Price $1.5M
Dimension 2.4;2.6x6m
All data provided above may be subject to change due to the ECATs rapid development. Technical specifications will continuously be updated when changes are made.
Профессора физики не верят всему, что нельзя объяснить в рамках своременной официальной физики
время фразы 21.30
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AW93Fo2FfCk&feature=related
название ролика: "Холодный синтез открыли ?"
Холодный ядерный синтез - Филимоненко Иван Степанович.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pKNJI0aESA&feature=related
КТО УБИЛ ЭЛЕКТРОМОБИЛЬ ?
http://video.mail.ru/mail/ntl0000/6413/16877.html
Идея нехватки нефти планеты на службе селекции золотого миллиарда.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6B8Muz-A_e4
Итальянцы претендуют на настоящий холодный ядерный синтез
http://www.membrana.ru/particle/16230
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrTz5Bq6dsA
Леонид Попов, 3 июня 2011
Произошёл новый поворот в спорном деле вокруг итальянского реактора холодного ядерного синтеза. Эксперт американского космического агентства выступил в поддержку установки. Однако механизм выработки энергии в ней якобы отличается от того, который выдвигают сами изобретатели.
Установка холодного ядерного синтеза (ХЯС http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/ ) Серджио Фокарди (Sergio Focardi) и Андреа Росси (Andrea A. Rossi) из университета Болоньи (Universit; di Bologna) была продемонстрирована в январе 2011 года. Об этом событии и о самом устройстве мы рассказывали детально http://www.membrana.ru/particle/15643 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sZHOQ6P-Rw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UmoBoAcvxg&feature=related
.
В широких научных кругах известие вызвало здоровый скепсис. Все помнят, сколько в горячей теме холодного синтеза было фальстартов — преждевременных объявлений о победе и грядущем энергетическом счастье человечества.
А недавно ведущий учёный исследовательского центра Лэнгли (NASA Langley Research Center) Дэннис Бушнелл (Dennis Bushnell) выступил в пользу итальянцев. В интервью (MP3-файл) EV World он обратился к теме низкоэнергетических ядерных реакций (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions — LENR) как наиболее интересных и перспективных альтернативных технологий в стадии разработки, способных теоретически решить все наши энергетические и климатические проблемы.
Среди прочего Дэннис говорил о никель-водородном реакторе Росси. Однако Бушнелл категорически отказался считать выявленный процесс холодным ядерным синтезом, как и другие сходные с ним эксперименты в области LENR.
По информации PES Network, Бушнелл полагает, что вместо ХЯС в классическом понимании тут имеет место бета-распад, идущий в соответствии с теорией Видома-Ларсена (Widom Larsen theory).
По ней экзотические электроны, называемые «тяжёлыми поверхностными плазмонными поляритонами», объединяются с протонами, образуя нейтроны с очень низким импульсом. Эти нейтроны могут проникнуть в ядра атомов никеля (или другого металла), чтобы произвести ядерное превращение с выделением энергии.
Сторонники этой теории утверждают, что описанная реакция – вовсе не ядерный синтез, а только лишь захват нейтронов, и она не нарушает законов физики.
Тут нужно заметить, что у разных учёных имеются разночтения в отношении терминологии. Некоторые, скажем, считают холодный ядерный синтез и LENR синонимами без оговорок, другие пытаются разграничить эти понятия.
Возможно, такое разграничение помогает работам по LENR избавиться от негативной коннотации, заработанной ранее опытами по ХЯС, то есть от предубеждения со стороны некоторых учёных, относящихся к подобным экспериментам как к лженауке.
Но суть в любом случае проста — некий механизм позволяет в конечном счёте протону «обойти» кулоновский барьер, чтобы проникнуть в ядро атома и создать другой химический элемент (у Росси со товарищи якобы из никеля получалась медь). А вот как именно это происходит и происходит ли — так и неясно окончательно.
Сам Росси полагает, что теория Видома-Ларсена не объясняет работу его установки. Он заявил, будто теперь понимает, что именно происходит в реакторе. Тонкости, впрочем, опять не раскрывает.
Зато другие исследователи продолжают забрасывать посвящённое машине Росси и Фокарди частное издание Journal of Nuclear Physics новыми версиями работы реактора. Последняя появилась 25 мая нынешнего года.
Росси также напоминает всем скептикам, что внутри его реактора зафиксировано гамма-излучение, что анализ «отработанного» порошка свидетельствуют о трансмутации, и так далее. В общем, итальянец стоит на своём — это ХЯС! И, как и раньше, главным критерием истины Андреа считает… рынок.
С точки зрения официальной науки это несколько еретическая позиция. Но Росси и его соратники полагают, что пока физика во всём разберётся досконально, уйдёт время, которое можно потратить с пользой. Например, продавать чудо-реакторы синтеза клиентам.
Первый завод по выпуску своих установок Росси и компания намерены в ближайшем будущем открыть в Ксанти (Греция), а второй чуть позже в США. И главное — в октябре 2011 года итальянцы намерены явить миру мегаваттную установку холодного ядерного синтеза. Что-то нам подсказывает, даже она не снимет все вопросы и не прекратит споры.
Shortcut URL: http://RossiColdFusion.com
See also News:Rossi Cold Fusion
Also called the Rossi Energy Amplifier or the Rossi Catalyzer.
WARNING
See Cautions about Andrea Rossi and Leonardo Corporation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrTz5Bq6dsA
Overview
Compiled by Sterling D. Allan, with Hank Mills
Pure Energy Systems News
Commenced January 17, 2011
Eng. Andrea A. Rossi and Professor Sergio Focardi of the University of Bologna (one of the oldest universities in the world [1]), have announced to the world that they have a cold fusion device capable of producing more than 10 kilowatts of heat power, while only consuming a fraction of that. On January 14, 2011, they gave the Worlds' first public demonstration of a nickel-hydrogen fusion reactor capable of producing a few kilowatts of thermal energy. At its peak, it is capable of generating 15,000 watts with just 400 watts input required. In a following test the same output was achieved but with only 80 watts of continual input.
They don't always use the term "cold fusion" do describe the process, but often refer to it as an amplifier or catalyzer process.
Focardi states:
"Experimentally, we obtained copper; and we believe that its appearance is due to the fusion of atomic nuclei of nickel and hydrogen, the ingredients that feed our reactor. Since hydrogen and nickel 'weigh' with less, copper must have released a lot of energy, since 'nothing is created or destroyed.' Indeed, the 'Missing Mass' has been transformed into energy, which we have measured: it is in the order of a few kilowatts, two hundred times the energy that was the beginning of the reaction." [2]
They also claim to be going into production, with the first units expected to ship by the second half of October of this year, with mass production commencing by the end of 2011. The first units will be used to build a one megawatt plant in Greece. This one megawatt plant will power a factory that will produce 300,000 ten-kilowatt units a year.
This would become the world's first commercially-ready "cold fusion" device. Licensees are mentioned, with contracts in the USA and in Europe. Mass production should escalate in 2-3 years. Presently, Rossi says they are manufacturing a 1 megawatt plant composed of 125 modules. These modules should begin shipping by the end of October. On January 31st, 2011, Rossi wrote: "The cost to produce the catalyzer is 1 cent per MWh generated; the life expectancy is 20 years; the cost impact is between 1 and 1.5 cents per MWh." [3]
In describing the operation of the device, he said: "To start up the reactor you have just to turn on a switch. The reactor works with enormous margins of safety, so there is no need of a particular skill. Just follow the instructions. The refueling is every 6 months and will be made by our dealers."
According to Rossi, the demonstrated device shown on January 14, 2011 is their industrial product that is claimed to be reliable and safe. In normal operation it would produce 8 units of output for every unit of input. Higher levels of output are possible, but can be dangerous. They will soon start serial production of their modules. Combining the modules in series and parallel arrays it is possible to reach every limit of power. The modules are designed to be connected in series and parallels.
Rossi also says that they have had one reactor that has run continually for two years, providing heat for a factory. It reduced the electric bill by 90%. Also, the reactors can self sustain by turning off the input, but they prefer to have an input. The device will be scheduled for maintenance every six months. You control it "just as you turn on and off your television set."
More than two thousand prototypes were built and destroyed in refining the design and learning how to control and scale up the reaction. [4]
Convinced they have already adequately proven this to the necessary parties, they are not in a hurry to give demonstrations to curious scientists. On January 21, 2011, Rossi wrote: "Yes there will be a Scientist talking about us, no demo anyway: no more demos before the start up of the 1 MW plant."
Patent granted for the energy catalyzer - The Italian energy catalyzer that seems to be based on an unknown nuclear reaction is now patented in Italy.
The examination continues regarding protection in the rest of the world. The Italian Patent Office granted a patent for the energy catalyzer on April 6, 2011, valid until April 9, 2028. (Ny Teknik; May 9, 2011)
Italian Patent 0001387256
0001387256
Quoting from Ny Teknik
The Italian Patent Office, Ufficio Italiano Brevetti e Marchi, granted a patent for the energy catalyzer on April 6, 2011, valid until April 9, 2028.
The inventor is Andrea Rossi, while his wife Maddalena Pascucci is the patent owner.
The final content of the patent is public but not directly available online (details on how to order the content can be found here).
According to Rossi ten of the original 15 claims remain.
The patent office in Italy confirmed that the patent is a normal one which was granted after technical examination of the filed application.
According to other sources the examination of Italian patents, however, is more formal and less technical compared with the international patent review under the PCT procedure.
Starting on 1 July 2008 and onwards (filing date), Italian patent applications are subject to an investigation of patentability (see decree here). The patent application for the energy catalyzer was filed in April 2008.
Application: US2011/0005506A1
US2011/0005506A1
Application: WO/2009/125444
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CARRYING OUT NICKEL AND HYDROGEN EXOTHERMAL REACTIONS; pub. Date: 15.10.2009
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 5000C 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.
In October 2010, the international patent application under PCT received a negative initial assessment in a so-called International Search Report made by the International Searching Authority, and a negative International Preliminary Report on Patentability. The criticisms include the problem that the patent application lacks detail in describing the technology. The examination of the international patent application is now continuing in a regional and national phase, including assesment by the European Patent Office. [5]
Profiles
Cold fusion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
It has been suggested that this article be split into multiple articles. (Discuss) Proposed since April 2012.
This article is about the Fleischmann–Pons claims of nuclear fusion at room temperature. For the original use of the term 'cold fusion', see Muon-catalyzed fusion. For all other definitions, see Cold fusion (disambiguation).
Diagram of an open type calorimeter used at the New Hydrogen Energy Institute in Japan
Cold fusion is a proposed[1] type of nuclear reaction that would occur at relatively low temperatures compared with hot fusion. As a new type of nuclear reaction, it was proposed to explain reports by experimenters of anomalously high energy generation under certain specific laboratory conditions. It has been rejected by the mainstream scientific community because the original experimental results could not be replicated consistently and reliably, and because there is no generally accepted theoretical model of cold fusion.
Cold fusion gained attention after reports in 1989 by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann (then one of the world's leading electrochemists)[2] that their apparatus had produced anomalous heat ("excess heat"), of a magnitude they asserted would defy explanation except in terms of nuclear processes. They further reported measuring small amounts of nuclear reaction byproducts, including neutrons and tritium.[1] The small tabletop experiment involved electrolysis of heavy water on the surface of a palladium (Pd) electrode.[3]
The reported results received wide media attention,[3] and raised hopes of a cheap and abundant source of energy.[4] Many scientists tried to replicate the experiment with the few details available. Hopes fell with the large number of negative replications, the withdrawal of many positive replications, the discovery of flaws and sources of experimental error in the original experiment, and finally the discovery that Fleischmann and Pons had not actually detected nuclear reaction byproducts.[5]
By late 1989, most scientists considered cold fusion claims dead,[6][7] and cold fusion subsequently gained a reputation as pathological science.[8][9] In 1989, a review panel organized by the US Department of Energy (DOE) found that the evidence for the discovery of a new nuclear process was not persuasive enough to start a special program, but was "sympathetic toward modest support" for experiments "within the present funding system." A second DOE review, convened in 2004 to look at new research, reached conclusions similar to the first.[10]
A small community[quantify] of researchers continues to investigate cold fusion,[6][11] now often preferring the designation low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR).[12][13] They have reported that, "under certain extreme conditions", they observe excess heat effects by interaction of hydrogen or deuterium with palladium, nickel or platinum. However, they cannot explain these observations and have not demonstrated reliable replication of the effects.[14] Since cold fusion articles are rarely published in refereed scientific journals, the results do not receive as much scrutiny as more mainstream topics,[15] and many scientists are not even aware that there is ongoing research.[16]
Contents
• 1 History
o 1.1 Before the Fleischmann–Pons experiment
o 1.2 Fleischmann–Pons experiment
; 1.2.1 Events preceding announcement
; 1.2.2 Announcement
; 1.2.3 Response and fallout
o 1.3 Subsequent research programs
; 1.3.1 Closed
; 1.3.2 Ongoing
; 1.3.3 Claims of commercial devices
; 1.3.4 Publications
; 1.3.5 Conferences
o 1.4 Further reviews and funding issues
• 2 Experiments and reported results
o 2.1 Excess heat and energy production
o 2.2 Helium, heavy elements, and neutrons
• 3 Issues
o 3.1 Incompatibilities with conventional fusion
; 3.1.1 Repulsion forces
; 3.1.2 Lack of expected reaction products
; 3.1.3 Theoretical proposals
o 3.2 Setup of experiments
; 3.2.1 Reproducibility
; 3.2.1.1 Loading ratio
; 3.2.2 Misinterpretation of data
; 3.2.3 Calorimetry errors
; 3.2.4 Initial lack of control experiments
• 4 Patents
• 5 In popular culture
• 6 See also
• 7 Notes
• 8 References
• 9 Bibliography
• 10 External links
History
Nuclear fusion occurs at temperatures in the tens of millions of degrees. Speculations that nuclear fusion might happen at temperatures much lower than that seen in normal "hot" fusion nuclear reactions in the context of electrochemical loading of hydrogen in palladium and other similar metals have been suggested from time to time for nearly 100 years. In 1989, a claim by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann (then one of the world's leading electrochemists) that such cold fusion had been observed caused a brief media sensation before other scientists began heavily criticizing their claim as being incorrect after many failed to replicate the excess heat. Since the initial announcement, cold fusion research has continued by a small community of committed researchers convinced that such reactions do happen and hoping to gain wider recognition for their experimental evidence. Claims to have produced marketable devices based on cold fusion have occurred since the 1990s.[citation needed]
Before the Fleischmann–Pons experiment
The ability of palladium to absorb hydrogen was recognized as early as the nineteenth century by Thomas Graham.[17] In the late 1920s, two Austrian born scientists, Friedrich Paneth and Kurt Peters, originally reported the transformation of hydrogen into helium by spontaneous nuclear catalysis when hydrogen was absorbed by finely divided palladium at room temperature. However, the authors later retracted that report, acknowledging that the helium they measured was due to background from the air.[17][18]
In 1927, Swedish scientist J. Tandberg stated that he had fused hydrogen into helium in an electrolytic cell with palladium electrodes.[17] On the basis of his work, he applied for a Swedish patent for "a method to produce helium and useful reaction energy". After deuterium was discovered in 1932, Tandberg continued his experiments with heavy water. Due to Paneth and Peters' retraction, Tandberg's patent application was eventually denied.[17] His application for a patent in 1927 was denied as he could not explain the physical process.[19]
The term "cold fusion" was used as early as 1956 in a New York Times article about Luis W. Alvarez's work on muon-catalyzed fusion.[20] E. Paul Palmer of Brigham Young University also used the term "cold fusion" in 1986 in an investigation of "geo-fusion", the possible existence of fusion in a planetary core.[21]
Fleischmann–Pons experiment
The most famous cold fusion claims were made by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann in 1989. After a brief period of interest by the wider scientific community, their reports were called into question by nuclear physicists. Pons and Fleischmann never retracted their claims, but moved their research program to France after the controversy erupted.
Events preceding announcement
Electrolysis cell schematic
Martin Fleischmann of the University of Southampton and Stanley Pons of the University of Utah hypothesized that the high compression ratio and mobility of deuterium that could be achieved within palladium metal using electrolysis might result in nuclear fusion.[22] To investigate, they conducted electrolysis experiments using a palladium cathode and heavy water within a calorimeter, an insulated vessel designed to measure process heat. Current was applied continuously for many weeks, with the heavy water being renewed at intervals.[22] Some deuterium was thought to be accumulating within the cathode, but most was allowed to bubble out of the cell, joining oxygen produced at the anode.[23] For most of the time, the power input to the cell was equal to the calculated power leaving the cell within measurement accuracy, and the cell temperature was stable at around 30 °C. But then, at some point (in some of the experiments), the temperature rose suddenly to about 50 °C without changes in the input power. These high temperature phases would last for two days or more and would repeat several times in any given experiment once they had occurred. The calculated power leaving the cell was significantly higher than the input power during these high temperature phases. Eventually the high temperature phases would no longer occur within a particular cell.[23]
In 1988, Fleischmann and Pons applied to the United States Department of Energy for funding towards a larger series of experiments. Up to this point they had been funding their experiments using a small device built with $100,000 out-of-pocket.[24] The grant proposal was turned over for peer review, and one of the reviewers was Steven E. Jones of Brigham Young University.[24] Jones had worked for some time on muon-catalyzed fusion, a known method of inducing nuclear fusion without high temperatures, and had written an article on the topic entitled "Cold nuclear fusion" that had been published in Scientific American in July 1987. Fleischmann and Pons and co-workers met with Jones and co-workers on occasion in Utah to share research and techniques. During this time, Fleischmann and Pons described their experiments as generating considerable "excess energy", in the sense that it could not be explained by chemical reactions alone.[23] They felt that such a discovery could bear significant commercial value and would be entitled to patent protection. Jones, however, was measuring neutron flux, which was not of commercial interest.[24] To avoid future problems, the teams appeared to agree to simultaneously publish their results, though their accounts of their March 6 meeting differ.[25]
Announcement
In mid-March 1989, both research teams were ready to publish their findings, and Fleischmann and Jones had agreed to meet at an airport on March 24 to send their papers to Nature via FedEx.[25] Fleischmann and Pons, however, pressured by the University of Utah, which wanted to establish priority on the discovery,[26] broke their apparent agreement, submitting their paper to the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry on March 11, and disclosing their work via a press release [27] and press conference on March 23.[24] Jones, upset, faxed in his paper to Nature after the press conference.[25]
Fleischmann and Pons' announcement drew wide media attention.[28] Cold fusion was proposing the counterintuitive idea that a nuclear reaction could be caused to occur inside a chemically bound crystal structure.[29] But the 1986 discovery of high-temperature superconductivity had made the scientific community more open to revelations of unexpected scientific results that could have huge economic repercussions and that could be replicated reliably even if they had not been predicted by established conjecture.[30] And many scientists were also reminded of the M;ssbauer effect, a process involving nuclear transitions in a solid. Its discovery 30 years earlier had also been unexpected, though it was quickly replicated and explained within the existing physics framework.[29]
The announcement of a new clean source of energy came at a crucial time: adults still remembered the 1973 oil crisis and the problems caused by oil dependence, anthropogenic global warming was starting to become notorious, the anti-nuclear movement was labeling nuclear power plants as dangerous and getting them closed, people had in mind the consequences of strip mining, acid rain, the greenhouse effect, and the Exxon Valdez oil spill, which happened the day after the announcement.[31] In the press conference, Peterson, Fleischmann and Pons, backed by the solidity of their scientific credentials, repeatedly assured the journalists that cold fusion would solve all of these problems, and would provide a limitless inexhaustible source of clean energy, using only seawater as fuel.[32] They said the results had been confirmed dozens of times and they had no doubts about them.[33] In the accompanying press release Fleischmann was quoted saying: "What we have done is to open the door of a new research area, our indications are that the discovery will be relatively easy to make into a usable technology for generating heat and power, but continued work is needed, first, to further understand the science and secondly, to determine its value to energy economics." [27]
Response and fallout
Although the experimental protocol had not been published, physicists in several countries attempted, and failed, to replicate the excess heat phenomenon. The first paper submitted to Nature reproducing excess heat, although it passed peer-review, was rejected because most similar experiments were negative and there were no theories that could explain a positive result;[34] this paper was later accepted for publication by the journal Fusion Technology. Nathan Lewis, professor of Chemistry at the California Institute of Technology, led one of the most ambitious validation efforts, trying many variations on the experiment without success, while CERN physicist Douglas R. O. Morrison said that "essentially all" attempts in Western Europe had failed.[6] Even those reporting success had difficulty reproducing Fleischmann and Pons' results.[35] On April 10, 1989, a group at Texas A&M University published results of excess heat and later that day a group at the Georgia Institute of Technology announced neutron production—the strongest replication announced up to that point due to the detection of neutrons and the reputation of the lab.[36] In 12 April Pons was acclaimed at an ACS meeting.[36] But Georgia Tech retracted their announcement in 13 April, explaining that their neutron detectors gave false positives when exposed to heat.[37] Another attempt at independent replication, headed by Robert Huggins at Stanford University, which also reported early success with a light water control,[38] saved cold fusion almost single-handedly and became the only scientific support for cold fusion in the 26 April US Congress hearings.[39] But, when he finally presented his results, he reported an excess heat of only one celsius degree, a result that could be explained by chemical differences between heavy and light water in the presence of lithium,[notes 1] he had not tried to measure any radiation,[40] and his research was derided by scientists who saw it later.[41] For the next six weeks, competing claims, counterclaims, and suggested explanations kept what was referred to as "cold fusion" or "fusion confusion" in the news.[25][42]
In April 1989, Fleischmann and Pons published a "preliminary note" in the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry.[22] This paper notably showed a gamma peak without its corresponding Compton edge, which indicated they had made a mistake in claiming evidence of fusion byproducts.[43] Fleischmann and Pons replied to this critique,[44] but the only thing left clear was that no gamma ray had been registered and that Fleischmann refused to recognize any mistakes in the data.[45] A much longer paper published a year later went into details of calorimetry but did not include any nuclear measurements.[23]
Nevertheless, Fleischmann and Pons and a number of other researchers who found positive results remained convinced of their findings.[6] The University of Utah asked Congress to provide $25 million to pursue the research, and Pons was scheduled to meet with representatives of President Bush in early May.[6]
On April 30, 1989, cold fusion was declared dead by the New York Times. The Times called it a circus the same day, and the Boston Herald attacked cold fusion the following day.[46]
On May 1, 1989, the American Physical Society held a session on cold fusion in Baltimore, including many reports of experiments that failed to produce evidence of cold fusion. At the end of the session, eight of the nine leading speakers stated that they considered the initial Fleischmann and Pons claim dead with the ninth, Johann Rafelski, abstaining.[6] Steven E. Koonin of Caltech called the Utah report a result of "the incompetence and delusion of Pons and Fleischmann," which was met with a standing ovation.[47] Douglas R. O. Morrison, a physicist representing CERN, was the first to call the episode an example of pathological science.[6][48]
On May 4, due to all this new criticism, the meetings with various representatives from Washington were cancelled.[49]
From May 8 only the A&M tritium results kept cold fusion afloat.[50]
In July and November 1989, Nature published papers critical of cold fusion claims.[51][52] Negative results were also published in several other scientific journals including Science, Physical Review Letters, and Physical Review C (nuclear physics).[notes 2]
In August 1989, in spite of this trend, the state of Utah invested $4.5 million to create the National Cold Fusion Institute.[53]
The United States Department of Energy organized a special panel to review cold fusion theory and research.[54]:39 The panel issued its report in November 1989, concluding that results as of that date did not present convincing evidence that useful sources of energy would result from the phenomena attributed to cold fusion.[54]:36 The panel noted the large number of failures to replicate excess heat and the greater inconsistency of reports of nuclear reaction byproducts expected by established conjecture. Nuclear fusion of the type postulated would be inconsistent with current understanding and, if verified, would require established conjecture, perhaps even theory itself, to be extended in an unexpected way. The panel was against special funding for cold fusion research, but supported modest funding of "focused experiments within the general funding system."[54]:37 Cold fusion supporters continued to argue that the evidence for excess heat was strong, and in September 1990 the National Cold Fusion Institute listed 92 groups of researchers from 10 different countries that had reported corroborating evidence of excess heat. However, no further DOE nor NSF funding resulted from the panel's recommendation.[55] By this point, however, academic consensus had moved decidedly toward labeling cold fusion as a kind of "pathological science".[8][56]
In early May 1990 one of the two A&M researchers, Kevin Wolf, acknowledged the possibility of spiking, but said that the most likely explanation was tritium contamination in the palladium electrodes or simply contamination due to sloppy work.[57] In June 1990 an article in Science by science writer Gary Taubes destroyed the public credibility of the A&M tritium results when it accused its group leader John Bockris and one of his graduate students of spiking the cells with tritium.[58] In October 1990 Wolf finally said that the results were explained by tritium contamination in the rods.[59] An A&M cold fusion review panel found that the tritium evidence was not convincing and that, while they couldn't rule out spiking, contamination and measurements problems were more likely explanations,[60] and Bockris never got support from his faculty to resume his research.
In 30 June 1991 the National Cold Fusion Institute closed after it ran out of funds;[61] it found no excess heat, and its reports of tritium production were met with indifference.[62]
In 1 January 1991, Pons left his tenure, and both he and Fleischmann quietly left the United States.[62][63] In 1992 they resumed research with Toyota Motor Corporation's IMRA lab in France.[62] Fleischmann left for England in 1995, and the contract with Pons was not renewed in 1998 after spending $40 million with no tangible results.[64] The IMRA laboratory was closed in 1998 after spending ;12 million on cold fusion work.[65] Pons has made no public declarations since, and only Fleischmann continues giving talks and publishing papers.[64]
Mostly in the 1990s several books were published that were critical of cold fusion research methods and the conduct of cold fusion researchers.[66] Over the years several books have appeared that defended them.[67]
Subsequent research programs
After 1991, cold fusion research continued in relative obscurity, conducted by groups that had increasing difficulty securing public funding and keeping programs open. Research continues today in a few specific venues, but the wider scientific community has generally marginalized the research being done and researchers have had difficulty publishing in mainstream journals.[6][7][11][16]
Closed
Between 1992 and 1997, Japan's Ministry of International Trade and Industry sponsored a "New Hydrogen Energy (NHE)" program of US$20 million to research cold fusion.[68] Announcing the end of the program in 1997, the director and one-time proponent of cold fusion research Hideo Ikegami stated "We couldn't achieve what was first claimed in terms of cold fusion. (...) We can't find any reason to propose more money for the coming year or for the future."[68]
Also in the 1990s, India stopped its research in cold fusion at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre because of the lack of consensus among mainstream scientists and the US denunciation of the research.[69] Yet, in 2008, the National Institute of Advanced Studies recommended the Indian government to revive this research. Projects were commenced at the Chennai's Indian Institute of Technology, the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre and the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research.[69] However, there is still skepticism among scientists and, for all practical purposes, research is still stopped.[70]
In 2006-2007 the Italian Ministry of Economic Development founded a research program, which claimed to have found excess power up to 500%.[71][72]
Ongoing
Cold fusion apparatus at the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center San Diego (2005)
Small but committed groups of cold fusion researchers have continued to conduct experiments using Fleischmann and Pons electrolysis set-ups in spite of the rejection by the mainstream community.[11][73] Often they prefer to name their field Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) or Chemically Assisted Nuclear Reactions (CANR),[74] also Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reactions (LANR), Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (CMNS) and Lattice Enabled Nuclear Reactions; one of the reasons being to avoid the negative connotations associated with "cold fusion".[73][75] The new names avoid making bold implications, like implying that fusion is happening on them.[76] Proponents see them as a more accurate description of the theories they put forward.[77]
In 1999 the Japan C-F Research Society was established to promote the independent research into cold fusion that continued in Japan.[78] The society holds annual meetings, the 12th meeting took place on December 17–18, 2011 at Kobe University[79] In May 2008 Japanese researcher Yoshiaki Arata (Osaka University) demonstrated an experiment that produced heat when deuterium gas was introduced into a cell containing a mixture of palladium and zirconium oxide.[80] In an August 2009 peer reviewed paper Akira Kitamura (Kobe University) et al. reported about replication of this experiment.[81] Replication of earlier work by Arata had been claimed by McKubre at SRI.[82]
U.S. Navy researchers at the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR) in San Diego, have been studying cold fusion since 1989.[74][83] In 2002, they released a two-volume report, "Thermal and nuclear aspects of the Pd/D2O system," with a plea for funding.[84] This and other published papers prompted the 2004 DOE review.[74] In 2007, the Naval Research Laboratory published a literature review explaining why most researchers have usually been unable to replicate successful LENR experiments, saying that the loading ratio of gas to metal was the most crucial aspect, which can be affected by metal properties, cell configuration, and the experimental protocols.[85]
Darpa, the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, has been "quietly pursuing LENR for some years." and for 2012 plans to continue their collaboration with the Italian Department of Energy to "Establish scalability and scaling parameters in excess heat generation processes"[86][87]
The Italian National agency for new technologies, Energy and sustainable economic development (ENEA) continues basic research in ENEA departments, CNR Laboratories, INFN, Universities and Industrial laboratories in Italy, trying to achieve reliable reproducibility (i.e. getting the phenomena to happen in every cell, and inside a certain frame of time). In 2009 ENEA hosted the 15th cold fusion conference.[71][72]
A grant of $5.5 million given by Sidney Kimmel in February 2012 to the University of Missouri will be used to establish the Sidney Kimmel Institute for Nuclear Renaissance (SKINR). The grant is intended to support research into the interactions of hydrogen with palladium, nickel or platinum at extreme conditions.[14][88][89][90]
Claims of commercial devices
In January 2011 inventor Andrea Rossi together with researcher Sergio Focardi from the University of Bologna claimed to have successfully demonstrated commercially viable cold fusion in a device called an Energy Catalyzer. Other inventors have made similar claims in the past, however commercial devices are not available on the market.
Publications
The ISI identified cold fusion as the scientific topic with the largest number of published papers in 1989, of all scientific disciplines.[91] The number of papers sharply declined after 1990 because of two simultaneous phenomena:[91] scientists abandoning the field and journal editors declining to review new papers, and cold fusion fell off the ISI charts.[91][92] The publication in mainstream journals has continued to decline but has not entirely stopped; this has been interpreted variously as the work of aging proponents who refuse to abandon a dying field[who?], or as the normal publication rate in a small field that has found its natural niche.[92][notes 3] Researchers who got negative results abandoned the field, while others kept publishing.[93] A 1993 paper in Physics Letters A was the last paper published by Fleischmann, and "one of the last reports to be formally challenged on technical grounds by a cold fusion skeptic".[94]
The decline of publications in cold fusion has been described as a "failed information epidemics".[95] The sudden surge of supporters until roughly 50% of scientists support the theory, followed by a decline until there is only a very small number of supporters, has been described as a characteristic of pathological science.[96][notes 4] The lack of a shared set of unifying concepts and techniques has prevented the creation of a dense network of collaboration in the field; researchers perform efforts in their own and in disparate directions, making the transition to "normal" science more difficult.[97]
Cold fusion reports continued to be published in a small cluster of specialized journals like Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry and Il Nuovo Cimento. Some papers also appeared in Journal of Physical Chemistry, Physics Letters A, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, and a number of Japanese and Russian journals of physics, chemistry, and engineering.[92] Since 2005, Naturwissenschaften has published cold fusion papers; in 2009, the journal named a cold fusion researcher to its editorial board.
The Nobel Laureate Julian Schwinger declared himself a supporter of cold fusion in the fall of 1989, after much of the response to the initial reports had turned negative. He tried to publish his theoretical paper "Cold Fusion: A Hypothesis" in Physical Review Letters, but the peer reviewers rejected it so harshly that he felt deeply insulted, and he resigned from the American Physical Society (publisher of PRL) in protest.[98]
The Journal of Fusion Technology (FT) established a permanent feature in 1990 for cold fusion papers, publishing over a dozen papers per year and giving a mainstream outlet for cold fusion researchers. When editor-in-chief George H. Miley retired in 2001, the journal stopped accepting new cold fusion papers.[92] This has been cited as an example of the importance of sympathetic influential individuals to the publication of cold fusion papers in certain journals.[92]
In the 1990s, the groups that continued to research cold fusion and their supporters established periodicals such as Fusion Facts, Cold Fusion Magazine, Infinite Energy Magazine and New Energy Times to cover developments in cold fusion and other radical claims in energy production that were being ignored in other venues. In 2007 they established their own peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science.[99] The internet has also become a major means of communication and self-publication for CF researchers, allowing for revival of the research.[100]
Conferences
Cold fusion researchers were for many years unable to get papers accepted at scientific meetings, prompting the creation of their own conferences. The first International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF) was held in 1990, and has met every 12 to 18 months since. Attendees offered no criticism to papers and presentations for fear of giving ammunition to external critics;[101] thus allowing the proliferation of crackpots and hampering the conduct of serious science.[102] Critics and skeptics stopped attending these conferences, with the notable exception of Douglas Morrison,[103] who died in 2001. With the founding[104] in 2004 of the International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (ISCMNS), the conference was renamed the International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (the reasons are explained in the "ongoing" section).[73][75][105] Cold fusion research is often referenced by proponents as "low-energy nuclear reactions", or LENR,[106] but according to sociologist Bart Simon the "cold fusion" label continues to serve a social function in creating a collective identity for the field.[73]
Since 2006, the American Physical Society (APS) has included cold fusion sessions at their semiannual meetings, clarifying that this does not imply a softening of skepticism.[107][108] Since 2007, the American Chemical Society (ACS) meetings also include "invited symposium(s)" on cold fusion.[109] An ACS program chair said that without a proper forum the matter would never be discussed and, "with the world facing an energy crisis, it is worth exploring all possibilities."[108]
On 22–25 March 2009, the American Chemical Society meeting included a four-day symposium in conjunction with the 20th anniversary of the announcement of cold fusion. Researchers working at the U.S. Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR) reported detection of energetic neutrons using a heavy water electrolysis set-up and a CR-39 detector,[12][110] a result previously published in Die Naturwissenschaften.[111] The authors claim that these neutrons are indicative of nuclear reactions;[112] without quantitative analysis of the number, energy, and timing of the neutrons and exclusion of other potential sources, this interpretation is unlikely to find acceptance by the wider scientific community.[111][113]
Further reviews and funding issues
Around 1998 the University of Utah had already dropped its research after spending over $1 million, and in the summer of 1997 Japan cut off research and closed its own lab after spending $20 million.[114]
Cold fusion researchers themselves acknowledge that the flaws in the original announcement still cause their field to be marginalized and to suffer a chronic lack of funding[106], and no possibility of getting published.[115] University researchers are unwilling to investigate cold fusion because they would be ridiculed by their colleagues and their professional careers would be at risk.[116]In 1994, David Goodstein, a professor of physics at Caltech, advocated for increased attention from mainstream researchers and described cold fusion as:
a pariah field, cast out by the scientific establishment. Between cold fusion and respectable science there is virtually no communication at all. Cold fusion papers are almost never published in refereed scientific journals, with the result that those works don't receive the normal critical scrutiny that science requires. On the other hand, because the Cold-Fusioners see themselves as a community under siege, there is little internal criticism. Experiments and theories tend to be accepted at face value, for fear of providing even more fuel for external critics, if anyone outside the group was bothering to listen. In these circumstances, crackpots flourish, making matters worse for those who believe that there is serious science going on here.[29]
In August 2003 the U.S. energy secretary Abraham ordered the DOE to organize a second review of the field.[117] This was thanks to an April 2003 letter sent by MIT's Peter L. Hagelstein,[118]:3 and the publication of many new papers, including the Italian ENEA and other researchers in the 2003 International Cold Fusion Conference,[72] and a two-volume book by U.S. SPAWAR in 2002.[74] Cold fusion researchers were asked to present a review document of all the evidence since the 1989 review. The report was released in 2004. The reviewers were "split approximately evenly" on whether the experiments had produced energy in the form of heat, but "most reviewers, even those who accepted the evidence for excess power production, 'stated that the effects are not repeatable, the magnitude of the effect has not increased in over a decade of work, and that many of the reported experiments were not well documented.'".[117][119] In summary, reviewers found that cold fusion evidence was still not convincing 15 years later, and they didn't recommend a federal research program.[117][119] They did recommend individual well-thought studies, and specific areas where research could resolve the controversies in the field.[117][119] They summarized its conclusions thus:
While significant progress has been made in the sophistication of calorimeters since the review of this subject in 1989, the conclusions reached by the reviewers today are similar to those found in the 1989 review.
The current reviewers identified a number of basic science research areas that could be helpful in resolving some of the controversies in the field, two of which were: 1) material science aspects of deuterated metals using modern characterization techniques, and 2) the study of particles reportedly emitted from deuterated foils using state-of-the-art apparatus and methods. The reviewers believed that this field would benefit from the peer-review processes associated with proposal submission to agencies and paper submission to archival journals.
— Report of the Review of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, US Department of Energy, December 2004[120]
Cold fusion researchers placed a "rosier spin"[119] on the report, noting that they were finally being treated like normal scientists, and that the report had increased interest in the field and caused "a huge upswing in interest in funding cold fusion research."[119]
In a 2009 BBC article on a American Chemical Society's meeting on cold fusion, particle physicist Frank Close was quoted stating that the problems that plagued the original cold fusion announcement are still happening (as of 2009): results from studies are still not being independently verified and inexplicable phenomena encountered are being labelled as "cold fusion" even if they are not, in order to attract the attention of journalists.[106]
A small number of old and new researchers have remained interested in investigating cold fusion.[11][73] In 2007, one such researcher, the nuclear physicist and engineering professor Jean-Paul Biberian, surveyed the previous 15 years of cold fusion research and concluded that: "nuclear reactions not predicted by current theories occur in solids, during electrolysis, gas loading and gas discharge [experiments]".[121]
Experiments and reported results
A cold fusion experiment usually includes:
• a metal, such as palladium or nickel, in bulk, thin films or powder;
• deuterium and/or hydrogen, in the form of water, gas or plasma; and
• an excitation in the form of electricity, magnetism, temperature, pressure, laser beam(s), or of acoustic waves.[122]
Electrolysis cells can be either open cell or closed cell. In open cell systems, the electrolysis products, which are gaseous, are allowed to leave the cell. In closed cell experiments, the products are captured, for example by catalytically recombining the products in a separate part of the experimental system. These experiments generally strive for a steady state condition, with the electrolyte being replaced periodically. There are also "heat after death" experiments, where the evolution of heat is monitored after the electric current is turned off.
The most basic setup of a cold fusion cell consists of two electrodes submerged in a solution containing palladium and heavy water. The electrodes are then connected to a power source to transmit electricity from one electrode to the other through the solution.[110] Even when anomalous heat is reported, it can take weeks for it to begin to appear - this is known as the "loading time," the time required to saturate the palladium electrode with hydrogen (see "Loading ratio" section).
The Fleischmann and Pons early findings regarding helium, neutron radiation and tritium were never replicated satisfactorily, and its levels were too low for the claimed heat production and inconsistent with each other.[123] Neutron radiation has been reported in cold fusion experiments at very low levels using different kinds of detectors, but levels were too low, close to background, and found too infrequently to provide useful information about possible nuclear processes.[124]
Excess heat and energy production
An excess heat observation is based on an energy balance. Various sources of energy input and output are continuously measured. Under normal conditions, the energy input can be matched to the energy output to within experimental error. In experiments such as those run by Fleischmann and Pons, a cell operating steadily at one temperature transitions to operating at a higher temperature with no increase in applied current.[23] If higher temperatures were real, and not experimental artifact, the energy balance would show an unaccounted term. In the Fleischmann and Pons experiments, the rate of inferred excess heat generation was in the range of 10-20% of total input, though this could not be reliably replicated by most researchers.[120]:3 Researcher Nathan Lewis discovered that the excess heat in Fleischmann and Pons's original paper was not measured, but estimated from measurements that didn't have any excess heat.[125]
Unable to produce excess heat or neutrons, and with positive experiments being plagued by errors and giving disparate results, most researchers declared that heat production was not a real effect and ceased working on the experiments.[126]
In 1993, after the initial discrediting, Fleischmann reported "heat-after-death" experiments: where excess heat was measured after the electric current supplied to the electrolytic cell was turned off.[127] This type of report also became part of subsequent cold fusion claims.[128]
Helium, heavy elements, and neutrons
"Triple tracks" in a CR-39 plastic radiation detector claimed as evidence for neutron emission from palladium deuteride.
Known instances of nuclear reactions, aside from producing energy, also produce nucleons and particles on readily observable ballistic trajectories. In support of their claim that nuclear reactions took place in their electrolytic cells, Fleischmann and Pons reported a neutron flux of 4,000 neutrons per second, as well as detections of tritium. The classical branching ratio for previously known fusion reactions that produce tritium would predict, with 1 watt of power, the production of 1012 neutrons per second, levels that would have been fatal to the researchers.[129] In 2009, Mosier-Boss et al. reported what they called the first scientific report of highly energetic neutrons, using CR-39 plastic radiation detectors,[83] but the claims cannot be validated without a quantitative analysis of neutrons.[111][113]
Several medium and heavy elements like calcium, titanium, chromium, manganese, iron, cobalt, copper and zinc have been reported as detected by several researchers, like Tadahiko Mizuno or George Miley. The report presented to the DOE in 2004 indicated that deuterium-loaded foils could be used to detect fusion reaction products and, although the reviewers found the evidence presented to them as inconclusive, they indicated that those experiments did not use state of the art techniques.[120]:3,4,5
In response to skepticism about the lack of nuclear products, cold fusion researchers have tried to capture and measure nuclear products correlated with excess heat.[77][130] Considerable attention has been given to measuring 4He production.[13] However, the reported levels are very near to background, so contamination by trace amounts of helium normally present in the air cannot be ruled out. In the report presented to the DOE in 2004, the reviewers' opinion was divided on the evidence for 4He; with the most negative reviews concluding that although the amounts detected were above background levels, they were very close to them and therefore could be caused by contamination from air.[120]:3,4
One of the main criticisms of cold fusion was that deuteron-deuteron fusion into helium was expected to result in the production of gamma rays—which were not observed and were not observed in subsequent cold fusion experiments.[35][131] Cold fusion researchers have since claimed to find X-rays, helium, neutrons[132] and even nuclear transmutations.[133] Some of them even claim to have found them using only light water and nickel cathodes.[132] The 2004 DOE panel expressed concerns about the poor quality of the theoretical framework cold fusion proponents presented to account for the lack of gamma rays.[120]:3,4
Issues
Incompatibilities with conventional fusion
There are many reasons conventional fusion is an unlikely explanation for the experimental results described above.[134]
Repulsion forces
Because nuclei are all positively charged, they strongly repel one another.[35] Normally, in the absence of a catalyst such as a muon, very high kinetic energies are required to overcome this repulsion.[135] Extrapolating from known fusion rates, the rate for uncatalyzed fusion at room-temperature energy would be 50 orders of magnitude lower than needed to account for the reported excess heat.[136]
In muon-catalyzed fusion there are more fusions because the presence of the muon causes deuterium nuclei to be 207 times closer than in ordinary deuterium gas.[137] But deuterium nuclei inside a palladium lattice are further apart than in deuterium gas, and there should be fewer fusion reactions, not more.[138]
Paneth and Peters in the 1920s already knew that palladium can absorb up to 900 times its own volume of hydrogen gas, storing it at several thousands of times the atmospheric pressure.[139] This led them to believe that they could increase the nuclear fusion rate by simply loading palladium rods with hydrogen gas.[139] Tandberg then tried the same experiment but used electrolysis to make palladium absorb more deuterium and force the deuterium further together inside the rods, thus anticipating the main elements of Fleischmann and Pons' experiment.[139] They all hoped that pairs of hydrogen nuclei would fuse together to form helium nuclei, which at the time were very needed in Germany to fill zeppelins, but no evidence of helium or of increased fusion rate was ever found.[139]
This was also the belief of geologist Palmer, who convinced Steve Jones that the helium-3 occurring naturally in Earth came from the fusion of deuterium inside catalysts like palladium.[140] This led Jones to independently make the same experimental setup as Fleischmann and Pons (a palladium cathode submerged in heavy water, absorbing deuterium via electrolysis).[141] Fleischmann and Pons had the same incorrect belief,[142] but they calculated the pressure to be of 1027 atmospheres, when CF experiments only achieve a ratio of one to one, which only has between 10,000 and 20,000 atmospheres.[143] Huizenga says they had misinterpreted the Nernst equation, leading them to believe that there was enough pressure to bring deuterons so close to each other that there would be spontaneous fusions.[144]
Lack of expected reaction products
Conventional deuteron fusion is a two-step process,[134] in which an unstable high energy intermediary is formed:
D + D ; 4He * + 24 MeV
Experiments have observed only three decay pathways for this excited-state nucleus, with the branching ratio showing the probability that any given intermediate follows a particular pathway.[134] The products formed via these decay pathways are:
4He* ; n + 3He + 3.3 MeV (ratio=50%)
4He* ; p + 3H + 4.0 MeV (ratio=50%)
4He* ; 4He + ; + 24 MeV (ratio=10;6)
Only about one in one million of the intermediaries decay along the third pathway, making its products comparatively rare when compared to the other paths.[35] This result is consistent with the predictions of the Bohr model.[145] If one watt ( 1 eV = 1.602 x 10;19 joule) of nuclear power were produced from deuteron fusion consistent with known branching ratios, the resulting neutron and tritium (3H) production would be easily measured.[35][146] Some researchers reported detecting 4He but without the expected neutron or tritium production; such a result would require branching ratios strongly favouring the third pathway, with the actual rates of the first two pathways lower by at least five orders of magnitude than observations from other experiments, directly contradicting both theoretically predicted and observed branching probabilities.[134] Those reports of 4He production did not include detection of gamma rays, which would require the third pathway to have been changed somehow so that gamma rays are no longer emitted.[134]
The known rate of the decay process together with the inter-atomic spacing in a metallic crystal makes heat transfer of the 24 MeV excess energy into the host metal lattice prior to the intermediary's decay inexplicable in terms of conventional understandings of momentum and energy transfer,[147] and even then we would see measurable levels of radiations.[148] Also, experiments indicate that the ratios of deuterium fusion remain constant at different energies.[149] In general, pressure and chemical environment only cause small changes to fusion ratios.[149] An early explanation invoked the Oppenheimer–Phillips process at low energies, but its magnitude was too small to explain the altered ratios.[150]
Theoretical proposals
The initial cold fusion explanation was motivated by the high excess heat reported and by the insistence of the initial reviewer, Stephen E. Jones, that nuclear fusion might rationalize the data.[citation needed]
Researchers started proposing alternative explanations for Fleischmann and Pons' results even before various other labs reported null results.[151] Many years after the 1989 experiment, cold fusion researchers still haven't agreed on a single theoretical explanation or on a single experimental method that can produce replicable results [152] and continue to offer new proposals, which also fail to convince mainstream scientists.[77]
Hydrogen and its isotopes can be absorbed in certain solids, including palladium hydride, at high densities. This creates a high partial pressure, reducing the average separation of hydrogen isotopes, but nowhere near enough to create the fusion rates claimed in the original experiment.[138] It was proposed that a higher density of hydrogen inside the palladium and a lower potential barrier[clarification needed] could raise the possibility of fusion at lower temperatures than expected from a simple application of Coulomb's law. Electron screening of the positive hydrogen nuclei by the negative electrons in the palladium lattice was suggested to the 2004 DOE commission,[153] but the panel found the theoretical explanations (Charge Element 2) to be the weakest part of cold fusion claims.[154]
Skeptics have called cold fusion explanations ad hoc and lacking rigor,[155] and state that they are used by proponents simply to disregard the negative experiments—a symptom of pathological science.[156]
In May 2006, Allan Widom and Lewis Larsen published a theory of a four-step process involving weak force beta decay, as a form of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction .[157] This has become known as Widom-Larsen theory.
Setup of experiments
Reproducibility
In 1989, after Fleischmann and Pons had made their claims, many research groups tried to reproduce the Fleischmann-Pons experiment, without success. A few other research groups however reported successful reproductions of cold fusion during this time. In July 1989 an Indian group of BARC (P. K. Iyengar and M. Srinivasan) and in October 1989 a team from USA (Bockris et al.) reported on creation of tritium. In December 1990 Professor Richard Oriani of Minnesota University reported excess heat.[158][notes 5]
Groups that did report successes found that some of their cells were producing the effect where other cells that were built exactly the same and used the same materials were not producing the effect.[159] Researchers that continued to work on the topic have claimed that over the years many successful replications have been made, but still have problems getting reliable replications.[160] Reproducibility is one of the main principles of the scientific method, and its lack led most physicists to believe that the few positive reports could be attributed to experimental error.[159][161] The DOE 2004 report said among its conclusions and recommendations:
"Ordinarily, new scientific discoveries are claimed to be consistent and reproducible; as a result, if the experiments are not complicated, the discovery can usually be confirmed or disproved in a few months. The claims of cold fusion, however, are unusual in that even the strongest proponents of cold fusion assert that the experiments, for unknown reasons, are not consistent and reproducible at the present time. (...) Internal inconsistencies and lack of predictability and reproducibility remain serious concerns. (...) The Panel recommends that the cold fusion research efforts in the area of heat production focus primarily on confirming or disproving reports of excess heat."[120]
As David Goodstein explains,[29] proponents say that the positive results with excess heat and neutron emission are enough to prove that the phenomenon was real, that negative results didn't count because they could be caused by flaws in the setup, and that you can't prove an idea false by simply having a negative replication. This is a reversal of Karl Popper's falsifiability, which says that you can't prove ideas true, never mind how many times your experiment is successful, and that a single negative experiment can prove your idea wrong.[29] Most scientists follow Popper's idea of falsifiability and discarded cold fusion as soon as they weren't able to replicate the effect in their own laboratory.[29]
Loading ratio
Michael McKubre working on deuterium gas-based cold fusion cell used by SRI International.
Cold fusion researchers (McKubre since 1994,[160] Graham K. Hubler from the Naval Research Laboratory in 2007,[85] or ENEA in 2011[72]) have posited that a cell that was loaded with a deuterium/palladium ratio lower than 100% (or 1:1) would never produce excess heat.[160] Storms added in 1996 that the load ratio has to be maintained during many hours of electrolysis before the effects appear.[160] Since most of the negative replications in 1989-1990 didn't report their ratios, this has been proposed as an explanation for failed replications.[160] This loading ratio is tricky to obtain, and some batches of palladium never reach it because the pressure causes cracks in the palladium, allowing the deuterium to escape.[160] Unfortunately, Fleischmann and Pons never disclosed the deuterium/palladium ratio achieved in their cells,[162] there are no longer any batches of the palladium used by Fleischmann and Pons (because the supplier uses now a different manufacturing process),[160] and researchers still have problems finding batches of palladium that achieve heat production reliably.[160]
Misinterpretation of data
Some research groups initially reported that they had replicated the Fleischmann and Pons results but later retracted their reports and offered an alternative explanation for their original positive results. A group at Georgia Tech found problems with their neutron detector, and Texas A&M discovered bad wiring in their thermometers.[163] These retractions, combined with negative results from some famous laboratories,[6] led most scientists to conclude, as early as 1989, that no positive result should be attributed to cold fusion.[163][164]
Calorimetry errors
The calculation of excess heat in electrochemical cells involves certain assumptions.[165] Errors in these assumptions have been offered as non-nuclear explanations for excess heat.
One assumption made by Fleischmann and Pons is that the efficiency of electrolysis is nearly 100%, meaning nearly all the electricity applied to the cell resulted in electrolysis of water, with negligible resistive heating and substantially all the electrolysis product leaving the cell unchanged.[23] This assumption gives the amount of energy expended converting liquid D2O into gaseous D2 and O2.[166] The efficiency of electrolysis is less than one if hydrogen and oxygen recombine to a significant extent within the calorimeter. Several researchers have described potential mechanisms by which this process could occur and thereby account for excess heat in electrolysis experiments.[167][168][169]
Another assumption is that heat loss from the calorimeter maintains the same relationship with measured temperature as found when calibrating the calorimeter.[23] This assumption ceases to be accurate if the temperature distribution within the cell becomes significantly altered from the condition under which calibration measurements were made.[170] This can happen, for example, if fluid circulation within the cell becomes significantly altered.[171][172] Recombination of hydrogen and oxygen within the calorimeter would also alter the heat distribution and invalidate the calibration.[169][173][174]
John R. Huizenga who co-chaired the DOE 1989 panel stated simply a priori: "Furthermore, if the claimed excess heat exceeds that possible by other conventional processes (chemical, mechanical, etc.), one must conclude that an error has been made in measuring the excess heat."[175]
Initial lack of control experiments
Control experiments are part of the scientific method to prove that the measured effects do not happen by chance, but are direct results of the experiment. One of the points of criticism of Fleischmann and Pons was the lack of control experiments.[29]
Patents
Although details have not surfaced, it appears that the University of Utah forced the 23 March 1989 Fleischmann and Pons announcement to establish priority over the discovery and its patents before the joint publication with Jones.[26] The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) announced on 12 April 1989 that it had applied for its own patents based on theoretical work of one of its researchers, Peter L. Hagelstein, who had been sending papers to journals from the 5th to the 12th of April.[176] On 2 December 1993 the University of Utah licensed all its cold fusion patents to ENECO, a new company created to profit from cold fusion discoveries,[177] and on March 1998 it said that it would no longer defend its patents.[114]
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) now rejects patents claiming cold fusion.[118] Esther Kepplinger, the deputy commissioner of patents in 2004, said that this was done using the same argument as with perpetual motion machines: that they do not work.[118] Patent applications are required to show that the invention is "useful", and this utility is dependent on the invention's ability to function.[178] In general USPTO rejections on the sole grounds of the invention's being "inoperative" are rare, since such rejections need to demonstrate "proof of total incapacity",[178] and cases where those rejections are upheld in a Federal Court are even rarer: nevertheless, in 2000, a rejection of a cold fusion patent was appealed in a Federal Court and it was upheld, in part on the grounds that the inventor was unable to establish the utility of the invention.[178][notes 6]
A U.S. patent might still be granted when given a different name to disassociate it from cold fusion,[179] though this strategy has had little success in the US: the same claims that need to be patented can identify it with cold fusion, and most of these patents cannot avoid mentioning Fleischmann and Pons' research due to legal constraints, thus alerting the patent reviewer that it is a cold-fusion-related patent.[179] David Voss said in 1999 that some patents that closely resemble cold fusion processes, and that use materials used in cold fusion, have been granted by the USPTO.[180] The inventor of three such patents had his applications initially rejected when they were reviewed by experts in nuclear science; but then he rewrote the patents to focus more in the electrochemical parts so they would be reviewed instead by experts in electrochemistry, who approved them.[180][181] When asked about the resemblance to cold fusion, the patent holder said that it used nuclear processes involving "new nuclear physics" unrelated to cold fusion.[180] Melvin Miles was granted in 2004 a patent for a cold fusion device, and in 2007 he described his efforts to remove all instances of "cold fusion" from the patent description to avoid having it rejected outright.[182]
At least one patent related to cold fusion has been granted by the European Patent Office.[183]
A patent only legally prevents others from using or benefiting from one's invention. However, the general public perceives a patent as a stamp of approval, and a holder of three cold fusion patents said the patents were very valuable and had helped in getting investments.[180]
In popular culture
In 'Undead Science', Sociologist Bart Simon references the following examples of cold fusion found in popular culture: Some scientists use cold fusion as a synonym of outrageous claims made with no supporting proof,[184] and courses of ethics in science give it as an example of pathological science.[184] It has appeared as a joke in Murphy Brown and The Simpsons.[184] It was adopted as a product name by software Coldfusion and a brand of protein bars (Cold Fusion Foods).[184] It has also appeared in commercial advertising as a synonym for impossible science, for example a 1995 ad of Pepsi Max.[184] In the 1994 comedy I.Q., Albert Einstein makes up a "cold fusion" science to help his niece start a romantic relationship.
The plot of The Saint, a 1997 action-adventure film, parallels the story of Fleischmann and Pons, but has a very different ending. The science is rejected by scientific skepticism in the US, but USSR scientists manage to build a working generator and start an age of "infinite energy".[184] The film might have affected the public perception of cold fusion, pushing it further into the science fiction realm.[184]
The plot of Chain Reaction, a 1996 science-fiction film, depicts a scientist discovering a new energy source that burns hydrogen and leaves only water as residue. It is never left clear if it's cold fusion or some form of hot fusion
Путин отжог в Германии вы дровами топить хотите ..flv
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZG_WA34SCRk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKAnbh2QfL0
ECAT Technology
http://hydrofusion.com/ecat-technology
ECAT Comparison
http://ecat.com/ecat-technology/ecat-comparison
The Energy Density of the ECAT is enormous only comparable with nuclear reactors. By weight the Energy Density is 200 000 times higher than oil and by volume the ECAT has a factor 2 million in energy density. This means that 1 liter of ECAT fuel represents over 100 tank trucks of oil. 1 Barrel of ECAT fuel represents a filled supertanker with oil. The difference is so staggering that it is hard to comprehend. The impact on transport and geo-economics will be severe. Japan is harvesting Uranium from the ocean at concentrations as low as 5ppb due to the energy content in nuclear reactions. The ECAT offer energy densities at higher levels than those of uranium with abundant non-radiactive materials. The ECAT process is non-radioactive and leaves no residual radioactive materials.
Implied emission factors from electricity and heat generation
Summary tables presenting CO2 emissions per kWh from
electricity and heat generation by country are presented in
Part II. However, these values will vary enormously depending
on the fuel mix of individual countries. Average implied
emission factors by individual product for this sector are
presented below. These values represent the average
grammes of CO2 per kWh of electricity and heat produced in
the OECD member countries between 2007 and 2009. These
figures will reflect any problems that may occur in net calorific values or in input/output efficiencies. Consequently, these
values are given as an approximation and actual values may
vary considerably.
Fuel g CO2/ kWh
Anthracite * 835
Coking coal * 715
Other bituminous coal 830
Sub-bituminous coal 920
Lignite 940
Patent fuel 890
Coke oven coke * 510
BKB/peat briquettes * 500-1100
Gas works gas * 380
Coke oven gas * 390
Blast furnace gas * 2100
Oxygen steel furnace gas * 1900
Natural gas 370
Crude oil * 610
Natural gas liquids * 500
Liquefied petroleum gases * 600
Kerosene * 650
Gas/diesel oil * 650
Fuel oil 620
Petroleum coke * 970
Peat * 560
Industrial waste * 450-1300
Municipal waste (non-renewable)* 450-2500
ECAT Fuel 0
* These fuels represent less than 1% of electricity and heat
output in the OECD. Values will be less reliable and should
be used with caution.
This data (except for the ECAT) is taken from the International Energy Agency’s 2011 annual report, IEA 2011 CO2 Report
Закрытие немецких АЭС
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuIh9P4xzhI
Об этом сообщила журналистам канцлер страны Ангела Меркель. Uploaded by KanalPIK on May 31, 2011
ПУТИН РАСМЕШИЛ НЕМЦЕВ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEKVOQv0IAA
Основанием для этого является решение властей закрыть все АЭС до 2022 года.
ECAT Science
Exothermic Chemical Reactions
http://ecat.com/ecat-technology/ecat-science
Heat is produced in the chemical reaction in which hydrogen and oxygen are combined into water; i.e. the combustion of hydrogen. Such chemical reactions in which heat is produced are called exothermic reactions. The chemical equation for this reaction for one mol of hydrogen is written,
H2+1/2 O2=H2O+286 kJ (1)
That means, when one mol of hydrogen burns in oxygen (or air), 286 kJ of heat is produced.
Another example is,
C+O2=CO2+394 kJ (2)
where one mol of carbon is combusted into carbon dioxide under the production of 394 kJ of heat.
The heat productions of the above chemical equations, (1) and (2), represents one mol of hydrogen and carbon, respectively. In order to compare these chemical reactions with nuclear reactions, it is convenient to recalculate the heat production for one molecule or one atom. For this, let us divide the heat production by the Avogadro constant
NA=6.02;1023mol-1
The results are
H2+1/2 O2=H2O+3.0 eV (3)
C+O2=CO2+4.1 eV (4)
Equation (3) means that the process in which one hydrogen molecule (two hydrogen atoms) and one half oxygen molecule combine into one water molecule generates 3.0 eV energy in the form of heat (i.e. 1.5 eV per hydrogen atom). And Eq. (4) says that, when a carbon atom combines with an oxygen molecule and become a carbon dioxiside molecule, 4.1 eV energy is released.
The use eV is because it is the most common unit of energy used in the atomic and nuclear world. It is the work done on an electron that is accelerated through a potential difference of one volt. Its value is
1 eV = 1.6 x 10-19 J
Moreover, the units of energy, keV and MeV, are often used in the nuclear world; the former is 1,000 times eV and the latter 1,000,000 times eV.
When it comes to arbitrary carbohydrate based fuels the energy production will be of the oreder of 4 eV x #(carbon atoms) +1.5eV x #(hydrogen atoms) per molecule combusted in oxygen.
Exothermic Nuclear Reactions
Nuclei show various types of reactions: For example, one nuclide splits into two or more fragments. This type of reaction is called nuclear fission. Contrarily, two nuclides sometimes combine with each other to form a new nuclide. This type of reaction is called nuclear fusion. There are many other types of reaction processes; they are generally simply called nuclear reactions and contain everything from gamma emission to alpha deacys.
Among these various types of nuclear reactions, there are some types of exothermic reactions which are sometimes called “exoergic” reactions in nuclear physics.
The nucleus of deuterium atom is called deuteron which consists of a proton and a neutron. It is represented by a symbol “d”. The nuclear reaction in which two deuterons bind with each other is an example of nuclear fusion. This exoergic reaction is written has 3 forms,
d+d->32He+n+3.27 MeV (5)
d+d->31T+p+4.03 MeV
d+d->42He+24 MeV
If a neutron is absorbed in the uranium-235 nucleus (23592U), it would split into two fragments of almost equal masses and produce some number of neutrons and energy Q. One of the equations for the processes is
23592U+n->13756Ba + 9736Kr + 2n + Q (6)
This is an example of nuclear fission.
The amount of energy released in this process is about 200 MeV which will be explained in more detail in next section.
The Origin of the Nuclear Energy
Let us take up the d-d fusion reaction shown by the above Eq. (5) as an example. Since the experimental value of the binding energy of deuteron is 2.2246 MeV, the sum of the binding energies of the two deuterons before the reaction (on the left-hand side of Eq.(5)) is 4.449 MeV. On the other hand, the experimental value of the binding energy of (32He) is 7.719 MeV. Therefore the total binding energy after the reaction (on the right-hand side of Eq. (5)) is 3.27 MeV (= 7.719 – 4.449) larger than the binding energy before the reaction (on the left-hand side of Eq. (5)). Thereby the total mass decreases after the reaction and the mass defect corresponding to the above increase of the binding energy occurs. This mass defect is released as heat (or energy) in this exothermic (or exoergic) process.
Looking at the fission of uranium-235 (23592U) shown by Eq. (6), the binding energy per nucleon in nuclei around A = 240 is about 7.5 MeV. On the other hand, that in nuclei around A = 120 is about 8.5 MeV. Accordingly, if a uranium nucleus splits into two fragments with almost equal masses, the binding energy per nucleon would increase by about 1 MeV and the total mass of the fission fragments would decrease by the corresponding amount. This loss of mass (or mass defect) is converted into the heat (or energy) product Q. Since an energy of about 1 MeV per nucleon is released, the total energy Q would be more than 200 MeV.
According to the above discussions, it becomes clear that the origin of nuclear energy is the change of nuclear masses, and it is based on the principle of Einstein’s Mass-Energy Equivalence.
If the total binding energy after the reaction is larger than before, the total sum of the masses of the reaction products becomes smaller than that before the reaction. This decrease in mass is converted into an energy, so that the process would be an exothermic (exoergic) reaction.
The Origin of the Heat in Exothermic Chemical Reaction, Law of Energy Conservation
If hydrogen and carbon burn in oxygen gas, heat or energy is produced but what is the origin of this heat or energy? The principle of the heat production in chemical reaction is just the same as that in the nuclear reaction.
The hydrogen molecule is a bound system of two hydrogen atoms. The mass of a hydrogen molecule is slightly smaller than the sum of the masses of two hydrogen atoms. Converting this difference (= mass defect) into an energy with Einstein’s Mass-Energy Equivalence, we have the binding energy of the hydrogen molecule.
In the process of combustion of hydrogen represented by Eq. (3), the total mass after the reaction is slightly smaller than before, and this decrease in mass is transformed into heat in the exothermic reaction.
Strictly speaking, conservation of mass does not hold in a chemical reaction, though, both in chemical and nuclear reactions, the energy of the total system with converting mass into energy is conserved before and after the reaction.
Huge Amount of Nuclear Energy
Comparing Eq. (3) with (5), and Eq. (4) with (6), we can easily understand that the nuclear reactions yield a huge amount of energy in comparison with ordinary combustion processes.
As explained above, the energy produced from an exothermic chemical reaction like combustion of hydrogen or carbon is about 3 or 4 eV per molecule and atom, respectively. In contrast, d-d fusion reaction shown by Eq. (5) releases at least 3.27 MeV of energy. It is about one million times as large as the ordinary combustion.
In the fission of uranium-235 shown by Eq. (6), more energy than 200 MeV is released. It is about 100 million times as large as an ordinary chemical reaction.
Thus, the nuclear energy released in nuclear fission and fusion is several millions times as large as an ordinary chemical reaction like a combustion process.
ECAT Reactions
The reactions in the ECAT is called Cold Fusion or Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR). Cold Fusion has had some bitter taste to its name the recent decenia due to the lack of repeatability in the experiments and because of the pressure from the Hot Fusion establishment which have been receiving over 50 billion dollars of funds during the last 50 years without any major breakthroughs. Add to that the fact that the theorists have had a hard time explaning the reactions going on in the Cold Fusion processes. The biggest challenge they face is to explain the three miracles of Cold Fusion reactions, namely
1. The Penetration of the Coulomb Barrier
2. The lack of strong Neutron Emissions
3. The lack of strong Gamma Ray Emissions
One theory worth mentioning is the Widom-Larsen theory and the Widom-Larsen Theory of Transmutations. It explains the Cold Fusion process by the Standard Model using weak interactions, without the need of introducing any new physics. This is also the theory NASA recently started to put to the test. When it comes to Cold Fusion mainly two types of processes have been experimented with, namely Palladium-Deuterium (Pd-D) and Nickel-Hydrogen (Ni-H). In the Palladium Deuterium fusues to Helium4 and releases 24 MeV per reaction while in the Ni-H process Nickel transmutes into mainly copper. The ECAT is built around the Ni-H process where Andrea Rossi through an ingenious catalyst has reached reaction rates which corresponds to several kW/kg. One of these processes is,
Ni62+H->Cu63+6.12 MeV.
What is significant with all these proton capture processes is that most are exothermic releasing energy of just short of one unit of the normal nuclear binding energy (7.5-8.5 MeV). The extremely interesting part of the Ni-H process is the severe amount of different transmutations occuring.
More or less all sorts of elements are created in the process, all with different reaction rates where the most frequent reactions surpasses the least frequent ones with a factor million. This is one of the things the Widom-Larsen theory is able to explain.
The Widom-Larsen theory is just one of many theories trying to explain the physics that occur in Low Energy Nuclear Reactions. Before the theorists reach a consensus on how the reactions occur one can only speculate on which theory is true and which is not.
For the interested ECAT.com has calculated the energy release of all known isotopes for both proton capture and deutron capture (coming soon).
Инвесторы и разработчики
Добро пожаловать в Уддехольм
http://hydrofusion.com/
http://hydrofusion.com/contact-hydrofusion
Sweden:
M;ster Samuelsgatan 60, 8th floor
SE-111 21 Stockholm Sweden
Phone +46 (0) 8-50516737
United Kingdom:
79 College Road
Harrow on the Hill
Middlesex
HA1 1BD
Шведская инструментальная сталь с 1668 года
Развитие компании Уддехольм по всему миру началось более 335 лет назад. С тех пор, как впервые в 1668 году в поселке Стэрфорс в шведском графстве Вермланд была выплавлена сталь, поколения опытных ремесленников внесли свой вклад в развитие сегодняшних продуктов, которые экспортируются по всему миру для инструментальной промышленности.
Наш первоначальный успех был основан на доступе к жизненно-важным натуральным ресурсам: железной руде, углю и воде. От маленьких фабрик и кузниц в конце 17-го века, Уддехольм вырос в компанию, производящую сталь, электроэнергию и продукты из древесины.
Сегодня, треть тысячелетия спустя, Уддехольм – ведущий разработчик, производитель и поставщик инструментальных материалов и сопутствующих услуг. Вы можете встретить нас под марками Uddeholm или ASSAB во всем мире, где бы Вы не находились. Сегодня продукция Уддехольма экспортируется по всему миру в более чем 100 стран.
Interaktivt utbildningsmaterial
http://www.graphics.se/portfolio/thermia-kretsar
Delar av ett interaktivt utbildningsmaterial producerat f;r Thermiaskolan. Detta anv;nds f;r att l;ra ;terf;rs;ljare fr;n hela Europa hur en v;rmepump fungerar.
Danfoss Atella
http://www.graphics.se/portfolio/atella
Animation p; Danfoss v;rmepump Atella som ;r en flexibel luft/vattenv;rmepump med direktf;r;ngning. H;r kan du ocks; se en "r;ntgenbild" p; samma v;rmepump. Danfoss anv;nder denna typ av animationer bland annat d; man utbildar sina ;terf;rs;ljare runt om i Europa. Denna typ av 3D-animering och genomsk;rningsbild ;r ett mycket effektivt s;tt att kunna illustrera hur en annars v;ldigt komplex produkt ser ut och fungerar.
http://www.graphics.se/portfolio/abb-vucg
Animation av lastkopplaren VUCG
Del av en l;ngre animation p; en vakumlastkopplare f;r ABB. En last- eller lindingskopplare hanterar omkopplingar med extremt h;ga sp;nningar i transformatorstationer. H;r visas endast det mekaniska f;rloppet som i verkligheten g;r p; bara br;kdelar av en sekund. ABB anv;nder denna 3D-animation f;r att kunna visa en funktion/fl;de som annars hade varit om;jligt att visa p; ett pedagogiskt s;tt.
http://www.graphics.se/portfolio/autoverdi
Issue 37 Table of Contents
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/37/NET370.shtml
Editorial: Introduction to Report #3
Opinion: LENR Needs Constructive Criticism, Not Faith
Letters to the Editor
Report #3: Summary Outline
Report #3: Scientific Analysis of Rossi, Focardi and Levi Claims
Appendix 1: Randall Investigation of Energy
Appendix 2: Ekstr;m Energy Analysis of Rossi Device
Appendix 3: Cirillo Analysis of Steam Exit Velocity of Rossi Experiment
Appendix 4: Anonymous Mechanical Engineer's Analysis of Thermal Dispersion of Hose and Vapor Speed Analysis
Appendix 5: R;nnblom Analysis of Outlet Hose in Rossi Experiment
Appendix 6: de Jong Review of Steam and Flow Fundamentals
Appendix 7: St. Louis Steam Analysis of Rossi Experiment
Appendix 8: Rostron Energy Analysis of Rossi Experiment
Appendix 9: NASA Electrical-Power-Only Steam Analysis
Appendix 10: Randall Observations of Steam Generated by Rossi's Device in the Ny Teknik Video
Appendix 11: Kemmler Analysis of Pump Used In Rossi Experiment
Appendix 12: Krivit Review of Galantini Steam Quality Declaration
Appendix 13: New Energy Times Readers' Investigation of Galantini Measuring Device
Appendix 14: Falavigna Analysis of Galantini's Measurement Devices
Appendix 15: Reinberger Electrical Analysis of Rossi Experiment
Appendix 16: Sines Review of Rossi U.S. Patent Application
Appendix 17: Anonymous Mechanical Engineer's Analysis of Power and Temperature in Jan. 14, 2011, Rossi Experiment
Appendix 18: Krivit Review of Celani ICCF-16 Presentation
Appendix 19: Anonymous Mechanical Engineer's Effective Method to Measure Power and Energy of Steam
Appendix 20: Francesco Celani and Andrea Rossi Discussion of Steam Calorimetry
Appendix 21: Rossi SIMS Measurements
Appendix 22: Brown's Visit to Bologna
Appendix 23: Zanchini - Krivit Meeting
Appendix 24: Rossi Response to First Version of Ekstr;m Energy Analysis
Appendix 25: Andrea Rossi Response to Krivit Preliminary Report
Appendix 26: Levi Response to Krivit Preliminary Report
Appendix 27: Beene Vortex Internet Chat Room Posts
Appendix 28: Krivit Comments on the "Big Heater" in Rossi's Factory
Appendix 29: Volumetric Steam Quality Enthalpy Graphs
Appendix 30: New Energy Times Analysis of Andrea Rossi's Energy Catalyzer Excess-Heat Claims
Appendix 31: Storms Supports Rossi Claim
Appendix 32: Storms Suggests That Rossi Faked It — But Only Once
Appendix 33: Analysis of Ess;n and Kullander's Feb. 23 Comments on Ny Teknik
Appendix 34: Josephson Supports Rossi Claim
Appendix 35: New Energy Times Analysis of Ny Teknik Video of Rossi Device
Appendix 36: Andrea Rossi's Reported Italian Criminal Activity
Appendix 37: Rossi Timeline
Report #3: Scientific Analysis of Rossi, Focardi
and Levi Claims
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/37/3705report3.shtml
Back to Index: Andrea Rossi and His Energy-Catalyzer (E-Cat)
By Steven B. Krivit
[This is the third in a series of reports based on my interviews with Andrea Rossi, creator of a device he calls the Energy Catalyzer, or E-Cat, Sergio Focardi, professor emeritus at the University of Bologna, and Giuseppe Levi, a professor in the university’s Department of Physics, and based on my investigation of their claims of a low-energy nuclear reaction device that produces commercially useful levels of excess heat. The complete list of New Energy Times reports on this topic is here.]
Introduction to Report #3 • Report #3 Summary Outline
Report #3 Table of Contents
Background for New Readers to New Energy Times
Three Technical Concerns
Energy Fundamentals
LENR Excess-Heat Fundamentals
Possible Low Levels of Excess Heat
Steam Basics
Rossi Device
Energy Balance
Steam Quantity
Measuring the Energy Balance
Steam Quality
Rossi's Declaration About Steam Quality Measurement
Levi Measures Everything but Output
Sub-Boiling Experiment
Possible Evidence for Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction
Declining Magnitude of Claims
Self-Sustaining Claim
No Control Experiment for University of Bologna Science Professor
Uppsala University Professor on Rossi Device: "You Have to Embrace This"
Search for Science
Hope for Technology
A Hoax?
Rossi Goes to NASA
Background for New Readers to New Energy Times
I have investigated low-energy nuclear reaction research for 10 years, and I have published in New Energy Times as well as with mainstream publishers. Our news reporting on this subject has been recognized worldwide.
This article is based on two assumptions. One is that low-energy nuclear reaction research, which does not presume or assert a fusion mechanism, is real and is supported by good experimental evidence. The second assumption is that nickel-hydrogen gas LENR research is also supported by good experimental evidence. People who want to learn more about LENR can read my contributions in the Wiley Encyclopedia of Nuclear Energy, Elsevier Encyclopedia of Electrochemical Power Sources and Royal Society of Chemistry publications.
People who want to learn why the theory of "cold fusion" is not supported, and is in fact contradicted, by the experimental evidence can read here.
Three Technical Concerns
The core of this report will focus on three primary areas of technical concern about the Rossi experiment and claim of commercially useful levels of excess heat.
The first concern is a question of the quantity of the steam. That is, how much steam has been visually observed coming out of the experiments? How does this amount and rate compare with the predicted amount and rate of steam from a 5 kilowatt power source?
The second concern is the method the Rossi group used to measure (or fail to measure) the output of the experiment. How did the group perform the measurement of the heat outflow, or steam, in the experiments?
The third concern is the quality of the steam. A higher-quality (or drier) steam output contains far more heat than a lower-quality (or wetter) steam. How did the Rossi group measure (or fail to measure) the quality of the steam coming out of the experiments?
Before we get to these concerns, let's review fundamental concepts.
Energy Fundamentals
Energy is mysterious. It surrounds us at every moment, yet we cannot observe it directly with our five senses, and it cannot be measured directly.
People often misspeak when they talk about energy measurements; in fact, they are measuring heat, one form of energy.
We can measure temperature, speed, frequency and mass, among other things. For example, when we touch a hot stove, we feel the energy of heat. When we listen to music, we hear the energy of acoustic sound waves. When we speak about energy measurements, we must know exactly what is being measured and how.
Energy also cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be changed from one form to another or exchanged with mass. Nuclear reactions that release energy do so by exchanging some of their mass for energy. Only a very small amount of mass is needed to release an enormous amount of energy, as Albert Einstein explained in his formula E=mc;.
Energy-releasing nuclear reactions emit energy in a variety of forms that lead to a release of heat or the creation of matter. The heat is the most valuable product of nuclear reactions because, if it is released at sufficient levels, it can be converted mechanically to produce electricity without carbon emissions. The heat from a nuclear reaction also can be used directly for heating as well as in industrial chemical applications.
LENR Excess-Heat Fundamentals
When Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann announced on March 23, 1989, at the University of Utah that they had achieved a nuclear fusion reaction, the primary evidence they provided for their claim was their measurement of heat. They said that the heat being produced in their experiment was too much to account for — in fact, 1,000 times more than that which could be explained by ordinary chemistry. They accounted for both the electrical energy input and the initial temperature and compared that data to the resulting temperature. In experiments in which the heat release was more than the electrical and/or chemical energy input, they identified this anomaly as excess heat.
Pons and Fleischmann made some minor mistakes, but their fundamental claim of excess heat, despite some poorly sourced and misleading literature that says otherwise, was never disproved.
There are other ways to measure the energy of a nuclear reaction, but measuring emitted heat is the most direct method. My Elsevier Encyclopedia chapter explains three of the most common methods of measuring heat in LENR research.
Fuel used in nuclear reactions has the theoretical capacity to release much more energy than can be released from that same amount of fuel in chemical reactions. This enormous scale of energy release allows nuclear fission power plants to produce energy from a relatively small, dense quantity of fuel material. This same volumetric energy density and energy level motivate researchers to seek the answers to LENR.
In the history of LENR, most experiments on a macroscopic level have shown only a trivial but scientifically meaningful level of excess-heat release. However, on a microscopic level, for example as shown in an infrared video of "hot spots" in an experiment by the U.S. Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center in San Diego, there is evidence that the excess heat is released from small regions in very-high-energy densities. The trick, apparently not mastered, is to achieve command of the material science and fabrication techniques to allow these hot spots to be engineered at will.
On rare occasions, some LENR researchers have seen their experiments go out of control: uncontrollable heating at extreme levels. There are only a handful of such reports, and they have never been repeatable on demand. Most participants in the field know of these very rare but credible instances, and they realize that their own experiments most of the time do not come near the levels of these rare events. Skeptics may choose to dismiss these rare events as evidence that the phenomena are not real, but many new as well as natural phenomena are not repeatable at will.
Scientists can easily calculate the maximum amount of energy that can be released by chemical mechanisms. In the Andrea Rossi experiment, this has been done to my satisfaction through the mass balances taken of the device and materials before and after the experiments. Video recordings of the Jan. 14, 2011, experiment show the experiment operators performing a mass balance. In later experiments, guest researchers have calculated the maximum possible chemical energy release from the devices and materials.
Possible Low Levels of Excess Heat
Thus, the question is, Does the Rossi experiment produce heat beyond that which is possible by chemistry? The device may produce some excess heat, but not nearly at the levels claimed by Rossi, Sergio Focardi and Giuseppe Levi. In fact, the heat released from the experiment appears to be several orders of magnitude less than what they have claimed, at best.
Last year Rossi and Focardi claimed an energy gain of 213 times. This year, Rossi downgraded that to six. Our analysis shows a possible energy gain of one to two times. In other words, Rossi's device probably produces Watts, not kilowatts, of power. It may, in fact, produce zero excess heat. We cannot know with confidence because of the poor data collection and reporting.
Two factors weigh in Rossi's favor for possible excess heat. These apply only to the liquid phase, not the steam phase.
On March 29, two Swedish professors went to Bologna, expenses paid by Rossi, to see Rossi's device in action. Sven Kullander is professor emeritus at Uppsala University and chairman of the Swedish National Academy of Sciences Energy Committee. Hanno Ess;n is associate professor of theoretical physics and a lecturer at the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology and was the chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Association until April, when he declined to run again. On April 3, they wrote a report endorsing Rossi's claim.
"It is worth noting,” they wrote, “that, at this point in time and temperature, 10:36 and 60°C, the 300W from the heater is barely sufficient to raise the temperature of the flowing water from the inlet temperature of 17.6 °C to the 60 °C recorded at this time. If no additional heat had been generated internally, the temperature would not exceed the 60°C recorded at 10:36."
Confidence in the possible excess heat in the liquid phase is limited, however, because they have no log of power input. They only read the electrical power input from of the meter, and only once, at the beginning of the experiment.
The second factor that weighs in Rossi's favor is shown in an analysis in Appendix 17.
The writer of that analysis considers a possible excess-heat period in the Jan. 14, 2011, experiment:
"Operation with probable excess-heat emission during the period between points (4) and (6). Observing this diagram reveals that the experiment has probably been successful, with a possible excess-heat effect of 200% to 300% only in the first six minutes after reaching the boiling temperature of 101.2°C."
Steam Basics
In 22 years of LENR history, nobody until Rossi used the production of steam as the basis for a claim of nuclear-scale heat. I knew very little about steam before the Rossi experiment. Apparently, this was also the case for well-educated people who lent their public support to Rossi.
Heat changes are relatively simple to measure with water-based mass flow calorimetry. Scientists also know how much energy is required to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water 1 degree. Calculating the difference between input (or starting) and output (or ending) temperature allows the power to be — and this is key — directly calculated. The power over time gives the energy.
When the temperature of an amount of water increases 20 degrees from 40°C to 60°C, the energy can be calculated directly from the heat measurement. If the rise is from 60°C to 80°C, the energy change is the same.
But around 100°C, things get more complicated. Water undergoes a phase change and vaporizes into steam. This does not always happen exactly at 100°C; the threshold changes based on ambient pressure. But the more important point is this: It takes a relatively large amount of energy to cross that threshold. For example, heating an amount of water from 20°C to 100°C takes a certain amount of energy. But it takes 6.75 times as much energy to transform that 100°C water to dry 100°C steam.
This is called the vaporization energy, and it amounts to 87% of the total energy required to turn 20°C water into 100°C steam.
The calculations that Rossi uses to validate his extraordinary claims are based on his assumption that all of the water that enters the device leaves the device as steam. Because the vaporization energy is much larger than the energy from heating water during the liquid phase, the calculated energy from a small amount of steam represents a large amount of energy. The vaporization energy can be six to seven times the heating energy.
In the only technical document Rossi has written about this device, a March 2010 paper, he claimed 21,229% excess heat, that is, 213 times more energy going out than coming in. He based his claim primarily on vaporization of water.
Steam is an old-school technology used in many applications, for heating, motive force, cleaning and more. Steam, as a vaporous fluid, is relatively easy to move around and transfer. But why not just use hot air? Why is steam, vaporized water, so special? The special thing about steam is that it has the capacity to hold great amounts of energy, in the form of heat.
A retired baker explained it to me in a real-life example.
"You can put your arm into a 200-degree oven for a second and pull it out without a problem," the baker said. "But if there is 200-degree steam in there, you pull your arm out, and all your skin will fall off."
At this link, readers can see a wonderful video of a science experiment that shows the transition of low-quality steam to high-quality superheated steam. This link and this link also provide good steam references.
Rossi Device
One of the best ways to explain the mechanics of Rossi's device is the video I shot of Rossi's experiment when I saw it on June 14. This video, as well as the schematic I have drawn below, will give readers a good idea of the basic mechanics of the Rossi device. I had asked Rossi many months ago to provide me with a schematic, but he directed me to the schematic that Levi made and presented in his Jan. 21, 2011, report. Levi's schematic is vague, incorrect and misleading. After extensive research, I drew the schematic below and showed it to Rossi on June 14. He corrected a few minor details and confirmed everything else.
Let's walk through it.
1. Hydrogen is allowed to flow into the core of the device from a tank; then the connection is closed, and the tank disconnected.
2. Electrical power comes from the wall.
3. Gross current and voltage are monitored; sometimes, the data have been captured.
4. A control box contains what appears to be a set of lamp dimmer switches that feed power to the internal and external resistive heaters. The device I saw had only two pairs of power wires leaving the control box, apparently going to each of the heaters. This suggests no automatic regulation of power, no feedback or control mechanism and no logging of applied power. It also suggests that the dimmer switches are operated manually by Rossi.
5. Water from a reservoir (manually refilled) is fed by a peristaltic pump into the device. (During the Feb. 10-11 18-hour test, they ran water directly from the tap.)
6. Two resistive heaters heat the water.
7. As the water passes the heaters, the device heats and vaporizes water. A combination of hot water and/or steam may result. Rossi claims that all the water is vaporized. I know of no evidence to support his claim. There is no way to visually check the level of the water inside the device, particularly in the vertical pipe, assuming any water is present beyond the core. Researcher, inventor and LENR enthusiast Mitch Randall has contributed a drawing (see below) that shows the problem.
8. I call this area the "vertical pipe." Rossi has called it a "chimney." That could be misleading because we don't know whether water is in it and, if water is in it, how much.
There are three openings in the upper part of the vertical pipe. The first is an opening for the temperature probe. We have no way to know the height of water in the vertical pipe. Even though temperatures have been measured at slightly higher than 100°C, there is no evidence (though there have been claims) of any pressure measurements. So we have no way to know whether the output temperature probe rests in liquid or steam. We also do not know whether the temperature probe was properly calibrated.
9. There is a valve at the top that is normally closed. It can be opened to allow the steam to vent or to insert a probe.
10. This is an outlet that connects to a black hose or, in some cases, a yellow hose. It is always connected to this outlet. The hose is opaque so there is no way to see whether any water is coming out of this connector into the hose.
11. The hose is about 3 meters long and droops down onto the floor and then back up about half a meter to a hole in the wall that was once apparently used for a sink drain. In some experiments, Rossi has fed the steam/water output mixture into a blue plastic bucket.
Four Rossi Devices. The One on the Far Right Is Wrapped in Insulation.
(Photo: G. Levi)
The Same Four Devices Shown From a Different Angle.
(Photo: S. Kullander)
The Vertical Pipe With Insulation Removed.
Outlet Hose on Left, Exhaust Valve on Top, Temperature Probe on Right.
(Photo: G. Levi)
The Four Devices I Saw in June Appeared to Have a Shorter Vertical Pipe and No Exhaust Valve.
(Photo: S.B. Krivit)
The Core of the Device.
(Photo: M. Lewan)
A Speculative Rendering of the Internal Core of the Rossi Device.
(Drawing: G. Guidi)
Schematic in Levi's Jan. 21, 2011, Paper. Note That the Drawing, Presumably Hastily Made,
Provides No Detail About the Three Connections on the Upper Part of the Vertical Pipe.
(Drawing By G. Levi)
Poorly Drawn and Ambiguous Schematic From Rossi's Patent Application.
Tools Used By the Plumber, Carlo Leonardi, to Fine-Tune the Rossi Devices.
(Photo: S.B. Krivit)
Carlo Leonardi, Rossi's Plumber.
(Photo: D. Passerini)
Energy Balance
The term “energy balance” is related to the term “excess heat” but is broader. Simply, energy balance is a comparison between the total energy going into a system and the total energy coming out of a system. The greater the ratio of the output to the input, the more useful the device. Some devices, such as nuclear fission reactors, which require no input power, are self-heating, and all heat is "excess."
In the case of the Rossi device, the input is primarily in the form of electrical energy that Rossi (normally) continually feeds into the device. Rossi claims that, generally, the input power remains constant. However, in the only two experiments for which the Rossi group has provided data, the input power has not been constant. A mechanical engineer has performed an insightful and detailed analysis on the relationship between the input power and the output temperature of the Jan. 14, 2011, experiment.
Rossi bases his claim of extraordinary positive energy balances on the increase of water temperature and its vaporization into steam. He claims that the temperature rise of the water, as it passes the device core, heats the water up to 100°C, then vaporizes it.
The heating of the water during the liquid phase from, let's say, 20;C to 100;C is a simple, straightforward calculation:
Heating Water Calculation
But when the hot water undergoes the phase transition into steam at 100;C, the following calculation applies:
Vaporizing Water Calculation
In the sample calculation above, we can see that it take takes about 6.7 times more energy to change hot water from the liquid phase to the pure dry-steam phase than it does to warm the water from 20°C to 100°C.
Because vaporizing water takes 6.7 times more energy than heating it from 20°C to 100°C, we must know how much water has turned to vapor. If there are any slugs of liquid water exiting the device and going down the drain in the wall, or any water remaining in the device, then the output energy calculation will be wrong.
Steam Quantity
The first issue Rossi must consider is the quantity of steam; the second is the quality of the steam. Quantitatively, he needs to make sure that no liquid water flows up the vertical pipe and down the hose in a water/steam mixture and down the drain. Qualitatively, he needs to make sure that no small liquid droplets are carried off by the steam and down the hose and down the drain.
Diagram of Possible Source of Error in Rossi Claims.
(Drawing: Mitch Randall)
In Appendix 1, Mitch Randall, an inventor with 25 years of experience in high technology, explains that the core is submersed in water, the overflow system is being used to regulate the water level and the system requires more water flowing into the system than is turned into steam. Otherwise, the temperature would not hover constantly at about 100C but would go much higher, and the core might overheat. If water flows down the hose, Rossi's vaporization calculations and the bulk of his claims will be invalid.
When liquid water turns into vaporized water (steam), it expands volumetrically 1,600 times. When Rossi showed me his device, he said he was putting 7 liters of water into it per hour. It should have produced 11,200 liters of steam per hour. When 11,200 liters of steam per hour come out the end of the black hose, the speed can be calculated to give a ballpark estimate of the exit velocity.
Because so many crucial non-proprietary details have been omitted by Rossi, Focardi and Levi in their documents, precisely calculating the exit velocity is difficult. However, several researchers have used available information to make their own ballpark estimates to compare with the Rossi group’s ballpark estimate.
Peter Ekstr;m, the deputy head of the Nuclear Physics Division of the Department of Physics at Lund University, calculates that the volume per second of dry steam coming out of Rossi's device should be 3.4 liters per second. Because the inner diameter of the hose appears to be 12 mm* (1.2 cm), this 3.4 l/s would create an exit velocity of 30 meters per second, or 67 mph. He says this is inconsistent with what we see in the video.
LENR researcher and mechanical engineer Domenico Cirillo calculates that the steam exit speed should be 137 mph.
Randall makes a simple calculation and arrives at an exit velocity of 76 mph. (3.4 l/s of steam = 3,400 cm3/s. Hose cross section is about 1 cm2, so velocity of exit steam is 3,400 cm/s = 34 m/s = 76 mph.)
As shown by my video, the exit velocity appears to be not 137 mph or 76 mph but close to 10 mph.
If we have a ballpark idea of the velocity, we can have a ballpark idea of the force. From that amount of steam from that hose, there should be a loud hissing noise; there wasn't.
At the calculated exit velocity, based on Rossi's claims, steam inside the hose has very little time to condense. Calculations in Appendix 3 and Appendix 4 show that the thermal properties of the hose do not permit kilowatts of heat to thermally conduct through the hose.
Therefore, the steam exiting the hose provides multiple pieces of direct evidence against, and no evidence for, Rossi's claim of heat from the vaporization of steam.
When I was in Bologna, Rossi never showed me any steam exiting either from a port on the top of the device (if there was one on that model) or immediately from the port on the side, by removing the hose.
Had Rossi understood the physics of steam engineering, assuming his device worked as claimed, he easily could have shown me — and the public — the intense flow of steam generated from his device. The only reason I can think of that Rossi showed me the steam from the hose is that he did not understand the physics of steam engineering. This point illustrates the importance of valid scientific peer review, to help prevent self-deception.
Had I known more about steam before I went to Bologna, I certainly would have been better prepared to ask more relevant questions. I would have asked to see the claimed 11,200 liters of steam coming out of the top of Rossi's device. But I had learned about the quantitative characteristics of steam, the 1,600 times expansion factor, only the day before. That was a big surprise to me.
The bigger surprise was when I was driving in a car on the highway in Italy, and the person I was with told me to put my hand out the window and feel the pressure of the wind against my hand. He explained that, when I go to look at Rossi's device the next day, I should observe about that amount of force from the hose. Had this person not explained this, I would never have thought to ask Rossi to pull the hose out of the wall to show me the steam, let alone ask him to find a black background to make the steam show up on camera.
On July 5, I asked Ess;n to look at the steam exiting from the hose in my video of Rossi's experiment. I asked him to compare the exit velocity from the end of that hose to the exit velocity of the steam coming out of the valve on the top of Rossi's device when he observed it on March 29, 2011.
"The steam speed at least seems to be of the same order of magnitude," Ess;n wrote.
As Ess;n told me on July 15, he had not known about the 1,600 times expansion factor when he and Kullander went to Bologna. I know of no evidence to suggest that Levi knew about the expansion factor, either. Certainly, if Levi did know, it raises other questions.
Through discussions and references to my video, the significance of the steam exit velocity became known within the LENR community so clearly during the week of July 11 that Edmund Storms, a longtime LENR research, suggested on the Condensed Matter Nuclear Science e-mail list that Rossi knew exactly what he was doing and that he had intentionally deceived me, and therefore the public, when I watched and videotaped his experiment. I have compiled those messages in this document.
Rossi showed me a brief period of a slow, continuous flow of steam leaving the end of the hose. There was no percolating water during that brief time. Ess;n told me that he saw steam slowly exiting, as well. However, as my video shows, steam is coming out of the hose for brief periods, free of percolating water. Ess;n told me that he saw this, as well. But as in my video, before Rossi pulled the hose out of the wall, he lifted and held it as if he were draining water out of it.
As I learned in July, Randall back on April 18 asked Ess;n the key question.
"Was the outlet steam flow rate measured? For example, by condensing steam only and measuring the weight of the resulting water?” Randall wrote. "If not, how did you validate the assumption that all of the input water was converted to steam?"
Ess;n replied to Randall the next day.
"Since there was no other path for the water than straight through the device in a single hose-pipe-hose track, we concluded that all the water must become steam," Ess;n wrote. "The steam was checked by observation and appeared to be consistent with the water flow (order-of-magnitude-wise)."
Ess;n told me that, as a matter of course, as a skeptic, he regularly looks at claims of perpetual motion. He's never found a claim, until Rossi's, that he thought had potential. What Ess;n meant by "hose-pipe-hose track" is that the water goes in from a hose, through a pipe, and comes out through another hose. Essen assumed that only steam was exiting the device. He apparently didn’t consider that some water could be flowing out of the device undetected, along with the steam.
In their April 3 report, Ess;n and Kullander wrote that, "at about 10:45, all the water is completely vaporized found by visual checks of the outlet tube and the valve letting out steam from the chimney." On July 15, Ess;n told me that, on a few occasions during the test they observed, they pulled the hose out of the wall drain for a few seconds and saw steam. Otherwise, the hose was always in the wall. With what we now know and have seen on my video, Ess;n and Kullander could not have verified that, by a few sporadic visual checks of the hose, all of the water that had originated in the water tank had been vaporized.
I spoke with Ess;n on July 15 about my concerns about the Rossi experiment.
"I am aware that the question of steam quality is the main point of concern because everything else has been very carefully checked," Ess;n said.
I asked him whether he had any direct experience with steam or had seen anybody try to use it to make an extraordinary claim before.
"I'm new at steam, unfortunately," Ess;n said. "I've only studied it in the context of basic thermodynamics. I can't recall anybody who has made this type of claim before."
I asked him whether, when he pulled the hose out of the wall and saw the steam, he thought about the expansion rate.
"No, I must admit, I was thinking that I must check that the water is not draining out," Ess;n said. "I had this vague feeling that the water inlet flow wasn't that fast, that the steam could be consistent with it, especially after some condensation in the hose. But we should have looked more into that, obviously, but there was not enough time."
I asked Ess;n about his current perspective.
"I want to wait for more facts,” Ess;n said. "The facts I know add up to make this interesting and worth pursuing, but I am still very uncertain about this."
In Rossi's case, the observable quantitative characteristics of the steam are inconsistent with his claims. Before I discuss steam quality, I would like to discuss the second-most-important concern about Rossi's claims.
Measuring the Energy Balance
William Collis is the executive secretary of the International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, a nonprofit organization that helps support and promote LENR researchers. Collis posted a message on the CMNS e-mail list that summarized his concern about measuring the energy balance in the Rossi system.
Francesco Celani was a witness to the January demonstration. Celani is a nuclear physicist and works at the Italian National Institute of Nuclear Physics in Frascati. He is also the vice president of the International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. Celani was clearly familiar with the Rossi apparatus, and he presented an informative report. I have reviewed the details of his presentation here.
Celani recognized the weakest part of Rossi and Levi's claim: the assumption of complete evaporation of the water. More important, he knew conceptually the correct way that they should have measured the energy balance. In Appendix 19 , a New Energy Times reader shows an effective method to measure power and energy in a steam-producing experiment.
Randall, a New Energy Times contributor, also explained the problem eloquently.
"If you are trying to measure the performance of a ‘black box,’" you should not use a measurement from within the black box," Randall wrote.
Celani's diagrams speak volumes.
Conceptual Diagram of Correct Way to Measure Energy Balance
Conceptual Diagram of Incorrect Way to Measure Energy Balance
Steam Quality
The third and less-critical issue that Rossi must consider is the quality of the steam.
Steam quality is sometimes discussed as "wet" or "dry" steam — that is, low-quality or high-quality, respectively. I do not know enough to explain the heat capacity calculations of low- versus high-quality steam. But I have learned the difference between 100% dry steam and humid air. The former is water in the gas phase; the latter is primarily oxygen, nitrogen, water vapor and a few other gases. They are two different gasses with different properties, including capacity to hold heat. I also have learned that devices used to measure the humidity of air are completely different from devices used to measure steam quality. (See Appendices #13, #14 and #23.)
Steam quality relates to the Rossi reactor in the following way. If a certain amount of energy is necessary to heat a certain amount of water from 20°C to the lowest-quality steam, then about 7.75 times as much energy is necessary to heat the same amount of water from 20°C to the highest-quality steam. So the quality of the steam is crucial to computing how much energy was required to generate it.
For example, if the steam in Rossi's experiment had a large number of suspended droplets of liquid (like fog), the amount of output power calculated would be closer to 13% of what Rossi assumed. When steam is at temperatures significantly higher than 100°C, it is almost always high-quality, very dry steam. One interesting phenomenon with very dry steam is that it is colorless and invisible.
Celani was the first person to point out to me the concern about steam quality, both at ICCF-16 and in an e-mail he sent to me.
"The problem is the percentage of water droplets in the steam," Celani wrote. "If I remember correctly, just 1 percent of water [by volume] is enough to reduce the calculated energy by about 600%. This is a critical point of Rossi's measurements, as I have pointed out to him several times and also at ICCF-16."
Appendix 9 presents a scientific analysis by a NASA engineer of steam quality as it relates to Rossi's experiment. The engineer used the 770 watt input power, as stated by Rossi in the video, and computed the quality by mass of the steam that the device would generate if there were no heat from LENR present.
The engineer said that his analysis shows why not only quantity but also quality of the steam is a make-or-break factor for Rossi's claims.
As Levi explains in my interview, there was no attempt to test the steam quality in the Dec. 16, 2010, experiment. However, in December, Levi had concluded that Rossi's claim of kilowatts of excess heat was valid.
An engineering graduate of the University of Bologna who asked not to be identified used a common analogy to explain the problem of trying to measure the quality of steam with a device designed to measure humidity in air.
“It's just like trying to measure your height with a mass balance," he wrote. "They didn't carry out [a steam quality] measurement. They used completely wrong instruments."
Three months ago, but shortly after his visit to Bologna, Ess;n didn't seem to know about steam quality.
In an April e-mail, I asked him, "Does your analysis take into account the ‘wet steam’ concern? Is this a valid concern, an irrelevant concern or a red herring?"
"I think it is totally irrelevant," Ess;n wrote. "Boiling water is a fairly straightforward method of estimating power."
I asked Kullander, as well.
"Wet steam is a valid concern." Kullander wrote. "We had measurements done for us showing that 1.4% was non-evaporated. Our visual observations showed that a major fraction of the water disappeared. From thermodynamics, it seems unlikely that more than 10% could be non-evaporated at the measured temperatures.”
How did Kullander visually observe that a major fraction of the water disappeared? As far as I can tell, by looking at the empty water tank, checking the end of the black hose very briefly two or three times (as Ess;n told me), and assuming that only pure dry steam was flowing out of the black hose and into the drain throughout the experiment.
Rossi's Declaration About Steam Quality Measurement
Despite Rossi and Levi's assertion, in response to my preliminary report, that they knew how to measure steam quality, they didn't, and they hadn't. They didn't use a device that was designed for or capable of measuring steam.
On Jan. 25, 2011, Celani explained in an e-mail to Rossi the problem with the quantitative steam analysis and the qualitative steam analysis. Therefore, by that date, Rossi knew the most crucial problems with his claims.
Rossi replied to Celani the next day.
"We always worked with water, not steam," Rossi wrote, "in the former tests we made all the world around. We also used air. All the data coincide. I believe in the work of Dr. Galantini, who said that the steam was dry, because I am pretty convinced that he is able to establish if a flow of steam is dry or not. In any case, the amount of energy at the output should be obtained also if, at 102 Celsius degrees, we had just water (which is impossible), not steam. I mean, in the worst imaginable scenario, we got our strong surplus in respect to electrochemical production. This is just a calculation by absurd, because the steam was dry, as calculated by Galantini. And we will see it better in the plants that are going to be put in industrial operation."
In an apparent inconsistency, two days after I published my preliminary report, in which I speculated about serious concerns about the Rossi group's steam quality measurements, Rossi said that the steam until that week had not been totally dry.
"The 1 MW plant which we will start up in Greece in October will generate heat," Rossi wrote. "For power, we are not yet ready, but we made a very important step forward in this week, because our reactors now produce a totally dry steam (no more traces of water in the steam), and this is a step forward to couple the turbines. We have 300 reactors in operation now in our factory, and we are making exponential progress day by day."
I was curious about his factory. According to the corporate registration of his company, Leonardo Corp., it is located at 1331 Lincoln Road, Apartment 505, Miami Beach, FL, 33129. It seems odd that Rossi could have a factory with 300 devices on the fifth floor of an apartment building in Miami Beach. Were the 300 devices in boxes? On benches? Drawing power? In various phases of manufacture? Perhaps this isn't really his "current principal place of business" as shown on the corporate registration; perhaps he lied to the Florida government.
Leonardo Corp. (Apt. 505) "Current Principal Place of Business"
(Photo: Google)
On July 17, on Rossi's blog, someone who goes by Mary Yugo posted a question to Rossi about his factory, and this is how he responded:
However, on Feb. 2, Rossi was open with Ny Teknik about the location of his factory.
“Here in the factory in Miami," Rossi wrote, "we have 100 reactors like the one we showed in Bologna, almost ready.”
Levi Measures Everything but Output
In a Feb. 2 article in Ny Teknik by Mats Lewan, Levi explained how he monitored Rossi's experiment on Jan. 14, 2011. According to Lewan, Levi "measured the input electrical power with its own instrument, verified that there were no hidden connections, inspected the connected equipment, measured the amount of hydrogen consumed by weighing the bottle (less than 1 gram) and attached it himself to the reactor chamber."
Then Levi stated how much energy output he thought he saw, and he publicly supported Rossi's scientific credibility.
“What has impressed me," Levi wrote, "and what sets this work apart from everything I’ve ever seen, is that we have 10 kW of measured energy output, and this output is completely repeatable.
“I would also like to emphasize that Rossi is behaving as a serious scientist. Anyone who tries to do forgery behaves differently and does not go into a physics department, does not accept that you put up measuring instruments and does not confront scientists.”
Levi makes some strong points. A fully repeatable effect is definitely newsworthy. Rossi's confidence to invite specific members of the University of Bologna Physics Department to check his experiment is interesting.
But in all the checks Levi made, he did not do any direct measurements of the output heat that would tell him the output energy. This oversight is inexplicable.
Sub-Boiling Experiment
So why doesn't Rossi avoid all the uncertainties with steam and increase the flow rate enough so that the water stays well below boiling? I asked Rossi this on May 5.
"Why do you run these tests at such high temperatures so that the water boils? It seems to me that the calorimetry would be much, much simpler if you kept the temperature below boiling, right?" I wrote.
"These modules are configured to boil, because they are the modules of the 1 MW plant we have to deliver," Rossi wrote. "You will see a reactor in regular operation of test-before-delivery. We have not time to do other things. Anyway, the calorimetry is very precise also with the steam."
The only part of Rossi's response that directly addressed my question is Rossi's statement that he doesn't have time to perform a sub-boiling test.
Levi, on the other hand, performed a sub-boiling experiment. But, as he now knows, the data from that 18-hour experiment on Feb.10-11 is next to worthless. His instrumentation and data collection in that experiment left much to be desired. Levi told me on June 14 in the videotaped interview that he intends never to report that data.
But back in February, Levi must have had much more confidence about his data because he provided incredible claims to Mats Lewan as published in the Feb. 23 Ny Teknik story.
“Minimum power was 15 kilowatts, and that’s a conservative value. I calculated it several times. At night, we did a measurement, and the device then worked very stable and produced 20 kilowatts,” Levi said.
As mentioned above in the discussion about the weaknesses of taking measurements of a "black box," from within the "black box," the output measured in this case used a thermometer inserted somewhere inside the Rossi device.
Possible Evidence for Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction
For the reasons I mentioned above, I cannot consider valid any part of the Rossi group's claim of excess heat from the boiling phase or from Levi's sub-boiling experiment. Is there, however, any possible credibility to the sub-boiling phases in the other experiments the group has reported? The Rossi group may have seen some excess heat in the liquid phase in the Jan. 14, 2011, experiment. However, the quality of that data and report, as Levi wrote to me, is “horrible.”
"Yes, the graphs were horrible, because they were taken directly from the raw data of the watt meter without any other processing." Levi wrote. "This was done because the tests were VERY PRELIMINARY and also because the report was intended to be also VERY PRELIMINARY."
And yes, it is possible that Rossi, Focardi and Levi have figured out how to get the same kinds of results that Focardi and Francesco Piantelli had achieved for many years, though perhaps with better repeatability.
First, there is some evidence for anomalous energy, as I discussed in the section "Possible Low Levels of Excess Heat."
There is also one other piece of data that supports some kind of real nuclear reaction. It is the gamma ray spike that Celani saw at the beginning of the Jan. 21, 2011, experiment. I've listened to Celani explain his measurements. I am convinced that he saw a real anomalous gamma signal.
What about the isotopic anomalies that Rossi claimed? There has been so much chatter and confusing information about this. I also asked Kullander to see the data he had found. He told Ny Teknik about the isotopic analysis he performed on sample materials he got from Rossi. Even though Ny Teknik published Kullander's conclusions, Kullander wouldn't show me his data. I asked him why not.
"I would like to draw my own conclusions from the different measurements we have done before I disperse results to anybody," Kullander wrote. "I still need to confirm some isotope numbers."
Before I left for Bologna, I asked Rossi for information about the isotopic anomalies he reported in his March 2010 paper. I asked Rossi whether he could show me the data when I came to Bologna. He agreed. In my meeting with Rossi, he gave me two graphs and stated something about the results that was not clear. However, he did allow me to keep copies of the data, which are in Appendix 21.
Declining Magnitude of Claims
Another concern is the major decline in the magnitude of Rossi's claims. If you look at the data from his March 2010 paper, you see that he is claiming an average of 213 times more heat output than energy input. (See Appendix 30) That's if you make two big assumptions: He vaporized all the water, and the steam was all dry.
If you average the energy results from the experiments performed since December, you get an output/input ratio of 11, one order of magnitude less than the experiments he and Focardi reported in their 2010 self-published paper. On June 17, Rossi wrote on his blog, "We guarantee anyway to our Customers an output of energy 6 times the input." Where might Rossi have obtained this number? It is precisely the ratio of the most recently documented experiments, those audited by Lewan, again, with the two big assumptions.
But what happened to the 213 times energy ratio from the experiments from last year? Rossi has an answer for that. He said when I interviewed him that those were larger devices and they are not safe to demonstrate or to sell.
But there is an apparent inconsistency. According to what Celani said in his ICCF-16 presentation, Rossi said during the Jan. 14 press conference and demonstration that "the same reactor and the same material SURELY worked very well the day before on Jan. 13 with a gain of 100-200" and that that same device worked fine in the Dec. 16, 2010, test. So according to what Rossi said on Jan. 14 in the press conference, this larger device, capable of a 200 times energy output was safe enough to demonstrate before the public. And according to Rossi on June 15, devices of this capacity were not safe enough to demonstrate before the public. Perhaps during those months, he learned about new safety issues. Or perhaps the numbers that Rossi and Focardi quoted in their paper are wrong.
Self-Sustaining Claim
In my video interview with Levi, he said that he had wanted to turn the power off and see the device run in self-sustaining mode. According to Levi, Rossi told him that running the E-Cats without input power is dangerous because they become unstable.
I asked Levi during our video interview to tell me about the best evidence he had seen to give him confidence of a self-sustaining phase. At first, he said that he pulled the plug out of the wall and that there was no power to the system. I showed him his own data, which showed a small amount of power going into the system. I asked him how that was possible if he pulled the plug out of the wall. After some discussion, he told me that he had misspoken; he had not, in fact, pulled the plug out of the wall. Readers can watch the video interview to understand Levi's complete response in context.
Another safety concern is Rossi's plan to guard against intellectual property theft. According to comments he has made on his blog, Rossi thinks he will be able to protect his device from reverse-engineering by building in a mechanism that causes the nuclear device to self-destruct if it is opened.
No Control Experiment for University of Bologna Science Professor
Rossi, Focardi and Levi have not reported any control experiment. I mentioned in Report #2 that Rossi declined my request to show me a control experiment.
Paolo Capiluppi, the head of the Department of Physics at the University of Bologna, wrote to me on June 19 about his concerns.
"We are embarrassed about the declarations of Prof. Focardi, one of the physicists formerly from our department. However, he is NOT a member of the department, being retired, even if professor emeritus," Capiluppi wrote.
Levi, on the other hand, is a member of the department. On June 14, I asked him a question about the tests he performed on Rossi's device.
"So now it's been half a year since those tests,” I said. “Since the December, January and February tests, have you found any major errors or any major [requirements for] corrections?"
"No, I have not and not [from] my colleagues because we are now organizing our work as a team. I think that is quite important. We are continuously reviewing our work together checking each other," Levi said. "Also, there were these two professors from Sweden."
Levi was relying partly on the Swedish professors for his confidence in Rossi's claims, and they were relying partly on him. We'll get to their perceptions in a moment.
Rossi added Levi to his "Board of Advisers" of Rossi's "Journal of Nuclear Physics" in November 2011, and Rossi was still listed as of the Jan. 14, 2010, test.
Levi may or may not have been paid or given promises by Rossi, but he ran Rossi's experiments for him, organized a public demonstration for Rossi, wrote the press release for Rossi and Focardi's discovery and reported extraordinary claims to Ny Teknik about Rossi's device.
In my interview with Levi on June 14, he states that he wrote the press release and that Capiluppi edited and approved the press release as an official university document. However, a June 9 e-mail from Simona Storchi, an official with the university's press office, contradicts this.
"I checked as requested with the Physics Department (I copied this email to the department's director, Prof. Paolo Capiluppi), and I can confirm there's not an official press release by the department (nor by the university). The press release you sent me (may I ask you, Where did you find it?) is a personal message by Focardi-Rossi, an invitation to the January experiment. We don't handle or have any information about it."
Levi's Feb. 10-11 test in Rossi's facility was reported by Ny Teknik as a test performed at the University of Bologna. Could Levi have lost his objectivity and unconsciously signed up as Rossi's best cheerleader?
According to a RAI-TV interview shown on May 3, 2011, Rossi had initially offered to pay Focardi a consulting fee to check and validate his work. Rossi also stated to me on June 14 that he was paying consulting fees to University of Bologna professor David Bianchini to perform radiation measurements. I don't know about any other compensation arrangements or promises, and I have not asked.
Levi Helps to Show Steam With His Black T-Shirt as Backdrop
(Photo: S.B. Krivit)
Ny Teknik Wrongly States That Rossi Experiment Was Performed at University of Bologna
Uppsala University Professor on Rossi Device: "You Have to Embrace This"
The article by Mats Lewan in Ny Teknik "Cold Fusion: 'You have to embrace this'” on Feb. 23, 2011, contains some remarkable statements from Ess;n and Kullander considering that they didn't even see the device until a month later on March 29. Lewan was the one who helped Rossi meet his next endorsers, Kullander and Ess;n.
Sven Kullander (left) and Hanno Ess;n (right) in Video Interview With Mats Lewan
On Feb. 23, Ess;n and Kullander gave their public support to Rossi and his device before they had seen it. The Feb. 23 Ny Teknik provides some insight into their reasoning.
Ess;n based his support of Rossi's device on the following:
- His assumption that Levi was an independent researcher.
- His understanding that Rossi had already begun to sell devices and that they were commercially available.
Apparently, Ess;n did not go to great lengths to verify information that he received; however, he did maintain his objectivity and cautious skepticism at that time in the Ny Teknik interview.
"It’s very hard to guard against someone who is lying in this context," Ess;n said. "It’s almost impossible for us to know. You try to evaluate the physics, then you assume that the data is presented as honestly as possible."
Kullander put a lot of faith in Rossi and his claim.
”You just have to embrace a new technology that might solve the energy problems of mankind, at least until it can be rejected," Kullander said.
He based his support of Rossi's device on the following:
- He thought they used a "fairly scientific approach."
- "Above all, they have heated a building and have done so for one year, according to Rossi."
- He thought the device could not be properly assessed for an energy balance because the patent hadn't been granted.
- "In this case, you have to believe in the inventor Rossi, who says he has been producing heat without any input of energy except for what you have inside the device."
- He thought Rossi's device might be credible despite the lack of essential pieces of information "partly because he says it."
But there were some problems with the foundation of Ess;n’s opinions.
Levi was hardly independent. All of his tests were performed in Rossi's facility, in Rossi's presence, under Rossi's direction, on equipment designed, constructed and owned by Rossi and without any document that would provide Levi with sufficient details to perform an independent replication.
There were no Rossi devices sold, delivered or available. Rossi states his devices will go on sale in October. In an email, I asked Ess;n, "Where did you get the information that Rossi made many units and that they were already on sale?"
"I do not remember," Ess;n wrote, "but I think the Greek MW plant was already discussed at that time?”
I wrote to him that "the published facts, and I just confirmed with Mats Lewan, never said that there was a finished Rossi device or that the Rossi devices had been or were being sold."
I asked him to try to remember where he may have obtained his information or developed his perception. I did not receive a reply by the time we went to press.
There is another contradiction. Rossi has stated many times that he hasn't taken and won't be taking anybody's money until he delivers his 1 MW plant in October.
When I spoke with Ess;n on July 15, I mentioned to him that Capiluppi had told me that the Rossi research agreement would not become active until Rossi made the first payment to the university.
"According to what I heard," Ess;n sad, "the contract will become active in late October, because then Rossi will get money from Athens, but this is only speculation. According to the schedule I heard, nothing will happen until October."
On July 11, a Web site called E-Cat Report stated, according to Rossi, that an unsigned "co-operation agreement" was in place between Rossi and Uppsala University.
On July 12, I contacted Senior Press Officer Anneli Waara of Uppsala University in an attempt to confirm the story. Waara sent my inquiry to Kullander and Ess;n.
“According to Professor Kullander, there is no such agreement or preparing for an agreement as suggested by that information,” Waara wrote.
There were even greater problems with the foundation of Kullander's opinions as expressed in the Ny Teknik article.
The Rossi group's approach was far from "fairly scientific." The researchers did not run control experiments, did not measure heat output directly and did not consult with engineers qualified to evaluate either the quantity or the quality of the steam. The researchers also ignored or dismissed suggestions given to them by Celani and other people on how they could get an accurate energy balance and avoid the steam issues.
For example, many people have suggested to Rossi that one of the best ways to verify his claim is to start an experiment with 30 gallons of cold water and end up with 30 gallons of hot water by condensing the device's output into a second tank while monitoring the temperature change of the water. Rossi's refusal to perform such a simple and potentially unambiguous test significantly undermines the credibility of his claim.
Kullander thought that the most significant piece of information was that Rossi had heated a building for a year with one of his devices. No evidence exists to support this claim. Not even Rossi's patent application makes the claim. In it, Rossi uses a cleverly worded sentence (Appendix 28) to give the impression that he heated the building with his device. But that's not what the sentence says.
We have only Rossi's word that he had a practical, working device heating his building. For example, according to professor David J. Nagel of The George Washington University, Rossi said that one of his devices was "installed on October 16, 2007, was operating 24 hours per day, and provided an amount of energy sufficient to heat the factory of [Rossi's] Company, EON. There was a 90% savings on electricity bills over a period of six months."
According to statements by Focardi, in a May 4, 2011, workshop at Pavia University, in Italy, he and Rossi had performed their first experiment in 2007, and it worked all night without external energy input. As reported by Query Online, Rossi and Focardi's "very first and rough prototype device was submerged in a water bucket laid on a barrel."
Photograph of Early Prototype of Rossi Device
(Photo Sources: Query and Focardi)
Another problem with Kullander's reasoning is that he thought that Rossi device could not be assessed properly for an energy balance because the patent hadn't been granted. This is incorrect. A black box can be tested without going inside it and risking the loss of proprietary information.
Last, Kullander mentioned twice in the news story that readers "have to believe in the inventor Rossi" and take his word "partly because he says it."
Search for Science
I went to Italy in search of the best facts that I thought Rossi, Focardi and Levi might have to support their claims. As my video interviews with the trio show, I asked about their steam measurements. I asked to see scientific evidence for their 18-hour sub-boiling test. I asked to see scientific evidence for their self-sustaining claim. Rossi had the opportunity to show me the volume and velocity of steam exiting directly from his device. Either he did not understand these facts, or he did not want me to see them. I asked to see the best evidence they had for isotopic anomalies. Rossi showed me vague graphs (Appendix 21). I came away virtually empty-handed. Do they have real science? Possibly. Are they mistaken? Possibly. Do they have a technology? I've seen no evidence of it.
For example, I asked Levi during my interview with him on June 14 about the data for the Jan. 14 test.
"In the second test, in the January test, data were lost," Levi said. "Also, I have written a report without having the real — because Rossi has switched off his computer," Levi said.
During the interview, I asked Levi about the best evidence he had for a self-sustaining effect. I asked whether he had any graphs that showed both input power and output temperature over time. Again, this is a basic set of data that a high school student would know to do.
"If you see the data acquisition [on the experiment], you have two systems," Levi said. "One was for power, the other one for temperature. Then you have to put this data together. And when you put data together from different data acquisition systems with different clocks, you must be sure that everything is correctly aligned."
However, a mechanical engineer who used data that was publicly available was able to do this for the Jan. 14, 2011 test, without much trouble, in spite of the fact that Rossi lost the data. (Appendix 17)
Mechanical Engineer's Analysis of Power and Temperature in Jan. 14, 2011, Rossi Experiment
Toward the end of my discussion with Levi about the Feb. 10-11, 2011, test, I asked Levi whether showing me the raw scientific data would be a problem for him.
"Not really,” he said. “But then people will start to make any kind of funny analysis on it, and then I will have to answer this funny analysis."
I reminded him that he gave numbers (claims) to the press but without any scientific data to support those numbers.
"If you don't want to trust these numbers, don't trust them! It's very simple," Levi said.
He explained that, to show proper evidence, he needs to set up a complete measurement apparatus, and that would take at least three months.
I asked, "What would you say is the value of the numbers that you reported to Mats Lewan [Ny Teknik]? Is there any credibility to those numbers?”
"There is no credibility as scientific paper credibility,” Levi said. “If you trust me, this is what I have seen with my best effort. Also, I was really conservative."
Hope for Technology
Do they have any competitors in the arena of Ni-H gas LENR, or even in the field of LENR? Scientifically, yes, lots of good competitors. Technologically? No. From a business and entrepreneurial perspective, this, as well as all other known attempts at practical LENR devices, seem to be missing fundamental scientific understanding; theoretical as well as experimental. If entrepreneurs do not understand the science, their attempts to commercialize a technology likely will fail and cause disappointment.
The only person with a competing patent application is Francesco Piantelli. I've not heard much from Piantelli on recent scientific progress, and I have heard no news from him of any technological progress. I have not seen Piantelli for a few years, but I have been in touch with him recently to confirm the history of his research.
As far as I know, Piantelli was the first to start working on the idea of Ni-H gas LENR, and he and Focardi agree on this. Piantelli began his work alone, presented his initial findings at a conference, then later began working with Focardi and Roberto Habel from Cagliari University and the National Institute of Nuclear Physics-Cagliari.
Here is Piantelli's account:
"The meeting with Roberto and Focardi took place in October 1990 at the National Conference (October 8-13, 1990) of the Italian Physics Society in Trento. I went to the meeting in order to find someone who wanted to take a look at the experimental results I obtained starting from January 1990. Among the people I met in that congress were Habel and Focardi. I presented to them my experimental data. Those data were later presented in a scientific meeting of Accademia dei Fisiocritici in Siena and published in the Atti of the Academy in 1993.
I presented also my opinion concerning the phenomenon. I thought that it wasn't cold fusion because it is impossible to overcome the potential barrier, even though I had read the superradiance and coherence theory of Giuliano Preparata. Habel and Focardi, and other people who I discussed my results with, were very skeptical of my results. Only after I reproduced the experiments a few times was I able to start a real collaboration with them. This resulted in our paper in 1994 in Il Nuovo Cimento and other publications that followed."
In the last year, I have asked Piantelli how people can best learn about his experiment and attempt to repeat it. He has told me that his two patent applications are the best resources. If I recall, one of them provides some details for a catalyst. Here are the links, as well as some links to my two previous articles on Piantelli:
Piantelli WIPO/PCT Application 95/20816 (Source)
Piantelli European Patent granted #EP0767962 (Patent Granted June 2, 1999. Now expired, renewal fees unpaid) (Other National Phase)
Deuterium and Palladium Not Required
Piantelli-Focardi Publication and Replication Path (See reference section for scientific bibliography and key technical papers.)
On Page 2 of the Piantelli group’s 1998 paper, "Large Excess Heat Production in Ni-H Systems," (Il Nuovo Cimento, Vol. 111A, p. 1233-1242, (1998)), the paper mentions a special surface coating that contains nickel ammonium sulphate, citric acid, ammonium hydroxide and sodium disulfite.
Journalist Maurizio Torrealta of RAI -TV asked Rossi on a show broadcast on May 3, 2011, how he came up with the idea of the secret additive.
"10% intuition and 90% perspiration," Rossi said. "I tried thousands of reactors and thousands of different combinations until I arrived at the one that worked."
A Hoax?
Rossi has claimed, many times and in many reports, that he is not asking anybody for money until he delivers a working product for sale. For example, he said so on March 18 in Ny Teknik.
"I want no money from anybody until the plants have started up to demonstrate they maintain the guarantees. I want all the risks on me. This of course makes the beginning slow, but I want not to put on risk the money which is not mine."
Rossi's Greek licensee, Defkalion Green Technologies, however, is asking for money and asking investors to bear the risk. For 40.4 million Euros, one company per country can have the exclusive rights to manufacture and sell Rossi's device, according to a July 6 letter from Symeon Tsalikoglou, the director of business development and marketing for Defkalion.
Few people have seen as many new, strange and innovative ideas as Tony Tether has. Tether is the president of the Sequoia Group, a consulting firm, and he served as director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency from June 18, 2001, until February 20, 2009.
As he told me, he, too, met Rossi and saw one of his demonstrations, last year in New Hampshire.
"It wasn't one of his best experiments, according to Rossi, but it went on for a long time," Tether said. "The weight of the hydrogen bottle was being measured, and it wasn't decreasing. The input power was being measured, and it was what he said it was.
"I did have a chance to talk to him, and he was evasive when I directly asked him what was going on. He complained why we needed to take separate measurements. I told him that, if he didn't want to disclose how it worked, then there was no other choice but to make sure there wasn't a person behind the curtain. (I don't think he understood my Wizard of Oz reference.)
"If it is a hoax, it is a damn good one."
Rossi Goes to NASA
On July 14, Rossi met with members of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.
The next day, I spoke with the man who organized the meeting, Michael A. Nelson. Nelson is a systems engineer and has been at NASA for 30 years. He has experience in a wide variety of engineering disciplines.
He has worked at NASA in the main propulsion group for the space shuttle as well as with the launch monitoring systems. July 15 was a historic day for Nelson and many other NASA staff members because it was the final day of the last space shuttle mission.
Nelson explained to me that his facility has excellent resources for testing anomalous claims and that it has always been open and interested in new ideas.
Nelson would not go into detail on the record with me about the meeting with Rossi, but he did provide a few facts.
Rossi had contacted Nelson several months ago, asking to visit.
Rossi paid his own expenses to attend the July 14 meeting at Marshall.
Approximately 25 people comprising NASA staff and outside contractors attended the meeting.
There was no demonstration, only a discussion about Rossi's device.
NASA showed my June 14 video, in which Rossi demonstrated his device to me.
NASA is offering an opportunity to test Rossi's device so long as there is no cost to the government.
No agreement has been established.
NASA 's interest is for possible space applications of the device.
Further details are not available at this time.
Nelson was eager to see the truth about Rossi's device revealed, however it turns out.
"Hope is good as long as it’s not false hope," Nelson wrote. "False hope is one of the most destructive kinds of forces in the LENR field. The truth is what gets us through any of this."
Nelson explained that he was trying to open avenues for new research at NASA, including LENR research.
"LENR is another avenue. It's not just about Rossi," Nelson said, "If the Rossi thing doesn't happen, then maybe something else will.
"Rossi has brought a lot of attention to the field. Any researchers who have a legitimate claim are going to benefit from this."
[Ed: Correction (Aug. 1, 2011) The statement about "the force of 11,200 liters of steam per hour exiting from it would cause it to jump around wildly like a snake" is not supported by the physics and has been removed.]
[Ed: Clarification (Aug. 3, 2011) In Ekstr;m's analysis, he had estimated the hose inner diameter at 20 mm. Based on other analyses we have received, we have used the value of 12 mm here instead.]