Sciencemadness Discussion Board

Rossi cold fusion machine

gregxy - 10-7-2011 at 22:02

Here is a new one Ni + H -> Cu + energy

No one knows for sure how (or if it) works but the demonstrations have convinced
some skeptics. (Its reported he gets several kWh out of the small machine,
too much for chemical energy storage).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer

[Edited on 11-7-2011 by gregxy]

IrC - 10-7-2011 at 23:18

The claim is not cold fusion but rather low energy nuclear reactions (LENR) which is not fusion at all. He sent them powders? From what, containers on his shelf? All this secrecy when he has a patent in Italy and a pending here? All you do is read the patent. Yet your Wiki link gives no numbers. No worry I searched. It is below. What bothers me is secrecy over such previously unknown reactions in a device anyone can look up. A patent means secrecy is out the window unless you are robbed by your government under secrecy orders. Besides then they steal it and give you nothing. Never patent anything you suspect the government will claim or you will be reamed out of your work and investment.

If the device is really doing what is claimed there is no reason proper tests with full observation of assembly, operation, measurement of radiation produced, breakdown and analysis of an increase in the amount of total Cu present could not be done in a proper setting to allay any possible deviation from his claim.

As hard and expensive as it would be to obtain enough of this isotope to build the device not many will be built. Besides if the total energy needed from a reactor to make enough isotope is greater than the energy the device could ever produce where is the gain? By reading 20110005506 'METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CARRYING OUT NICKEL AND HYDROGEN EXOTHERMAL REACTION' Rossi, Andrea, you would clearly see he puts his Ni isotope into a copper tube so no wonder Cu is found in residue from the device after it is taken apart. From this I do not see how finding Cu after operation proves nuclear reactions are creating Cu. Or I missed mention of a statement of grams Cu before and after in the article.

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

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

Well I guess (9) explains the iron mystery in the Wiki article as well. What I glean from all this is I don't trust either Wiki or the patent office.

Edit to add the full PDF to save you searching.



Attachment: US20110005506A1.pdf (199kB)
This file has been downloaded 513 times


[Edited on 7-11-2011 by IrC]

watson.fawkes - 11-7-2011 at 05:18

Quote: Originally posted by IrC  
The claim is not cold fusion but rather low energy nuclear reactions (LENR) which is not fusion at all.
That's a distinction without any physical difference. What's claimed is Ni + H fusion, not the more typical H + H fusion. (Isotope indicators omitted.)

The difference, though, is there and it's the marketing. Calling it cold fusion, which is accurate (it's not a plasma; it's a fusion reaction), would be a death knell in the media.

hissingnoise - 11-7-2011 at 07:09

If it is the real deal it would seem highly significant . . .


IrC - 11-7-2011 at 07:34

I disagree Watson. Fusion has always been taken to mean the production of He during the nuclear burning of hydrogen. The reaction between particles and a metal such as Ni is deemed fission just as U or Pu has always been a fission reaction not a fusion. You might even say this is merely a transmutation reaction instead of a fission reaction but I draw the line saying it is fusion. He is using an isotope of Ni and I have no doubt it is a radioactive isotope. Maybe you can be half correct because it is a proton not a neutron being used but I do not think so. In my mind the fusing of hydrogen with the direct product of helium is a requirement to term something a fusion reaction. Otherwise what is the reason all 'Atomic Bombs' are not called fusion bombs?

The only angle from which I can see your point is you are saying all proton reactions are fusion whereas all neutron reactions (not involving protons in any way) are fission reactions? I don't recall this being a criteria in the literature for this distinction, possibly you have a point. Not for me though. I want to see hydrogen burned to helium before I can say fusion. However your point they are divorcing themselves from the bad press of the term cold fusion is likely very accurate, I do not blame them for this. The geniuses at the USPTO are too stupid to take something upon it's true merit for working. They would likely not grant a patent no matter how well it really worked merely for political reasons.


[Edited on 7-11-2011 by IrC]

arsphenamine - 11-7-2011 at 08:22

Quote: Originally posted by IrC  
Fusion has always been taken to mean the production of He during the nuclear burning of hydrogen. [Edited on 7-11-2011 by IrC]
Hydrogen nuclei fusion is a single case in a broad class.
Limiting the scope to that single case means you must
posit magic to explain formation of heavier elements.
"Fiat lux" is, unfortunately, sufficient explanation for many.

LENR is an old umbrella term for nuclear transformations that
don't immediately render large tracts of land unusable.
"Cold fusion" is a vague term of art traced to a 1956 New York Times article.

Muon-catalysed fusion may be more germane but, again,
mainstream news editors' eyes glaze over after reading "Muon"
so they choose to derogate what they misunderstand.
I am reminded of what "hacking" meant before the term gained
mainstream currency.

To blame the US Patent Office is deeply unfair.
It is a system under siege, heavily gamed by corporate interests
(where have we heard that before?). If you have an average of 2 hours
in which to make a patent assessment, it's much easier to reject it and
encourage reapplication after judicious editing.

IrC - 11-7-2011 at 09:19

I really think I made it clear that for me to buy the term fusion then helium must be a product of the reaction.

"To blame the US Patent Office is deeply unfair."

This could be a wonderful sounding statement if it did not indicate you have not had to actually deal with them for decades.

Have you personally ever had to deal with the patent office. If not I guess you speak without experience.


watson.fawkes - 11-7-2011 at 09:44

Quote: Originally posted by IrC  
I disagree Watson. Fusion has always been taken to mean the production of He during the nuclear burning of hydrogen.
The term "fusion" is used all over astronomy to describe nuclear processes inside stars, and that's certainly not limited to H and He.

It's not even limited to hypothetical power applications. There's the proposed reaction <sup>2</sup>H + <sup>10,11</sup>B --> <sup>12,13</sup>C that I've always seen described as fusion.

As for neutron-activated fission, one thing the term "fusion" isn't used for is unstable intermediates in a reaction whose net effect is the splitting up of a nucleus.

arsphenamine - 11-7-2011 at 09:53

Quote: Originally posted by IrC  
I really think I made it clear that for me to buy the term fusion then helium must be a product of the reaction.
Sir, a casual read shows that you were more specific.

Quote:
"To blame the US Patent Office is deeply unfair."

This could be a wonderful sounding statement if it did not indicate you have not had to actually deal with them for decades.

"Waah."

Everybody complains about the weather but
nobody does anything about it.

The USPTO can only execute their charter and the laws that pertain.

If you've done it for decades, one would hope you'd gained some
facility at it, and have a better motivation for doing so than that
it feels better when you stop.

A patent is a license to sue, little more.

For me, it was $5k ill-spent since it never actually generated revenue
and did not deter others from infringing it before the industry evolved
past the device's specificity. In practice, unless you can burn $10M on
lawyers, a patent is a waste.

See Lodsys.

IrC - 11-7-2011 at 10:12

"A patent is a license to sue, little more."

I have known this for over 40 years you are preaching to the choir and therefore wasting my time. This has nothing to do with the topic.


gregxy - 11-7-2011 at 10:18

Thanks for finding and posting the patent.

Differentating any Cu produced from Cu that was there originally would be difficult. Detecting the energy produced is much easier.

Quote:

"As hard and expensive as it would be to obtain enough of this isotope to build the device not many will be built. "


How did you conclude a special isotope is needed? The patent only mentions a mass of 58 for Ni, this seems to be
the most common isotope.

Shouldn't this phonema have been observed long ago?
NiMH batteries contain Ni and H (as well as other things)
and get quite hot when people short them by mistake.
In addition nickle is used a catalyst for hydrogenation.
You would think that someone would have observed something long ago??

IrC - 11-7-2011 at 11:05

gregxy, you make good points. I assumed since the word 'isotope' was spelled out in the patent with no mention as to which one, that he was differentiating from the Ni we could simply dig out of the ground. I will clarify another point which may appear to be a preconceived attitude coming from me. I have spent decades researching (sometimes building) virtually every new and esoteric 'new energy' device and inventor out there known and unknown. Some long dead, some not. In all the reading and study I have done I have developed a 'bullcrap meter' 7th sense if you will. This relates to certain ways of showing and publicizing new ideas, as opposed to how mainstream business does it. Sort of like yes secrecy is important but there is in my mind a 'shell game secrecy' which I see in almost every single new energy claim I have ever encountered. Kind of hard to explain I guess but I was basing this upon the read in Wiki. Of course the inventor did not write the article so maybe I judge this too quickly. However I fail to see why he is handling the idea the way he is. Just build the thing and get it on sale in all the Walmarts of the world. If it works it does and if not the product will bomb. Economic natural selection is the best kind. I did not like in the Wiki read the manner in which claims were being validated, i.e., in a way which forever left the claim not validated. I think I explained this thought of mine well but you never know.

"Differentating any Cu produced from Cu that was there originally would be difficult."

I think measurements precise enough to tell are not all that difficult.

"Detecting the energy produced is much easier"

I agree which is why the 'mysterious' approach of validation in the Wiki read bothered me.

Edit to add: OK Watson I give we will all call it fusion. However I feel better thinking in terms of low energy nuclear reactions and transmutations when no helium is involved as a way to differentiate. Otherwise why do we even have the word transmutation in our scientific lexicons? What good is the term if it is all merely fusion?

"Shouldn't this phonema have been observed long ago?
NiMH batteries contain Ni and H (as well as other things)
and get quite hot when people short them by mistake.
In addition nickle is used a catalyst for hydrogenation.
You would think that someone would have observed something long ago??"

Also, this is a great point. Why am I never seeing this. Gotta go people I am going to work on a way to make gold (what is it now $1500/oz?) using my car battery. I cannot afford the gas to drive anyway so this will put the battery to better use.

On a serious note. This is something really worth investigating. If LENR in a DC cell is possible why must Ni and H be the only approach. H + something yields something, plus more H = Au and I am going to retire. Do not think I'm joking I am really going to look into this! Come to think of it, I remember a Beardon video I dismissed about a similar Au production in a similar cell, yet if this patent is valid Beardon's work has possibly serious validity.

Just realized this gives me another way to clarify my 7th sense meter comments. In the Beardon video he said 'they' threatened to kill him if he kept up the experiments or published the actual information. This 'they' or 'men in black' if you will, is part of the picture I look at when wondering where to set my 7th sense bullcrap meters pointer.

It sucks to think 'they' might be real but screw em, I'm looking into making gold whether 'they' like it or not.

[Edited on 7-11-2011 by IrC]

phlogiston - 11-7-2011 at 13:11

Fusion = fusing two nuclei together into an heavier nucleus. H+H --> He, or Ni + H --> Cu are both fusion reactions

Fission = splitting an atomic nucleus into lighter nuclei. U --> Kr + Ba is a fission reaction

Transmutation = any (nuclear) process by which atoms of one element are converted into another element. ie. both fission and fusion reactions and transmutation reactions.

Fusion of light nuclei yields energy, up to iron or nickel. Fusion of heavier nuclei -costs energy-. (But splitting them yields energy). Look up nuclear binding energy if you want to know more.

Quote:
"Shouldn't this phonema have been observed long ago?


Suposedly, it only works if the nickel is treated in a very special way first. Rossi found this out while doing research on using Ni as a catalyst for conventional chemical reactions. He then stumbled on a special treatment that allows the process to happen. The process critically depends on a secret catalyst that is not described in the patent. The nature of the catalyst is a matter of a lot of speculation of course. There are various hints to be found in different places on the net. Use google if you want to join the guesswork.

Quote:
How did you conclude a special isotope is needed? The patent only mentions a mass of 58 for Ni, this seems to be the most common isotope.


True, but Rossi himself did state on a forum after being asked specifically about this that the nickel he starts with is (partially) enriched in Ni-58 (indeed the most common naturally abundand isotope), although it is not in the patent. Since isotopic enrichment is normally a pretty expensive procoess, nobody knows how he accomplishes this at sufficiently low cost.

@IrC, there are various articles where gram copper before/after are given, and they are in line with whay you might expect from the amount of energy extracted. (ie. so many months@ so many watts = moles of Ni+H fusion reactions * energy yield per reaction).

BTW, Fusion of Ni+H actually costs energy. The energy gain is supposed to come from the fission of the instable copper isotope formed after the Ni+H fusion:

Ni58 + H + a litle energy --> Cu-59
Cu59-->Ni59+ much more energy
Then:
Ni59 + H --> Cu60
Cu60 --> Ni60

etc, all the way untill stable copper isotopes are formed.





One thing I have not seen a decent response to is the matter that the 2 cm of lead shielding surrounding the reactor is enough to shield any gamma radiation to below detectable levels, and the device is supposedly not radioactive anymore minutes/seconds after turning it off. Given the half-life of the intermediate nickel and copper isotopes, the reactor would be expected to remain radioactive for longer than that, and various people have calculated that the amount of radiation produced would not be adequately shielded by only 2 cm of lead.


Anyway, time will tell I guess. He is building a 1 MW denostration plant in Greece and tells everyone to wait investing in his technology until that plant is shown to work.

[Edited on 11-7-2011 by phlogiston]

IrC - 11-7-2011 at 14:31

"Suposedly, it only works if the nickel is treated in a very special way first."

These things bother me and my BC meter 7th sense. Virtually all free or over unity energy devices have some form of this claim, as in treating magnets a special way for Hans Color's invention.

http://www.magneticmotorguide.com/tag/hans-color/

http://siemens-automations.blog-electrobeneficios.com/the-el...

How many 'special' ways can you treat Ni for it to go nuclear? Turning it into an isotope cannot count as all you need do is start with this isotope. Increasing surface area? Lucky me I have 5 pounds of incredibly pure Ni dust I never did figure out what to do with. Where is Peach when I need him. If anyone here has reactor time to spare he does, likely in his room the lucky bloke.

I wish you had posted links to some of the articles you mention but I will do some searching I had not heard of this idea before gregxy started this thread prompting me to find a copy of the patent. The catalyst mention makes me think he is performing some kind of chemical reaction but then it's not Ni but a compound. I know a catalyst can be used to make red P turn into black P yet I was unaware Ni could form structures (or forms) of only the single element similar to the way phosphorus behaves.

I mean it must, as what else can you do with the words 'catalyst' and 'special' when considering a single pure element?

Edit to add: I just saw this "\"If a rocket goes up, who cares where it comes down\" - Wernher von Braun"

My answer would be the British did a while back.


[Edited on 7-11-2011 by IrC]

gregxy - 11-7-2011 at 14:46

Paper by the inventor:

http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3080659.ece/BINARY/Ro...

Site with some pictures and analysis of "fakes".

http://lenr.qumbu.com/

I cannot find any coverage on the main media, just on alternate energy sites (along with lots of paranoia). From the photos and description of the power output it should be easy to verify if it is nuclear.

bbartlog - 11-7-2011 at 14:58

Quote:
: I just saw this "\"If a rocket goes up, who cares where it comes down\" - Wernher von Braun"


I'm pretty sure this is not an actual quote from von Braun but rather some words put in his mouth by Tom Lehrer.


IrC - 11-7-2011 at 15:04

Quote: Originally posted by bbartlog  
Quote:
: I just saw this "\"If a rocket goes up, who cares where it comes down\" - Wernher von Braun"


I'm pretty sure this is not an actual quote from von Braun but rather some words put in his mouth by Tom Lehrer.



This I can believe.

Thanks for the links gregxy.

watson.fawkes - 11-7-2011 at 15:08

If this works, there's a straightforward way to determine if it's happening. Nickel isotopes 58 and 60-63 are all stable, but <sup>59</sup>Ni is not, with half life of 7.5 E+04 years. So if the proposed chain <sup>58</sup>Ni --> <sup>59</sup>Cu --> <sup>59</sup>Ni works at all, you can chemically separate the Ni from the Cu and then see if there's any residual radioactivity in the Ni. The half-life of the longest of the Cu decays, <sup>61</sup>Cu --> <sup>61</sup>Ni, is only 3.4 hours, so you'd need to let the Ni sample age for a while to account for any residual Cu impurity. The biggest problem with this is that the half-life of <sup>59</sup>Ni is rather long and that it decays by electron capture, which means the decay signature is a X-ray cascade. Still, it's nothing that a photomultiplier tube shouldn't be able to catch.

IrC - 11-7-2011 at 17:36

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=473

From this link "How can 30% of nickel in Rossi’s reactor be transmuted into copper?", I do not see where measurement of the increase in Cu should be a problem. 30 percent is quite a change. I am assuming from this that 30% is the claim Rossi is making?

Too big to upload:

http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_proof_v401.pdf


[Edited on 7-12-2011 by IrC]

johansen - 11-7-2011 at 21:30

Quote: Originally posted by gregxy  
Shouldn't this phonema have been observed long ago?
NiMH batteries contain Ni and H (as well as other things)
and get quite hot when people short them by mistake.
In addition nickle is used a catalyst for hydrogenation.
You would think that someone would have observed something long ago??

You beat me to it, I was about to say this yesterday. Someone would have discovered this alleged nuclear reaction three digit years ago if there was anything here. Furthermore the reaction rates he is claiming should make this test trivial, involving nothing more than a test tube, bunsen burner, powdered nickel, hydrogen. Don't forget the neutron detector!

from here: http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_proof_frames_v401.php
Quote:

He confirmed that the reactor chamber, supposedly containing nickel powder, the secret catalysts and hydrogen gas, had a volume of around one liter.

And now we have secret catalysts? I see no mention of that in the patent.

IrC - 11-7-2011 at 22:15

That link is the HTML version of the PDF link I posted above your post but handy to read through the concept. I think some confusion I had is gone with the following link.

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Andrea_A._Rossi_Cold_...

It appears the catalysts are not used in the 'special' conditioning of the Ni but rather have to do with the actual reaction. However now I am stuck with an even worse problem and that is in how a chemical catalyst gives rise to any form of nuclear reactions. The more I look into this the deeper the hole gets, serving to further peg out my BC meter. I am not saying I am convinced LENR are impossible but if this worked it would be considered strategic. By this I mean governments would be snatching it up with billions to blow on perfecting the machine rather than just a few guys slowly raising money to prove an idea. I know how governments work in this regard and there does not appear to be massive interest out there. This concept of lack of development is another one of the clues I apply in my 7th sense about esoteric new energy production ideas. Little to no military interest does not bode well for any new ideas in this area of research.

After much reading the entire idea interests me enough I think I will try my hand at it, especially since I have a few pounds of the Ni needed in just the right size particles. I will however continue to be the skeptic in all this until my room glows in the dark. Or at least until it is well lighted without the grid. Off to study how I am going to home build my hydrogen under pressure supply. This I can only see as doing on a production rate of flow as is needed by the device I have never been one to be happy with a large amount high pressure H2 just sitting around in storage.


[Edited on 7-12-2011 by IrC]

gregxy - 11-7-2011 at 22:52

The fact that Rossi has a background in alternative energy does not look good.
It could be a stunt to draw attention to his cause.

You would also think every lab in the country would be trying to replicate it
(like with the original cold fusion). But then they don't have the mystery catalyst.

Still the caloric results should be easy to verify and conclusive , supposedly the Sweedish professors did all that, unless they missed something like the use
of H2O2 instead of water for the input.

Checking for formation of Cu or ?? is difficult without continuous access to the
machine for several months.

Here is another new company making similar claims (with really bad science)
http://www.brillouinenergy.com/

Satan - 11-7-2011 at 23:03

"According to Rossi, future commercial „energy catalyzers“ will include a SELF-DESTRUCTION mechanism. Any attempts to inspect the secret operating mechanism and internal components of reactors thus were prevented." :D

Read more: http://www.esowatch.com/en/index.php?title=Focardi-Rossi_Ene...

Professor Focardi said in interview that he doesn't know how this device works, and it looks like Rossi is using him to look more scientific.

IMHO liar

watson.fawkes - 12-7-2011 at 04:38

Quote: Originally posted by IrC  
From this link "How can 30% of nickel in Rossi’s reactor be transmuted into copper?", I do not see where measurement of the increase in Cu should be a problem.
That 30 percent conversion is after a 6 month run, though. Detection of <sup>59</sup>Ni could be done after a much shorter time.

That will be for science, though, after the mechanism is published. That doesn't seem to be happening anytime soon. I looked at that "rossi_ecat_proof_..." file. It's basically worthless, in my opinion. The whole idea that you can do any science with a black box is just hokum.
Quote: Originally posted by IrC  
It appears the catalysts are not used in the 'special' conditioning of the Ni but rather have to do with the actual reaction. However now I am stuck with an even worse problem and that is in how a chemical catalyst gives rise to any form of nuclear reactions.
It's conceivable, because it happens elsewhere, that some kind of crystal structure surrounding Ni atoms in required, for example, the response frequency of the Mossbauer effect. In such a case, the chemical structure could be considered a catalyst for a nuclear reaction. For me, the proposition that something magic comes out of a special solid state configuration is perpetually possible, given just how large the configuration space of the solid state is. Witness: high-T<sub>C</sub> superconductors. We're used to the idea now, but when they came out it was just magic.

----
If this thing actually works, Rossi is being just rank idiot as to the secrecy itself. Patents are invalid unless they fully disclose how to replicate the machine. You can leave off efficiency improvements and the like, so long as the basic mechanism works. Well, Rossi seems to have omitted that from his patent disclosures, which means that there's no way that they'll hold up in court. He's going to have to rely upon trade secrets.

And since this is a potential game-changer, trade secrets are just worthless versus espionage. Someone will just steal one of the reactors. Probably more than one someone. The pilot plant in Greece is planned as a parallel array of small reactors, making it completely feasible to remove one from the facility by theft. For my money, the most likely candidate is Mossad. They have the right capacity of capability, incentive, politics, and proximity to pull it off.

froot - 12-7-2011 at 06:32

It seems to have been 'publically' demonstrated. I'll throw caution to the wind and speculate catalysis more than cold fusion and I doubt the 517 tons mineral oil = 1g Ni claim. Could Ni catalyse H2 to atomic H like an electrical discharge does?

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/01/focardi-and-rossi-lenr-cold...
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/01/focardi-and-rossi-energy-ca...

Similar in principle to this?
http://jlnlabs.online.fr/mahg/index.htm


phlogiston - 12-7-2011 at 06:37

Quote:
just a few guys slowly raising money to prove an idea. I know how governments work in this regard and there does not appear to be massive interest out there. This concept of lack of development is another one of the clues I apply


He claims that he has a hard time distantiating himself from the bad name that cold fusion research has acquired over the years. People simply don't believe it and the military or any other serious organization doesn't want to waste its money on magic tricks.

From the photo's, I have always wandered if there was anything hidden in the piece of board to which the reactors are attached. In some of the photos it looks like it consists of two sheets of wood glued together. For instance at

http://lenr.qumbu.com/110502-Test_1_april+058_600px.jpg
(from one of gregxy's links)

Why not take a single thick slab if you need the rigidity? Also, the reactors are attached to it with a metal support, so there is the potential for an electrical connection (or if they are hollow, even the infusion/removal of chemicals into the stream.

[Edited on 12-7-2011 by phlogiston]

IrC - 12-7-2011 at 06:38

So a chemical catalyst is causing Ni to achieve a specific crystal lattice of Ni atoms. This lattice is tuning to a certain energy level to achieve capture of a proton at such specific energy level to cause the fusion reaction to take place? In effect the recoil energy is tuned until the proper energy level is achieved to create a large cross section for fusion? It would seem proton velocity is key meaning a precise temperature for the hydrogen gas must be achieved and maintained? Or did I get that wrong?

Two posts while I was writing this shifts me to where it is not clear, but these questions are directed at the last post by watson.fawkes . Also, I agree watson failure to mention the catalyst or it's function would seem to make any patent invalid.



[Edited on 7-12-2011 by IrC]

fledarmus - 12-7-2011 at 07:41

A US patent is not valid if it is not enabling, and in a field with this much skepticism, the patent office will be looking very closely at that aspect before it grants the patent.

"Enabling" means that a person with ordinary skill in the art, using nothing more than the patent disclosure and whatever is publicly known, could use the invention without an unreasonable amount of experimentation (roughly considered six months to a year).

A US patent is a bargain with the American people - you tell us exactly how to make your invention work, and we will give you the right to prevent anybody else from making, using, or selling it for a fixed period of time. After that, you have no rights whatsoever, and the invention is public property. If you would rather keep the secrets, fine, keep it as a trade secret - you don't get a patent. Doesn't keep you from building and selling the invention, but if anybody else figures out how to do it (without stealing from you - there are trade secret laws as well), you can't stop them. If a competent technician can't make your invention based solely on your disclosure, you haven't fulfilled your half of the bargain.

bhl - 12-7-2011 at 09:06

Hi All,

I am a fan of the idea of Rossi transmutation and am looking for collaborators on reproducing experiments. This sounds like a good forum for experimenters.

I am in the process of building heat/pressure reactors to look for excess heat. I'm doing it "on the cheap" using galvanized pipe and I'm running into trouble keeping my device sealed when exposed to heat and pressure. (200C at 150PSI).

But my concept of running two units side by side with the same heater input and looking for excess heat looks to be close to working.

Rossi mentions "catalytic action of optional elements" in his WIPO patent.

I have a few catalysts that I'd like to try-- carbon, tungsten, MnO2, steel wool (to increase surface area), and perhaps later nastier elements K, Li, Rb and Cs.

Ideas on "prepping" the Ni are also a big question mark. I do not think it is isotopic enrichment. It may involve degassing the Ni by subjecting it to vacuum and heat or inert gasses or "loading" it with hydrogen. It took Rossi 15 years to discover, but with a large audience of interested people, we should be able to figure it out in no time.

Feel free to PM or reply if you have ideas on making a better reactor vessel (up to 600C and 20bar), testing for radiation (on the cheap), etc. Would be great to find a bunch of people interested in trying a few simple experiments to potentially help solve this multi-trillion dollar mystery invention.

- Brad



watson.fawkes - 12-7-2011 at 11:16

Quote: Originally posted by IrC  
So a chemical catalyst is causing Ni to achieve a specific crystal lattice of Ni atoms. This lattice is tuning to a certain energy level to achieve capture of a proton at such specific energy level to cause the fusion reaction to take place? In effect the recoil energy is tuned until the proper energy level is achieved to create a large cross section for fusion? It would seem proton velocity is key meaning a precise temperature for the hydrogen gas must be achieved and maintained? Or did I get that wrong?
In the phrase "a chemical catalyst is causing", I have a problem with the word "is". I'd assent to "might be". You outlined one mechanism, which seems, at this stage, at least plausible. It broad strokes, you're outlining a kind of modified collision process. This is certainly one possibility. Personally, I wouldn't look so much as collisions at all, but tunneling. It's conceivable that there's some effect that a proton can migrate into a position where the fusion cross section is higher. If it's a tunneling mechanism, you get a simultaneous increase in electrostatic potential together with a decrease in strong-force binding potential.

I should also say that it conceivable that this material only works with <sup>58</sup>Ni and not with other isotopes. For example, suppose the lattice assists with the decay <sup>59</sup>Cu --> <sup>59</sup>Ni. Then you might see an essentially instantaneous reaction <sup>58</sup>Ni + <sup>1</sup>H<sup>+</sup> --> <sup>59</sup>Ni + &beta;<sup>+</sup>, essentially a short-circuited double reaction. This sort of thing is already known about with the fairly rare process of double-beta decay. I've got no a priori reason to believe that it's impossible to change the kinetics of this kind of reaction in the solid state.

Also, I'd have to say that it seems likely that this is some kind of surface process. If it were some bulk process, you're going to get transmutation inside the lattice, which, being a transmutation, going to change the lattice. This change would almost certainly stop the effect locally. So to get a 30% eventual yield, I find it more likely that there's a surface process, so that transmutation produced Cu spalls off the lattice surface. In addition, the claim is that H<sub>2</sub> pressure modulates the reaction, and pressure has more effect on surface dynamics than interior dynamics.

----
But as to reproduction, I have absolutely no interest in doing it or even thinking about it. There's a good likelihood that this is fraud or self-delusion. Even if it works, it seems likely that there are undisclosed secret ingredients or instructions. In either case, effort put toward replication seems just crazy.

All the possibilities I've outline address only the idea that this device "couldn't possibly work". I find this argument completely unpersuasive. On the other hand, given the secrecy of the inventor, I am equally unpersuaded it's real. My attitude is that until the inventor drops their secrecy or someone else replicates it, I'm going to mostly ignore it.

phlogiston - 12-7-2011 at 13:13

You are assuming that the crystal lattice is somehow important, but as far as I know this is not stated anywhere. The function of the catalyst in the process or in the preparation of the nickel is unknown. Very little is also known regarding the state of the nickel, except that it is finely powdered (suggesting that, indeed, the surface area matters) and that it is not Raney-nickel.

There is all kinds of wild speculation regarding the mechanism. I guess the most described variants all are based on the existence of a putative 'mini hydrogen' atom, in which the electron orbits the proton in an orbital much nearer orbital. The shielding by the elecron at this range allows the atom to diffuse into the nickel and allow the proton to approach a nickel nucleus to a much closer distance than it normally could.
Perhaps you've heard of 'hydrino's', another one of those controversial concepts. A bit like that, I image. The catalyst is then speculated to have something to do with the formation of the mini hydrogen atoms.

But so far, Rossi has remained silent with respect to the mechanism as far as I am aware.

[Edited on 12-7-2011 by phlogiston]

Mildronate - 12-7-2011 at 13:23

Energy for free is not advantageous. I had discusion with one profesor from Moscow Physical chemistry institute profesor about cold fusion he said its rubbish (and he laying), but few minutes later he said that they had done reserch in it.

gregxy - 12-7-2011 at 13:56

http://www.esowatch.com/en/index.php?title=Focardi-Rossi_Ene...

If you read the above, the only conclusion is that it is a fake.

1. Rossi is not a professor at the university and has a questionable background, so you cannot trust what he says.

2. In all the public demos water was converted to "steam".
The error in estimating the energy boil water is 6 to 1 depending if the water is actually converted into a gas or simply sprayed into small droplets. (Think of a "cool mist" humidifier which uses 30W or so to run a small motor).

3. In his recent demos Rossi claims the power conversion rate is down about 6 to 1. This is consistent with the error of assuming water mist is a gas.

4. To accurately measure the power he should use only liquid water in liquid water out.

5. All the nuclear arguments are negative: no gamma rays, missing isotopes and how to overcome the electrostatic barrier.

Sorry for wasting everyone's time on this.

The signal to noise ratio on the internet for this kind of thing is about -30db.


[Edited on 12-7-2011 by gregxy]

IrC - 12-7-2011 at 15:27

I don't see it as wasting anyone's time. I have not had anything really interesting to talk about here for a while.

"observers were prohibited to do a spectral analysis of possible gamma radiation, since it might allow the identification of elements of the compound"

From your link. The way I read this is similar to all the other free energy claims, namely subterfuge. My bullcrap meter 7th sense reads the same statement as "there is no radiation and no nuclear reaction and we are not about to let anyone prove it by actually measuring this parameter". You see, what I have found over decades is most of these people really do believe they have an earth altering new idea, if only they can just keep working on it until they get it right. Having no money for equipment, space, and materials, combined with not wanting to waste time getting a real job, they bait and switch looking for wealthy people to dump money into their idea. Usually they are committed and ignore all evidence contrary to the failure in their results. "If only I can get over that next mountain I know I'll see the pot of gold". Actually many are sincere in their beliefs they can succeed, yet never do. I love experimenting on this stuff because I am convinced there is a secret out there the universe has thus far refused to give up. Pisses me off too since the universe has had my cell number all along and I call this just plain rude. So long as I am not wealthy enough to have my dream lab I will keep working to survive and piddling around as much as I can. With what I can afford as I can. No doubt many do the same. Also as long as I am still burning dead lifeforms to get around. The simple truth is we as a race will die if we do not find it. Or at minimum the survivors will end up back in the stone age. Fuel will run out, pollution will destroy, it is only a matter of time. I for one as a member of this race wish to survive. With my car and television not a club and a cave.

The simple fact is we are all doomed and are all going to die. Both as individuals and as a race. The human race. There is no escape from this doom. Unless we find a new non polluting source of unlimited energy. Survival folks plain and simple. No escape, no way out. I see the atmosphere in the ways of science as a dire enemy in this quest for survival. Treating cold fusion like a media circus stops real scientists from looking into it using real science. No matter if so far it has failed, every attempt done properly teaches us new ideas even if it is merely Edison's 2,000 ways not to build a light bulb. We have lots of ocean, and H2O (or D2O) can be made to burn clean. From the viewpoint of chemical reactions it simply will not save us. Clean unlimited (and safe) fusion is still the best hope mankind has for survival on a long time scale. From the nightmare of politics and peer reviewed science to the bashing and humiliating everyone trying something new, even if we do not yet see how a thing can possibly work, so far the art of science as a whole today is the greatest obstacle to any hope of long term survival for us all. I look deeply into all the new and yes even wacky ideas simply because there are many brilliant people out there each working along their own lines. They may be blinding themselves to the truth their idea will never work yet in each we may find a grain of salt of an idea of a method or device which used in some other way may yield the answer we are trying to find. Or some new insight into physical processes we can apply to something else in some other way. I study an idea I know cannot work but along the way I learn something I never thought of before and this sends me off along some new avenue of research. Maybe it's all vanity, but hey, I tried. Kills time better than something useless like watching TV.

So no gregxy I do not think you wasted at least my time, you gave me something new to think about.




phlogiston - 12-7-2011 at 16:11

I hope it is fake. Now would be the worst time ever for an invention like this to come along. Finally, after decades, the public at large and those in power are beginning to recognize the need for real change if climate change at a terrible scale is to be prevented. This need will drive innovative ways to reduce our energy consumption, like real needs have always driven technological/scientific progress. If we find a way to produce virtually unlimited energy now, this will doom any efforts to reduce energy consumption.
Anyway, time will tell.

And BTW, you guys were right about the von Braun .sig. It was Tom Lehrer actually.

Yay, I'm not harmless anymore :)

[Edited on 13-7-2011 by phlogiston]

IrC - 12-7-2011 at 19:00

Quote: Originally posted by phlogiston  
I hope it is fake. Now would be the worst time ever for an invention like this to come along. Finally, after decades, the public at large and those in power are beginning to recognize the need for real change if climate change at a terrible scale is to be prevented. This need will drive innovative ways to reduce our energy consumption, like real needs have always driven technological/scientific progress. If we find a way to produce virtually unlimited energy now, this will doom any efforts to reduce energy consumption.
Anyway, time will tell.

And BTW, you guys were right about the von Braun .sig. It was Tom Lehrer actually.

Yay, I'm not harmless anymore :)

[Edited on 13-7-2011 by phlogiston]


I could not disagree more. You are saying your house radiates earth endangering heat from your electrical use. The problem is not caused all that much by you running your lights and TV but rather by the burning of fuel to generate the power used, combined with the fuel you burn to drive, and all the gasses pumped into the air in said processes. If every house on earth used electricity at the rate of an average US home providing a new clean source is devised and all current methods of generation are ceased, the earth would do just fine.

Draconian back to the stone age measures to reduce energy use for your daily life is pointless and quality of life lowering. What is needed is a way to generate all electrical power cleanly without pumping heat and chemicals into the air. So your point about this device being harmful if it worked is diametrically opposite to the truth of the matter. We need a clean non polluting and low heat generating (on a global scale) source of this electricity. Cheap as well.

If this device really worked we could stop burning coal entirely, and with improvements in electric cars provided we had the electrical generation as I am saying here we could also stop burning fossil fuel. There would then be no need to cut back power use to where everyone's quality of life was as far in the toilet as would make the green earth people happy.

I have yet to meet one green person who has volunteered to live in a cave making their life miserable in their own personal effort to fix the problem they spend so much time prophesying about. Al Gore uses more power than a small Midwestern town in his mansion, look it up. And he burns more jet fuel a month than I have used or ever will use in my entire 60 years of life.

You are equating our use of power with global warming and this is untrue. It is the way we get that power which is the problem so why the desire to go back to the stone age? Invent the new clean non polluting energy of the future and global warming (if any) will cease to be a problem. Without drastically lowering the quality of everyone's life on the planet. So I say make it work if it can be done and if not figure out what will.

You entire point directly correlates energy consumption with global warming while saying a new clean source of power will make things worse by causing people to not lower said consumption. Again, the way this power is produced today is the sole heart of the matter.

phlogiston - 13-7-2011 at 01:34

I agree, actually, for the specific case of global warming, but I still think it would serve humanity more in the long run if we were to run into a period of very serious lack of resources. It would make us work hard, think and improve rather than sit back and enjoy the comforting glow of a fusion reactor. A lack of energy (or another important resource) would be an excellent drive to find novel materials/technology/phenomena. You could argue that this fusion device is exactly such a novel technology, but it is more like a lucky find. Then again, all good inventions are, ofcourse, but they often remain undiscovered untill someone recognizes that the discovery could fill a need. People may stop noticing if there is no need.

[Edited on 13-7-2011 by phlogiston]

watson.fawkes - 13-7-2011 at 07:07

Quote: Originally posted by phlogiston  
You are assuming that the crystal lattice is somehow important, but as far as I know this is not stated anywhere. The function of the catalyst in the process or in the preparation of the nickel is unknown.
I'm not assuming anything of the sort. This whole affair is much more that I'm-for-it-or-I'm-against-it, though if you wish to misunderstand me, I'm only concerned that you don't assist others in propagating a shallow reading of what I wrote.

Therefore, to be explicit, I brought up lattice structures to argue against the class of assertions that can be summarized as "Inconceivable!", which is perhaps too short a summary. There's a particular class of naysayers that would claim that such a device is impossible because (1) physical law prohibits it, (2) no such thing has ever existed, (3) no known mechanism explains it, (4) I didn't think of it, and the like. All these have in common the assumption, always implicit, that somehow human knowledge and understanding is perfect and able to deny the existence of such a device, even in the same breath that it acknowledges human frailty generally.

This assertion is bogus, for the simple reason that humans have limitations. It's not even likely, given the huge possibilities in the solid state. And now I refer you back to my original post on the subject.

phlogiston - 13-7-2011 at 09:19

No, IrC seemed to make that assumption:

Quote: Originally posted by IrC  
So a chemical catalyst is causing Ni to achieve a specific crystal lattice of Ni atoms. This lattice is tuning to a certain energy level to


I did not mean to interpret anyones words and I have no opinion or useful theory regarding this ecat device whatsoever. I was trying to be helpful by saving you all a whole lot of reading by mentioning that there is no published information that the lattice structure is somehow important. If that was already clear to everyone then my apologies.

To be 'for' or 'against' any theory without evidence is indeed pointless. It is not a democratic process. Sooner or later properly conducted experiments will tell.

gregxy - 13-7-2011 at 10:55

Inventing a new idea is very difficult and rare event but once that the idea is conceived the evaluation goes fairly quickly.

One way to look at the probability of these things working is from an economic standpoint. Information travels very quickly these days. When a new idea shows up it will quickly be evaluated by corporations, the military, governments and various investment firms. Then "voting with dollars" occurs. You could say the money invested is proportional to the value of the idea multiplied by the probability that it will work. This is an extension of the idea of "efficient markets".

Something like this eCat has enormous value, trillions of dollars. The low level of investment means the "scientists of the world" think it has zero probability of working. Of course it is a relatively new idea but I would think the "evaluation time" would be on the order of a few weeks for something with such potential.

Other fusion ideas are ITER, funded at $20B. A large sum but not that much if the idea had true potential. After reading about it I think that eventually they will achieve energy production through this approach, but it will not be cost competitive with fission or fossil fuels. This seems to be consistent with its funding level. (Plus it's not clean. It will produce lots of low-level scrap and may require use of a fission reactor to produce its fuel.)

The third candidate is polywell, which is funded by the Navy at $20M. It has been around for 20+ years and the researchers appear to be dragging their heels to keep their jobs. The "consensus opinion" therefore is that the probability of success is extremely small. The Navy may also be keeping the program going with some outside motive like having a more effective radiation generator for testing.


IrC - 13-7-2011 at 12:54

Quote: Originally posted by phlogiston  
No, IrC seemed to make that assumption:

Quote: Originally posted by IrC  
So a chemical catalyst is causing Ni to achieve a specific crystal lattice of Ni atoms. This lattice is tuning to a certain energy level to


I did not mean to interpret anyones words and I have no opinion or useful theory regarding this ecat device whatsoever. I was trying to be helpful by saving you all a whole lot of reading by mentioning that there is no published information that the lattice structure is somehow important. If that was already clear to everyone then my apologies.

To be 'for' or 'against' any theory without evidence is indeed pointless. It is not a democratic process. Sooner or later properly conducted experiments will tell.


Not so much an assumption but rather trying to look at possible ways for the ecat to function. In this case I was looking at a resonance effect where protons in a certain energy range are 'trapped' or to quote Watson 'tunneled' into a lattice where the surrounding electrostatic pressure gave rise to fusion. But Watson brought up good reasons to show how more likely if the device is real it's all going on at the surface. He made good points. Not sure if any of you ever were in think tanks or still are but it really is a good way to figure things out. You bounce an idea off people and they go along adding to it, or come up with good reasons why not, or what the 'different way' is and why their idea is better. I really enjoyed my time in such a setting. We got a lot done. There was a Dr from SRI and one from Cornell who were to me the sharpest people I ever met. A lot of fun when it's not too political.

I digress. My idea was thinking about enough confinement to overcome the electrostatic barrier yet Watsons comment about pressure modulation of reaction rate leads me to believe He is more likely correct, it's all on the surface. Assuming of course the whole ecat idea is not another in the line of BS claims we see far too often. The one thing I like is it sets me thinking about ways where such an idea may be possible without the need for me to keep playing with D2O. I still have a gallon or so left but everything is getting far too expensive for the average amateur (meaning me), and this approach finally gives me something to try with the pounds of Ni dust I just could not pass up years ago due to a very low price at the time. Still unsure how Watsons tunneling would work, to me it seems more likely a moving proton would just recoil from the surface.

Should add: is it possible the catalyst gives rise to conditions where a 'resonance capture' or an increase in the probability for a 'resonant tunneling' effect occurs?


[Edited on 7-13-2011 by IrC]

phlogiston - 13-7-2011 at 14:43

'Tunneling' is when a particle (a proton in our case) is able to overcome a potential barrier (electrostatic in our case) even though it would not have sufficient energy to so according to the laws of classical mechanics. The laws of quantum mechanics allow this to happen with a non-zero probability, which is higher for lighter particles.

So, in standard physics as we understand it, tunneling is certainly an important factor for predicting the probability of fusion. No new physics there.

I am not entirely sure what you mean by 'resonant tunneling', however. The term resonance implies the matching of two frequencies. Which two frequencies?

BTW, the diffusion of hydrogen into a nickel crystal lattice is well documented and this process is seen as a candidate for storing hydrogen as a fuel in vehicles, etc. Titanium is more commonly used for this purpose, but it also works with nickel.

To my surprise 70% D2O -only- costs Eur 250 per liter (I had to feed 4 liters of it to a bunch of mice over the course of the last month).


[Edited on 13-7-2011 by phlogiston]

IrC - 13-7-2011 at 15:53

Not cheap here in small amounts, if I were buying it in large volume then maybe so. Even at the surface Ni atoms are in a lattice structure. Being at high temperature and pressure every atom in the device is vibrating. Given the excursion distance and the number of oscillations per unit time I look at this as a frequency. I am not all that great at explaining what I see in my head though. If a proton is oscillating back and forth recoiling off the lattice surface while the Ni atoms in the lattice are also oscillating along their bond axis I can see where at the right moment a proton could penetrate the lattice. As the Ni atoms move back they exert an electrostatic pressure on the proton which raises the probability amplitude for quantum tunneling to occur. By two frequencies I am looking at the vibration of the proton hitting the lattice surface in such a way that it is synchronous with the rate the Ni atoms are oscillating within the lattice structure. This effect would be controlled by the temperature and pressure of the hydrogen obviously, and the function of the catalyst would be to affect the structure of the Ni lattice possibly altering the bond energies in the Ni atoms within the lattice. This would in turn affect the vibrational modes in the Ni lattice. The more I try to explain this I think the poorer I am doing but anyway I look at cyclic events as a 'frequency'.

Or for example if someone is hitting me in the head with a club 5 times each second I think 'wow I'm getting a 5 HZ head bashing'. While looking for a bigger club of course. The guy is not getting away with that for long.





[Edited on 7-13-2011 by IrC]

gregxy - 13-7-2011 at 22:09

The conventional theory is that the proton must approach within a few femto meters of the nickle nucleus to fuse with it. The electrostatic force is proportional to 1/r^2 so the energy is proportional to 1/r. The total energy needed to bring the proton close enough is hundreds of KeV. For a proton to get this much energy requires a plasma at millions of degrees or to fire the proton out of an accelerator. Due to the 1/r^2 dependence of the electrostatic force most of the protons energy is used up deep inside the nickle atom in the last few femtometers of approach. In this close the electrons of the hydrogen and nickle atoms and any lattice structure don't have any effect.

IrC - 13-7-2011 at 22:25

Except that what I was talking about was the setting up of conditions which would increase the probability amplitude for quantum tunneling which as Watson said earlier would overcome the need for enough energy to overcome electrostatic repulsion. I thought I made this clear but as I said earlier I'm not real great at explaining what I see in my minds eye.

phlogiston - 14-7-2011 at 03:08

I think I get what you mean. Essentially, if I get it correctly, you are saying that the timing is important for a hydrogen atom to penetrate the nickel lattice, and you are probably right. This is important for describing the kinetics of any (chemical) reaction. When two molecules meet, they have to meet in the right orientation, at the right speed, phase of internal vibrations etc. for them to be able to react in a given way. Imagine a 3D landscape graph in which each point on the graph represents the energy of a configuration of the two molecules. Typically here is only a small valley passing through the high energy hills, describing the orientations/speeds etc with which two molecules need to meet.

When translating these things to rates of reaction at macroscopic levels, statistics rule.

For the nickel atoms in the lattice, indeed they will be oscillating around their positions in the lattice. However, they will not all oscillate at the same frequency. The distribution of frequency's that occur will be described by a so-called Boltzman distribution, and the temperature is indeed the main factor here.

Hydrogen molecules will impinge onto the surface at random moments. The higher the pressure, the more often a molecule will come along. The higher the temperature, the fast it will be moving (again, not all molecules move at the same rate, and the distribution is again described by Bolzmann). To speed up the reaction, higher pressure and higher temperature will therefore probably help.

Although ideally you would want to, there is no known way that will allow you to time the moment of arrival/direction/speed of individual hydrogen atoms to allow them to penetrate the nickel lattice at individual locations.

Quote: Originally posted by gregxy  
femtometers of approach. In this close the electrons of the hydrogen and nickle atoms and any lattice structure don't have any effect.


Therefore, some people hypothesize that the electrons orbit much closer to the proton that mainstream physics considers possible, shielding the positive charge of the proton even at much shorter distances atom. Very much like muon-catalysed fusion.

bhl - 14-7-2011 at 09:44

The two big questions:
1. Are transmutations taking place?
2. Is there excess energy to be extracted?

Others have reported complex nuclear transmutations of Ni when exposed to heat and pressure. (Piantelli, et. al)

Seems like any hint of transmutation would suggest that the method could be improved. Maybe Rossi built himself a Model-T, maybe a Yugo.. but unless he is completely lying about the transmutations, I think he is on to something important. And imagine the results when a company like GE, Siemens or Honda start working on it.


IrC - 14-7-2011 at 10:00

Quote: Originally posted by bhl  
The two big questions:
1. Are transmutations taking place?
2. Is there excess energy to be extracted?

Others have reported complex nuclear transmutations of Ni when exposed to heat and pressure. (Piantelli, et. al)

Seems like any hint of transmutation would suggest that the method could be improved. Maybe Rossi built himself a Model-T, maybe a Yugo.. but unless he is completely lying about the transmutations, I think he is on to something important. And imagine the results when a company like GE, Siemens or Honda start working on it.



Good questions. Not sure but GE won't pay taxes on it whatever it is.

Sort of like that phlogiston, I was also thinking outside my brain on ideas I would try if I were going to attempt this. Studying mode locking, FEL's, and so on I do not see why you could not get groups of protons oscillating in harmony as electrons do in say a Klystron using a wave of proper frequency which could also double as the heating supply. Really just floating some ideas and wondering what others think of them. A separate RF wave could be the heating source and harmonically locked to the primary wave used to drive protons in bunches.

heat source

bhl - 14-7-2011 at 10:51

For what its worth, Rossi states that heat alone is enough to drive his reaction, e.g. from a Bunsen burner. So initial experiments could forgo RF heat sources, cathode/anode configurations, etc.

An anonymous "Axil" thinks that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rydberg_matter">Rydberg Matter</a> is the key to whats going on.

phlogiston - 14-7-2011 at 12:09

You could accelerate protons like that, but only if they have a charge, so you would need bare protons, i.e. not hydrogen atoms or molecules. There will be no electron to shield the protons charge, which may or may not be important depending on who you believe. Also, even if you can time the arrival of the protons at will, you still have to deal with a lattice of nickel atoms that all oscillate with a different phase and frequency.
I've never read of anyone actually attempting to replicate the result so far, so if you do be sure to report any result. It would completely change everything if someone manages replicates it.

Thor - 16-7-2011 at 10:20

NASA seems to believe it is a working prototype:

http://pesn.com/2011/05/31/9501837_Cold-Fusion_Number-1_Clai...

However they have disputed the mechanism claming it is in fact Beta-decay. A new theory called the 'Widom Larsen' theory.

Interesting stuff regardless of whether its BS.

IrC - 16-7-2011 at 12:09

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/35/SR35913widomlarsen...

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/WLTheory.shtml

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/books/2011Wiley/2011Wiley.shtml


Very interesting.

Nickel proton fusion

aaparatuss - 1-3-2012 at 17:23

I have been trying to source nickel ingots or nickel anything
for some time. during the time i read up on Edison's Nickel Iron battery and wanted nickel even more to build a large NiFe battery.


Then I started reading about the Nickel powder hydrogen fusion buzz on the net... i didnt see a post here but have to say it looks interesting. tunneling effect fusion, cold fusion what ever you
call it ,sono resonance fusion is alive!

The best primer for the potential energy of this nuclear transmutation
can be found here

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/04/how-can-30-of-nickel-in-ros...


Each transformation of Ni58 into Cu63 releases 37.36MeV of nuclear energy.


Not too bad, i mean id take 200 MeV fission if i had thorium on the brain,, but 37 MeV ill take it....

watson.fawkes - 1-3-2012 at 19:17

Quote: Originally posted by aaparatuss  
The best primer for the potential energy of this nuclear transmutation
can be found here
The Rossi reactor was discussed here last year. Seek and ye shall find.

Endimion17 - 6-3-2012 at 15:15

Bullshit.

neptunium - 7-3-2012 at 06:21

yeah dont waste your time on this..if your into fusion check out

1 the laws of physics
2 the Farnsworth fusor
3 the Polywell

all of the above can be easyli found on wikipedia

neptunium - 7-3-2012 at 21:27

detritus anyone?

aaparatuss - 8-3-2012 at 16:47

Quantum tunnelling refers to the quantum mechanical phenomenon where a particle tunnels through a barrier that it classically could not surmount.


would you deny the laws of physics ?


I played with the fusor back in college
and would rather have a
Thermo Scientific MP 320 Neutron Generator then a polywell

Im not saying this is not a hoax, Im leaning more toward hoax

but i dont just drink tang and think that all data is not controverted and or hidden from the general population


If something was out there that would change the game, do you think it would be freely released. Or would it covered up?



thank you watson.fawkes for posting the only meaningful response






bfesser - 8-3-2012 at 17:50

Quote: Originally posted by aaparatuss  
Quantum tunnelling refers to the quantum mechanical phenomenon where a particle tunnels through a barrier that it classically could not surmount.

Yeah, an <em>energy</em> barrier. And your attempted point is...? By the way, have you heard of punctuation? Your posts have been difficult, if not impossible to understand without it.

In addition, I could make neither heads nor tails of the link you posted. Nor could I make any sense of the <a href="http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/01/focardi-and-rossi-lenr-cold-fusion-demo.html" target="_blank">gibberish</a> <img src="../scipics/_ext.png" /> that is linked to from that page. This seems like the familiar data confusion and circumvention of the established scientific peer-reviewed publishing system played by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Richter" target="_blank">Ronald Richter</a> <img src="../scipics/_wiki.png" /> & <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Per%C3%B3n" target="_blank">Juan Perón</a> <img src="../scipics/_wiki.png" /> and later by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#Fleischmann.E2.80.93Pons_experiment" target="_blank">Pons & Fleischmann</a> <img src="../scipics/_wiki.png" /> . They will regret it. This is either a case of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science" target="_blank">pathalogical science</a> <img src="../scipics/_wiki.png" /> or of intentional deception. If you believe they've accomplished cold fusion between Ni and H, I've got several litres of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywater" target="_blank">Polywater</a> <img src="../scipics/_wiki.png" /> I'd like to sell you.

If you want to get someone to beleive in something, the best tactic is to confuse the shit out of them, then tell them what you want them to beleive in. It works <em>every</em> time 95% of the time. <em>e.g.</em> creation

<strong>neptunium</strong>: If not detritus, it should be appended to the <a href="viewthread.php?tid=16956">original thread</a>, and thrown into Whimsy.

[Edited on 7/9/13 by bfesser]

morganism - 10-12-2012 at 21:41

This e-cat has been cooking for a while now

http://shutdownrossi.com/

neutrinos

roamingnome - 11-12-2012 at 19:52

The main issue with LENR is the the neutrinos. It is very conceivable to see a proton reabsorbing an electron and the proper neutrino to form a neutron with large cross section.

Palladium and nickel lattices seem to facilitate monoatomic hydrogen formation. Added vibrational energy will get electrons in the right "mode"

But the neutrinos have such a low interaction probability.

How do you get them ready? This is why cold fusion only feebly sorta maybe kinda works....

The secrete formula hides in advanced mathematics
pauli spin matrices
the dirac eqaution
Riemannian geometry

or
keanu reeves from chain reaction...:)










IrC - 16-12-2012 at 00:20

Is the E-Cat real or fake? I don't know only his hairdresser knows for sure. Right now I don't care about that something more interesting has caught my eye. But it needs one of you Uber-Chemists to answer. I was thinking to myself that James A. Patterson got a patent: System for electrolysis 5494559, in what is basically a clever way (not considering the CF validity, just the chemistry) which is by giving it the title of an electrochemical cell. What interested me was the novel way to produce metal hydrides. Does this method look like an interesting fairly easy way to make your own metal hydrides? What does anyone think?

If unlike him trying to reduce hydride creation we were to look at this and do the opposite: "uniform metallic support plating having a high hydrogen diffusion rate and a low hydride formation ratio", would we have a neat home hacker route to producing metal hydrides?


Attachment: US5494559.pdf (475kB)
This file has been downloaded 411 times

morganism - 16-12-2012 at 01:16

Yeah, but isn't reabsorbing electrons, it needs em moving up the valence shells to create an "attractive" target to draw in a neutron to form the next ion up the chain.

No neutrinos have been observed in any of the experiments.
Rossi, defkalion, Brillouin, or the guy using the wire.

They are saying the only thing emitted is heat as a phonon that remains in the lattice, and helium , which circulates with the stream.

neptunium - 16-12-2012 at 15:23

the more i read about this the less i think its serious....too much secrets...reminds me of the charlatans of the late 19th century, claiming they could cure old age and predict the future!! only now they are using the internet,....no diference

franklyn - 26-5-2013 at 17:37

If it's a trick it's the best I've seen. Only a tesla transmitter could power this
remotely if it's a fake.

http://phys.org/news/2013-05-rossi-e-cat-energy-density-high...

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Andrea_A._Rossi_Cold_...


The device it is claimed has not ever produced less than 6 times the input energy.
Instances of up to 400 times more output than input , produced explosions. The
tested system outputs 20 times. For powering vehicles an E - cat can make steam
for an open cycle engine. Energy efficiency of such a mechanism is not much better
than 11 % , compared to internal combustion at better than 25 % . To be an
alternative to existing engines , it needs to produce equal power for the same size ,
but the E - cat will produce 3 times the waste heat of an internal combustion engine
of equal rating. Of the 20 times output , thermodynamic loss of 89 % in operation ,
leaves 2.2 times. If the exhaust can serve to recycle back to power the E - cat ,
then 2.2 times is for actual net work for moving the vehicle.
Lets suppose the heat output is improved to operate reliably at 6o times input. That
leaves 6.6 times for actual net work , but the thermodynamics of the open cycle
engine remain unchanged. Power equal to that of an internal combustion engine
remains constant , as is the lower efficiency of the open cycle alternative engine.
Unless a thermodynamic cycle can be conjured to provide significant improvement
in overall efficiency , the 3 times greater waste heat factor is built in to this energy
source as applied to prime movers , regardless the size and output of the E - cat
itself. You can see what I mean if you assign a value of 100 kilowatts to each of the
squares below. ◘ .
* Note : A horse power is 746 watts. Maximum power is not needed continuously
but is required on demand for acceleration.


E - cat & steam engine . . . . . . 2000 kilowatts
Power ~ 11 % . . . . . . . . Waste 1800 kilowatts
◘◘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘

Internal combustion engine . . . 800 kilowatts
Power ~ 25 % . . . . . . . . .Waste 600 kilowatts
◘◘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ◘◘◘◘◘◘


In densely populated urban areas this added heat will affect
ambient comfort during summer.

.

[Edited on 27-5-2013 by franklyn]

AndersHoveland - 27-5-2013 at 02:20

There are already commercial neutron sources that use cold fusion, accelerating deuterons at a tritium target. Some of them use a direct voltage potential of only 300kV. These devices actually emit somewhat more energy than they consume, but of course cannot generate power because of the inefficiency of converting the neutron radiation back to electric current. The Farnsworth fusor operates at significantly lower voltage and can create hazardous neutron levels (though I doubt it can break even on energy).

So cold fusion has already been in existence, just not the type of cold fusion that can generate power.

franklyn - 27-6-2014 at 00:47

Cold fusion , which it's detractors assert , does not exist , is non-the-less moving ahead to commercial application.
A brief summary of the denounced E-Cat _
http://youtu.be/LHXc7NNMiWo?t=24m30s
Nasa sponsored investigation of metal hydride fusion
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxeKeuh_2Bw
In far greater detail _
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Andrea_A._Rossi_Cold_...
http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913
Experimental results of the last few years
www.youtube.com/watch?v=VymhJCcNBBc

Relevant links _
www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/industrial-heat-has-acquire...
http://cherokeechallenge.com/team
http://ecat.com/ecat-technology

The best part is that as energy consumers become decentralized energy producers , it spells the end of the New World Order Cult's megalo-authoritarian centralization which has corrupted so many our civilization's institutions.
P.S.
To the willfully stupid , keep it up , soon the world will have no use for you.

Regardless if an evil bastard closes a thread _
www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=11102&pag...
There are plenty of other related threads
www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=6078

.