Italian scientists claim to have demonstrated cold fusion (w/ Video)

Jan 20, 2011 by Lisa Zyga report
This image from the video below shows the reactor at last Friday's demonstration in Bologna. Image credit: Rossi and Focardi.

(PhysOrg.com) -- Few areas of science are more controversial than cold fusion, the hypothetical near-room-temperature reaction in which two smaller nuclei join together to form a single larger nucleus while releasing large amounts of energy. In the 1980s, Stanley Pons and Martin Fleishmann claimed to have demonstrated cold fusion - which could potentially provide the world with a cheap, clean energy source - but their experiment could not be reproduced. Since then, all other claims of cold fusion have been illegitimate, and studies have shown that cold fusion is theoretically implausible, causing mainstream science to become highly speculative of the field in general.

Despite the intense skepticism, a small community of scientists is still investigating near-room-temperature fusion reactions. The latest news occurred last week, when Italian scientists Andrea Rossi and Sergio Focardi of the University of Bologna announced that they developed a device capable of producing 12,400 W of heat power with an input of just 400 W. Last Friday, the scientists held a private invitation press conference in Bologna, attended by about 50 people, where they demonstrated what they claim is a nickel-hydrogen . Further, the scientists say that the reactor is well beyond the research phase; they plan to start shipping commercial devices within the next three months and start mass production by the end of 2011.

The claim

Rossi and Focardi say that, when the atomic nuclei of nickel and hydrogen are fused in their reactor, the reaction produces copper and a large amount of energy. The reactor uses less than 1 gram of hydrogen and starts with about 1,000 W of electricity, which is reduced to 400 W after a few minutes. Every minute, the reaction can convert 292 grams of 20°C water into dry steam at about 101°C. Since raising the temperature of water by 80°C and converting it to steam requires about 12,400 W of power, the experiment provides a power gain of 12,400/400 = 31. As for costs, the scientists estimate that electricity can be generated at a cost of less than 1 cent/kWh, which is significantly less than coal or natural gas plants.

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

Rossi and Focardi explain that the reaction produces radiation, providing evidence that the reaction is indeed a nuclear reaction and does not work by some other method. They note that no radiation escapes due to lead shielding, and no radioactivity is left in the cell after it is turned off, so there is no nuclear waste.

The scientists explain that the reactor is turned on simply by flipping a switch and it can be operated by following a set of instructions. Commercial devices would produce 8 units of output per unit of input in order to ensure safe and reliable conditions, even though higher output is possible, as demonstrated. Several devices can be combined in series and parallel arrays to reach higher powers, and the scientists are currently manufacturing a 1 MW plant made with 125 modules. Although the reactors can be self-sustaining so that the input can be turned off, the scientists say that the reactors work better with a constant input. The reactors need to be refueled every 6 months, which the scientists say is done by their dealers.

The scientists also say that one reactor has been running continuously for two years, providing heat for a factory. They provide little detail about this case.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.
One of three videos of last Friday's demonstration shows the reactor. The clicking sound is made by the water pump.

The response

Rossi and Focardi’s paper on the nuclear reactor has been rejected by peer-reviewed journals, but the scientists aren’t discouraged. They published their paper in the Journal of Nuclear Physics, an online journal founded and run by themselves, which is obviously cause for a great deal of skepticism. They say their paper was rejected because they lack a theory for how the reaction works. According to a press release in Google translate, the scientists say they cannot explain how the cold fusion is triggered, “but the presence of copper and the release of energy are witnesses.”

The fact that Rossi and Focardi chose to reveal the reactor at a press conference, and the fact that their paper lacks details on how the reactor works, has made many people uncomfortable. The demonstration has not been widely covered by the general media. However, last Saturday, the day after the demonstration, the scientists answered questions in an online forum, which has generated a few blog posts.

One comment in the forum contained a message from Steven E. Jones, a contemporary of Pons and Fleishmann, who wrote, “Where are the quantitative descriptions of these copper radioisotopes? What detectors were used? Have the results been replicated by independent researchers? Pardon my skepticism as I await real data.”

Steven B. Krivit, publisher of the New Energy Times, noted that Rossi and Focardi’s reactor seems similar to a nickel-hydrogen low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR) device originally developed by Francesco Piantelli of Siena, Italy, who was not involved with the current demonstration. In a comment, Rossi denied that his reactor is similar to Piantelli’s, writing that “The proof is that I am making operating reactors, he is not.” Krivit also noted that Rossi has been accused of a few crimes, including tax fraud and illegally importing gold, which are unrelated to his research.

Rossi and Focardi have applied for a patent that has been partially rejected in a preliminary report. According to the report, “As the invention seems, at least at first, to offend against the generally accepted laws of physics and established theories, the disclosure should be detailed enough to prove to a skilled person conversant with mainstream science and technology that the invention is indeed feasible. … In the present case, the invention does not provide experimental evidence (nor any firm theoretical basis) which would enable the skilled person to assess the viability of the invention. The description is essentially based on general statement and speculations which are not apt to provide a clear and exhaustive technical teaching.” The report also noted that not all of the patent claims were novel.

Giuseppe Levi, a nuclear physicist from INFN (Italian National Institute of Nuclear Physics), helped organize last Friday’s demonstration in Bologna. Levi confirmed that the reactor produced about 12 kW and noted that the energy was not of chemical origin since there was no measurable hydrogen consumption. Levi and other scientists plan to produce a technical report on the design and execution of their evaluation of the reactor.

Also at the demonstration was a representative of Defkalion Energy, based in Athens, who said that the company was interested in a 20 kW unit and that within two months they would make a public announcement. For the Rossi and Focardi, this kind of interest is the most important.

“We have passed already the phase to convince somebody,” Rossi wrote in his forum. “We are arrived to a product that is ready for the market. Our judge is the market. In this field the phase of the competition in the field of theories, hypothesis, conjectures etc etc is over. The competition is in the market. If somebody has a valid technology, he has not to convince people by chattering, he has to make a reactor that work and go to sell it, as we are doing.”

He directed commercial inquiries to info(at)leonardocorp1996.com .

Explore further: Do we live in a 2-D hologram? New Fermilab experiment will test the nature of the universe

More information:
via: Pure Energy Systems

Related Stories

New project aims for fusion ignition

May 10, 2010

Russia and Italy have entered into an agreement to build a new fusion reactor outside Moscow that could become the first such reactor to achieve ignition, the point where a fusion reaction becomes self-sustaining ...

'Cold fusion' moves closer to mainstream acceptance

Mar 21, 2010

A potential new energy source so controversial that people once regarded it as junk science is moving closer to acceptance by the mainstream scientific community. That's the conclusion of the organizer of ...

Tests show 'artificial sun' is reliable

Jan 15, 2007

A series of tests run by Chinese scientists on an experimental thermonuclear reactor have found "the artificial sun" is a reliable energy generating process.

Recommended for you

Awakening the potential of plasma acceleration

7 hours ago

Civil engineering has begun for the new Proton Driven Plasma Wakefield Acceleration Experiment (AWAKE) at CERN. This proof-of-principle experiment will harness the power of wakefields generated by proton ...

Magnetic memories on the right track

7 hours ago

Computer hard drives store data by writing magnetic information onto their surfaces. In the future, magnetic effects may also be used to improve active memory in computers, potentially eliminating the need ...

When an exciton acts like a hole

9 hours ago

(Phys.org) —When is an electron hole like a quasiparticle (QP)? More specifically, what happens when a single electron hole is doped into a two-dimensional quantum antiferromagnet? Quasiparticle phenomena ...

User comments : 298

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

plasticpower
4.9 / 5 (34) Jan 20, 2011
Hmm.. I've read about inventions like this before. Never heard of them again. But I always have a tiny shimmer of hope that maybe one of them will turn out to be true..
Egnite
4.1 / 5 (11) Jan 20, 2011
Bring on the free (or reasonably priced) energy!

Seriously though, don't wanna sound like a pessimist but the chances of this being mass produced by the end of the year are pretty slim. There's too much going against them, such as the theory issues and how their competitors would react.
c0y0te
4 / 5 (12) Jan 20, 2011
I hope it's not another steorn orbo... :-/
ShotmanMaslo
3.8 / 5 (14) Jan 20, 2011
If their claims are true, then this is big. Really big.
technicalengeneering
3.7 / 5 (13) Jan 20, 2011
1. Add it to the list of failures
2. Bring out champagne

Only time and hard scientific evidence will tell.
Bob_Kob
3.5 / 5 (16) Jan 20, 2011
I believe that there may be some validity in cold fusion, however if these guys are bullshitting i'm gonna be angry. The more frauds in this field the less chance there is for an actual real discovery.

Who knows, maybe in 100 years someone will go 'oh so there is cold fusion, who knew they were right back then!'
Bog_Mire
1.5 / 5 (11) Jan 20, 2011
why do they make claims? what is motive?
Doug_Huffman
3.3 / 5 (22) Jan 20, 2011
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to allow empirical falsification and prevent subsequent ad hoc hypotheses.
bottomlesssoul
3.4 / 5 (12) Jan 20, 2011
I at least like the short time frames they're talking about. If nothing else we'll know it's BS in a year.

One thing about the 8-1 conversion factor, for most power plants to convert steam to electricity have a q factor of 25% so unless you need the heat for something else you actually only achieve 2-1. Solar might be better.
dogbert
3.1 / 5 (24) Jan 20, 2011
They will probably sell some "reactors" before this "technology" is shown to be another scam.

Sad. Any kind of sustainable fusion, cold or hot, would be a really good breakthrough.
Teemu
4.6 / 5 (34) Jan 20, 2011
I've looked into their work. Claiming that you have reactor, one unit they claim ran 2 years, and claiming that it produces ten times the input, but refuse to make it closed-loop system for long term demonstration, which should be easy with those input output ratios is huge red flag.
Teemu
4.7 / 5 (16) Jan 20, 2011
"We have this great reliable energy source with huge output input ratios, near commercialization but we prefer not to bother with closed loop demonstration" style scams have been seen before.
antialias
4 / 5 (24) Jan 20, 2011
Sign of quack science: Go for press releases before publishing a peer reviewed paper.

I'm not holding my breath how this turns out.
LivaN
3.5 / 5 (11) Jan 20, 2011

They say their paper was rejected because they lack a theory for how the reaction works.


So they just stumbled onto cold fusion? I don't believe them. I think this is a scam.
norsetto
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 20, 2011
In the video there is a discussion between an independent observer who regrets the fact he was not allowed to take an energy spectrum measurement because this would immediately have shown how the device worked. He said there was an increase in the gamma radiation by 50%, with spikes at switch-on/off.
Nik_2213
4.6 / 5 (22) Jan 20, 2011
Unfortunately, IMHO, they are following the classic 'Snake Oil' check-list.

If they really are working 'beyond theory' then, surely, they should have the wit to make their whatsit self-contained, driving a small steam engine or just running scalding water to waste for thrice the kiloWatt hours of any concealed power source...

One of the earlier reports suggested that they ran demo for 20 minutes and considered that sufficient. Well, no, given that it had to be pre-heated, perhaps enough to activate a crude 'oxide' fuel cell...

Sadly, the 'two years' installation seems unavailable for inspection...

Uh, they also have the temerity to compare their system to BLP's bizarre 'hydrino' process: Be seriously ironic if they sued each other...
soulman
3.1 / 5 (25) Jan 20, 2011
This touches all the crank bases. It"s so obviously a scam, I couldn"t stop laughing and shaking my head.
epsi00
3.3 / 5 (10) Jan 20, 2011
maybe it's an early April 1st.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (29) Jan 20, 2011
Will they be killed in a car accident and their device disappears because it really does work?
If this works, it is a disruptive technology which will destroy many industries and topple governments.
Their best chance of success is to distribute the design to the world ASAP, or sell it to the US Navy who have been conducting this research as well.
It is sad that science journals won't publish their observations.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (51) Jan 20, 2011
"Since then, all other claims of cold fusion have been illegitimate, and studies have shown that cold fusion is theoretically implausible..."

-I wonder who wrote this? We know for one that the navy found some interesting things, and I have yet to see them refuted.
http
://www.lenr-canr.org/Collections/USNavy.htm
http
://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

This kind of reminds me of the initial hype and skepticism for the bloom box but they are apparently doing quite well.
wernersen
3 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2011
Appart from fusion or not.
Looking at their demonstration equipment in relation to the claim to have a marketable product within reach I had agood laugh.
Indeed it´s a time machine bringing us 2.5 month ahead to April 1.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (23) Jan 20, 2011
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
Max Planck"
Cold fusion is for the young.
JedRothwell
4.4 / 5 (14) Jan 20, 2011
You wrote that "all of the other claims" for cold fusion "have been illegitimate."

According to a study published by the Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, cold fusion has been replicated 14,700 times in several hundred major laboratories. I have a collection of over a thousand peer-reviewed journal papers describing these replications, which I copied from the library at Los Alamos. I have 2,500 other papers from national laboratories, EPRI, BARC the NSF and other mainstream institutions describing high-sigma replications. Why do you claim these replications are "illegitimate"? In what sense are they illegitimate?

I suggest you review the literature more carefully before making such assertions. See lenr-canr.org
NotAsleep
3 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2011
I'm amazed no one has zoned in on the claim that they put in Nickel and Hydrogen and produce Copper... if this is true, it's pretty clear evidence of fusion and extremely easy to verify.

The process may not be understood but how can you disprove that sort of evidence without some obvious smoke and mirrors?
barakn
2.6 / 5 (9) Jan 20, 2011
How does this process avoid using 58Ni, the most common Ni isotope, to create 59Cu and hence (due to an 82 second half-life) 59Ni, a radioactive isotope with an alarming half-life of 76,000 years? Probably because it is a scam with no Ni-H fusion occurring whatsoever.
Modernmystic
1.3 / 5 (14) Jan 20, 2011
Would be great if true. Problem is we've heard all this crap soooo many times before I put it on the same shelf as "Solar power and Wind power will replace fossil fuels...soon...no really this time...very soon".

Pfft.
technicalengeneering
1.2 / 5 (11) Jan 20, 2011
BTW everyone. They claim to fuse nickel and hydrogen to make copper. But lets face it there is no mass loss at all in that so there cannot possibly be in anyway a release of energy. Remember E=mc^2 ? No mass no energy.
NotAsleep
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 20, 2011
BTW everyone. They claim to fuse nickel and hydrogen to make copper. But lets face it there is no mass loss at all in that so there cannot possibly be in anyway a release of energy. Remember E=mc^2 ? No mass no energy.


They didn't specify the specific isotopes so it's impossible to tell if there was any mass loss.
Skultch
4 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2011
But lets face it there is no mass loss at all in that so there cannot possibly be in anyway a release of energy. Remember E=mc^2 ? No mass no energy.


Neutron decay? normal-anti particle annihilation? Don't flame, these are uneducated guesses; I'm nowhere near a nuclear physicist.
NotAsleep
1 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2011
The article at the very bottom (the source news article) states that they fuse "the most common isotope of Nickel with hydrogen that is neither deuterium nor heavy hydrogen (which immediately stops the reaction) to produce copper that isn't radioactive." Any chemists out there want to take a stab at the reaction? You'll want to read the article first if you do, they state other mysterious things occur that they can't reveal until the patent goes through
Egleton
1.2 / 5 (11) Jan 20, 2011
Friends,
If this is a scam, I am not laughing.

If we do not find a cheap (high EROEI)soon to replace fossil fuels we will go to war.
We cannot afford a conventional war, so it will have to be a cheaper alternative.

Nuclear war.
I am not laughing.
Donutz
5 / 5 (7) Jan 20, 2011
causing mainstream science to become highly speculative of the field in general


This is a bit of an aside, but jeez could the article writers take an english course? Substitute "skeptical" for "speculative" and the sentence makes sense.
Teemu
not rated yet Jan 20, 2011
Also for water the enthalpy of vaporization is more than 5 times the energy required to heat the water from 0 celcius to 100 celcius. So the wetness or dryness of steam, how much of it is liquid and how much of it is vapor is really important to measure correctly. Instead of measuring the dryness of steam, they seem to have measured the humidity of air, which is not the same. Their sensor doesn't even have capacity to measure dryness or wetness of steam according to manufacturer.

And even for humidity it is out of the recommended operation range...
Egleton
1.8 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2011
I first heard about this demonstration through the CANR/LENR network.
You will find more arithmetic on this site:-
htp://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJbrieftechn.pdf
Arthur
Teemu
not rated yet Jan 20, 2011
Spam filter doesn't allow me to link the manufacturer page but the operation temperature for the indoor air quality monitor they used is -5 - 50 celcius for temperature and 0-85% for relative humidity.
fmfbrestel
5 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2011
First, Dont give them any money until you see a working model. Then buy one with a condition that it can be returned for full price pending testing. Then hire an independent testing company. If you do those three things, you wont get scammed.
fmfbrestel
4.5 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2011
Oh, if they make you sign an NDA which includes discussion of your testing companies results, do not buy.
Gawad
4.4 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2011
How does this process avoid using 58Ni, the most common Ni isotope, to create 59Cu and hence (due to an 82 second half-life) 59Ni, a radioactive isotope with an alarming half-life of 76,000 years? Probably because it is a scam with no Ni-H fusion occurring whatsoever.
Precisely. These guys are claiming both that they're producing copper from nickel by adding just one proton and electron from hydrogen, but that there's no more radiation after they turn off the machine. Excuse me? Copper with just 31 protons is unstable and radiation would be measurable long after we'd have colonized the stars. This is a scam.
Gawad
5 / 5 (3) Jan 20, 2011
Ahum. Sorry, that was supposed to be "copper with just 31 neutrons", obviously. Even using tritium, leaving their copper with 33 neutrons it would be unstable. 34, 35,or 36 neutrons would work, but they're claiming nothing of the sort.
bugmenot23
1 / 5 (11) Jan 20, 2011
This is probably REAL!
apex01
5 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2011
This seems too good to be true.
Egleton
1 / 5 (3) Jan 20, 2011
If you go to the pdf site that I have mentioned
ttp://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJbrieftechn.pdf

you will find a link

ttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=338#more-338

where a Prof. Ch. E. Stremmenos offers a putative explanation. It seems as though the instability of copper is part of the process.

I shall do a search of Prof. Ch. E. Stremmenos
Nik_2213
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 20, 2011
"This is probably REAL!"

Well, they're going about it as if they've never heard of Occam's Razor. Sadly, the simplest explanation for their odd collection of information is 'fake'. I'd prefer that it was self-delusional rather than anything worse...
Skultch
1 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2011
It seems as though the instability of copper is part of the process.

I shall do a search of Prof. Ch. E. Stremmenos


Thanks.

Are there copper isotopes with lower numbers of neutrons that are stable? Why do they have to be stable? We are trying to produce energy, not cheaper electrical wiring, right?
Egleton
2.1 / 5 (8) Jan 20, 2011
Prof. Ch. E. Stremmenos is real.
Here is one of his papers.
ttp://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/1998/1998FocardiS-LargeExcessHeatProductionNiH.pdf
Mr_Man
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 20, 2011
Wait until my press conference, I built a cold-fusion reactor myself using coffee maker and blender parts. It runs on garbage like banana peels, beer, beer cans, and other miscellaneous refuse. I'm calling it "Mr. Fusion".

It works. Trust me.

Any venture capitalists want to give me some money now?
NotAsleep
5 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2011
Are there copper isotopes with lower numbers of neutrons that are stable? Why do they have to be stable? We are trying to produce energy, not cheaper electrical wiring, right?

If it's unstable, that makes it radioactive. Even if it's radioactive, it would probably be worth it for the energy output they're claiming... but infinitely more impressive if they can do a cold fusion reaction without producing anything radioactive. Think of how many "common" fission reactions exist that produce non-radioactive byproducts: zero
Egleton
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2011
Mr Man,
That is pretty much how Rutherford split the atom.
He used parts from the municipal tip.
He was a dumpster diver!
And got the Nobel prize.
Good luck with your project.
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2011
But lets face it there is no mass loss at all in that so there cannot possibly be in anyway a release of energy. Remember E=mc^2 ? No mass no energy.
Neutron decay? normal-anti particle annihilation? Don't flame
Well (no flames here) there's no claim or indication that any anti-particles are involved, and if that had been the case I would have been surprised that the energy produced was so low. As for neutron decay, neutrons don't exactly "decay" in stable nuclei, they exchange identity with protons, which leads to no mass or energy loss. Seems to me if neutron decay was somehow involved, you'd just get more free protons back (the main decay product of free neutrons) and end up with nickel again. Forget it, none of their claims make any sense and they even admit as much when they say they can't explain any of it. But hey, they're going to "the final arbiter of science" -the market- anyway, right, cause they're past all that chattering stage. Nice going "physicists".
Egleton
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2011
Gawad,
perhaps this article is too hedged to be of use.(they are guarding their credibility too well.)
Follow some of the other links that I have offered above for more substance.
dtxx
1 / 5 (3) Jan 20, 2011
causing mainstream science to become highly speculative of the field in general


This is a bit of an aside, but jeez could the article writers take an english course? Substitute "skeptical" for "speculative" and the sentence makes sense.


Another round of applause, everyone, for the infamous Lisa Zyga.
Gawad
5 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2011
It seems as though the instability of copper is part of the process.

I shall do a search of Prof. Ch. E. Stremmenos


Thanks.

Are there copper isotopes with lower numbers of neutrons that are stable? Why do they have to be stable? We are trying to produce energy, not cheaper electrical wiring, right?

Copper normally has 34 or 36 neutrons. Sorry, about my saying this would still work with 35, it wouldn't. Copper 64 is the most stable isotope, but that still won't cut it. Copper 60, which is what they claim they are producing from nickel, has a 1/2 life of 23 and 2/3 minutes. After which it's supposed to decay into...guess what:
httpDELETEME://periodictable.com/Isotopes/029.60/index.full.html. (!!!)

Come to think of it their whole thing must be a joke/prank or publicity stunt it's so bad. Maybe they just lost a bet with some colleagues and this was their punishment.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2011
As for neutron decay, neutrons don't exactly "decay" in stable nuclei, they exchange identity with protons, which leads to no mass or energy loss.

"Neutrons decay when by themselves but do not do so when bound inside of atomic nuclei (well, many kinds of nuclei. Some nuclei in fact decay in exactly this way -- one of the neutrons decays). The energy levels inside nuclei are such that if a neutron were to decay into a proton, it would have to find a place in a higher-energy level (because of Pauli’s exclusion principle keeping it out of lower-lying energy levels), and the total energy doesn’t add up to enough to allow the neutron to decay. But in some nuclei, neutron decay is possible and favored. "
http:/van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1207

"In β− decay, the weak interaction converts a neutron (n) into a proton (p) while emitting an electron (e−) and an electron antineutrino (ν
e):" Wiki
jjmerri
5 / 5 (1) Jan 20, 2011
"Italian scientists Andrea Rossi and Sergio Focardi of the University of Bologna announced that they developed a cold fusion device capable of producing 12,400 W of heat power with an input of just 400 W."

This sounds like a bunch of "bologna" to me!
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (49) Jan 20, 2011
Come to think of it their whole thing must be a joke/prank or publicity stunt it's so bad. Maybe they just lost a bet with some colleagues and this was their punishment.
In possibly related news:
http
://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/20/fbi-arrests-mafia-suspects

"The competition is in the market. If somebody has a valid technology, he has not to convince people by chattering, he has to make a reactor that work and go to sell it, as we are doing."

-This would not be the first time that engineering preceded science. Instead of waiting for the old paradigm scientists to die off, it can be more rewarding to rub their noses in your big pile of money. Let them figure out how it works.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2011
-This would not be the first time that engineering preceded science. Instead of waiting for the old paradigm scientists to die off, it can be more rewarding to rub their noses in your big pile of money. Let them figure out how it works.


What he said...
Hesperos
not rated yet Jan 20, 2011
How many thermonuclear neutrons have been detected?
No neutrons? They're selling snake oil.
Gawad
1 / 5 (1) Jan 20, 2011
-This would not be the first time that engineering preceded science. Instead of waiting for the old paradigm scientists to die off, it can be more rewarding to rub their noses in your big pile of money. Let them figure out how it works.

Hey, if they've invented a better kettle, more power (or money) to 'em. But they're claiming to have room temperature fusion, without being able to explain it. They're not getting my investment dollars.
What he said...

Gawad
not rated yet Jan 20, 2011
The energy levels inside nuclei are such that if a neutron were to decay into a proton, it would have to find a place in a higher-energy level (because of Pauli’s exclusion principle keeping it out of lower-lying energy levels), and the total energy doesn’t add up to enough to allow the neutron to decay. But in some nuclei, neutron decay is possible and favored. "
http:/van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1207

"In β− decay, the weak interaction converts a neutron (n) into a proton (p) while emitting an electron (e−) and an electron antineutrino (ν
e):" Wiki¨~
Thanks for pointing that out. I *had* been thinking of cases of beta decay and inverse beta decay, though. In any case, I think we can agree that neutron decay doesn't appear to be what is producing energy here.
JedRothwell
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 20, 2011
Hesperos wrote: "How many thermonuclear neutrons have been detected? No neutrons? They're selling snake oil."

This objection has been raised repeatedly since cold fusion was announced in 1989. Cold fusion has been replicated thousands of times in hundreds of laboratories, often at very high s/n ratios. 20 W of heat have been measured with precision instruments. Tritium has been measured at levels ranging from 40 to 10E8 times background. Helium has been measured in the same ratio to the heat as plasma fusion produces. Samples weighing a few grams have produced 50 to 300 MJ of heat, so a chemical reaction is ruled out.

Neutrons, on the other hand, are not detected. If they were produced in the ratio to the heat as plasma fusion, it would have killed ~2,000 people including me.

Your assertion, that there must be neutrons, is based on plasma fusion theory. Replicated, high sigma experiments prove that you are wrong.
Black_Moron
1 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2011
Let's start laughing and shaking our heads on F.Piantelli article titled as "Large Excess heat production in Ni-H systems" - baboons you are so wise and really funny! :)
Riverbill
3 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2011
Lets see what they do next. Then someone can try to explain what happened. So far there is not enough information to explain anything. Why can't we admit to the unknown?
Black_Moron
1 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2011
yep. exactly. it is a good idea just to wait and to see what happens next. It looks very much like a slightly defective detective real-time story :)
Question
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 20, 2011
I do not know whether there is anything to this or not but nickle has at least 5 stable isotopes and would probably normally be a mixture of all.
In that case fusing a proton to at least one of the nickle isotopes could create a stable copper atom.
Nickle 62 + proton = copper 63
There may be other possibilities like using deuterium of tritium, heavier forms of hydrogen.

Only time will tell for sure and with their claims they only have months to put up or shut up.
beelize54
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 20, 2011
I've to admit, these guys appear lame. They even don't reference the Randell Mills from Blacklight Power, Inc., who developed this process a ten years before.
HaveYouConsidered
3.1 / 5 (8) Jan 20, 2011
People once got burned at the stake for believing there might be other planets in the universe. People were once called fools for believing that rocks fell from the sky. People once thought that trains going faster than 20 mph would have the air sucked out or would drive the passengers insane. People once said that heavier than air flight was impossible. People said that rockets can't work in space because they'd have nothing to push against.

People say a lot of critical things that turn out later to be stupid and thoughtless, while other people just quietly do experiments and let nature whisper her latest secrets to them.

Let nature do the talking.
Gawad
5 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2011
I do not know whether there is anything to this or not but nickle has at least 5 stable isotopes and would probably normally be a mixture of all.
In that case fusing a proton to at least one of the nickle isotopes could create a stable copper atom.
Nickle 62 + proton = copper 63
There may be other possibilities like using deuterium of tritium, heavier forms of hydrogen.

Only time will tell for sure and with their claims they only have months to put up or shut up.
That's a good point. They did say they were using only plain H, but 4.6% of all nickel (Ni 62 & 64) with that would yield Cu 63 or 65. Not so with the most common isotopes of Ni, but still...good point.
Quantum_Conundrum
3.1 / 5 (10) Jan 20, 2011
So they just stumbled onto cold fusion? I don't believe them. I think this is a scam.


Not saying I believe this without a working model, but major accidental discoveries in science HAVE been made historically, and at times with no explaination or theory.

As I recall, X-rays and radio were each discovered accidentally, and with no theory ahead of time about them.

Additionally, what is wrong with a "Hunch" if it produces results? Do you need to be able to explain something just to believe it exists? Do you believe in gravity, seeing as how nobody has ever given a truly complete explaination of how it works? We know what it does, but we still don't really know how it does it.

If they produced a closed loop, self sustaining reaction, to me it would prove cold fusion, regardless of whether anyone can explain how or why it works. Reality is what it is, whether or not we understand it, and whether or not we are even capable of understanding it.
nuge
2.7 / 5 (3) Jan 20, 2011
Whatever this is, it isn't science. Whether it works or not, they don't know how or why it works, so from an engineering perspective this is very unlikely to be able to be implemented for a real practical use in the forseeable future.
thales
4 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2011
I have a "hunch" this is a scam, whether or not we are even capable of understanding it. But I'll let nature do the talking.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (3) Jan 20, 2011
Oh yeah, IF this does prove to be true, it would be an incredible revolution in energy.

It might also make space exploration immediately worthwhile, because we might want to mine these nickel isotopes from other objects in the solar system, if there are anything around which has a decent concentration of them.

Imagine electricity at 1 cent per kilowatt-hour, and imagine an automobile, plane, train, or ship powered by a cold fusion reactor, instead of hydrocarbons or solar.

Imagine an electric ion drive rocket for space exploration, powered by cold fusion.

Man, I hope this isn't another hoax. This would be the breakthrough of the millenium.
Quantum_Conundrum
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2011
Whatever this is, it isn't science. Whether it works or not, they don't know how or why it works, so from an engineering perspective this is very unlikely to be able to be implemented for a real practical use in the forseeable future.


Examples of practical technologies used long before they were understood:

Fire
At one time, believed to be a "fundamental element" of the universe. In reality, it's waste heat from chemical reactions. It was used for thousands of years before atoms or compounds were even theorized.

Cooking and salting food
At least 6000 years before micro-organisms were even theorized to exist, nevermind discovered under a microscope.

Selective Breeding
Before DNA was discovered, or even theorized, this was done both in plants and animals.
Quantum_Conundrum
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 20, 2011
They need a practical demonstration to the patent office in which the power source used to prime the reaction is disconnected and the closed loop maintained long enough to prove there is no gimmick such as hidden batteries, and long enough till either the fuel supply is exhausted, or until they at least produce enough power to indisputably prove a net power gain. I.E. powering an independently supplied machine, such as a fan, water pump, or electric automobile, etc.

This would prove that the device works and isn't a hoax.
nuge
3 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2011
Whatever this is, it isn't science. Whether it works or not, they don't know how or why it works, so from an engineering perspective this is very unlikely to be able to be implemented for a real practical use in the forseeable future.


Examples of practical technologies used long before they were understood:

Fire
At one time, believed to be a "fundamental element" of the universe. In reality, it's waste heat from chemical reactions. It was used for thousands of years before atoms or compounds were even theorized.

Cooking and salting food
At least 6000 years before micro-organisms were even theorized to exist, nevermind discovered under a microscope.

Selective Breeding
Before DNA was discovered, or even theorized, this was done both in plants and animals.


Yes, true, but this is the modern world and we don't do things that way any more. Someone might get sued.
Donutz
5 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2011

Yes, true, but this is the modern world and we don't do things that way any more. Someone might get sued.


Also, if you want to get a patent, you have to be able to explain how it works, because the patent office says so. Makes sense, you can't just patent the idea of cold fusion, you have to patent a specific technology. If you can't give specifics, you're SOL.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2011
Something I am considering, they never state how long the alleged reaction is allegedly self-sustaining.

I have calculated based on what we know about normal fusion reactions, that the total amount of energy available in this reaction, if it indeed is nuclear, is likely somewhere between 200 billion and 900 billion Joules.

At the power output levels they describe, being 12400 watts, this means the device could theoretically produce power at this rate, from one gram of hydrogen and 62 grams of Nickel, non-stop for up to 840 days.

Since they described the commercial model as 1:8 output, then that would be a net of 3200 watts, for 840 days.

This comes to roughly 64500 kilowatt-hours per 62 grams nickel and 1 gram hydrogen.

At current prices, the Nickel would cost 72 cents, making the final price of power, in terms of the fuel source only, not the cost of the device, at just over one cent per thousand kilowatt-hours.
Quantum_Conundrum
3 / 5 (8) Jan 20, 2011
So if this device is real, you could power houses for two years 3 months 18 days, for the price of the device plus about a dollar worth of nickel.

The alleged net gain of the alleged commercial reactors across the lifetime of the fuel is equivalent to the burning of 1919 gallons of gasoline. Since electric car engines are about twice as efficient as internal combustion engines, this means that, if this is not a hoax, 72 cents worth of nickel would produce as much net work with regards to human transportation as nearly 4,000 gallons of gasoline in internal combustion engines, at current gasoline prices, saving the end user as much as $12,000 worth of fuel. In fact, this should be more than enough to power more than one automobile, and one reactor could be used to charge several pure electric vehicles in addition to serving as the primary power onboard one main long-distance vehicle.

Man I hope this is real. Lol. The cost of living, farming, transport implications are incredible.
Going
not rated yet Jan 20, 2011
Buy some nickel futures just in case this is true because the price of nickel will go through the roof if it is.
NickFun
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2011
Seeing as how these guys are professional bullshit artists and ruthless profiteers, I would have to see some irrefutable evidence that this thing works. If it does then they will become multi-billionaires and change the course of human history. They will have supplied the world with inexpensive clean energy for the eternal future. I'm willing to bet this is just another load of crap!
Caliban
not rated yet Jan 20, 2011

Copper 60, which is what they claim they are producing from nickel, has a 1/2 life of 23 and 2/3 minutes. After which it's supposed to decay into...guess what:
httpDELETEME://periodictable.com/Isotopes/029.60/index.full.html. (!!!)

Come to think of it their whole thing must be a joke/prank or publicity stunt it's so bad. Maybe they just lost a bet with some colleagues and this was their punishment.


Well, the fusion/decay process you describe there is, in a sense, the "closed loop". So it appears that the nickel is not used, but ratherit is the hydrogen that has to be replaced periodically.
It appears thatthey may have found a way to exploit the everyday mechanics of atomic nuclei. A "trick" if you will.

But -as Otto says above- "it won't be the first time that engineering preceeded science".
Quantum_Conundrum
2 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2011
Since the reaction produces 8.6 cents worth of copper, at current prices, we can also offset the net cost of the fuel down to 63.4 cents for those 2 years 3 months 18 days worth of 3200 watts net power.
ryggesogn2
2.7 / 5 (14) Jan 20, 2011
"it won't be the first time that engineering preceeded science".

What if cement had to wait for a peer reviewed journal to explain its theory before the Romans could use it?
knightlore
3 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2011
Last time I checked, elements heavier than Iron undergo fission not fusion to produce energy, paired with empirical evidence that Iron and Nickel have the highest binding energy per nucleon this leads me to think that unless nickel is facilitating some level of catalyst in this reaction the only way you are producing energy out of this is some hybrid fusion/fission reaction similar to that required to trigger atomic weapons. That said, the process of fusion for Nickel to Copper is possible, it requires energy not produces it.

Don't go chasing copper falls, stick to the laser perforated palladium saturated with hydrogen you are used to.
ruebi
5 / 5 (10) Jan 20, 2011
The very best part of this article is the scientists are from the University of Bologna.
Riverbill
5 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2011
They need a practical demonstration to the patent office in which the power source used to prime the reaction is disconnected and the closed loop maintained long enough to prove there is no gimmick such as hidden batteries, and long enough till either the fuel supply is exhausted, or until they at least produce enough power to indisputably prove a net power gain. I.E. powering an independently supplied machine, such as a fan, water pump, or electric automobile, etc.

This would prove that the device works and isn't a hoax.


Sadly the patent office will not intertain any demonstration. That is in direct violation of known, art or science. These inventers are just revisiting prior art, wich was not aceptable 15 years ago. If this is real, they will have to go on a differant path, for it to be acepted. One can only patent something if you can explain it. I read the preliminary rejection and it make sense. If they have truly discovered some thing new and novel????????

Quantum_Conundrum
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 20, 2011
Mahaha...

If this is true, you could supply the entire world's power usage for the fuel price of $1.5 billion, or the projected 2030 world power usage for the fuel price of about $2.1 billion per year.

By comparison, the United States alone currently uses around $755 billion worth of oil per year, not counting other fossil fuels and other forms of energy.

Even if this is true, I suspect it would get buried by governments due to the threat of potential total economic collapse, and the crumbling of governments and entire sectors of corporate infrastructures. If these guys get assassinated any time soon and their work disappears, you'll know why.

Fuel costs for farming, planes, trains, ships, trucks, really almost anything and everything you could imagine, would become near-zero by the time this became fully integrated.

Not only that, but once you have near-free energy at the production facility, the energy cost of making more reactors and their components is near-zero.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.2 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2011
Seeing as how these guys are professional bullshit artists and ruthless profiteers, I would have to see some irrefutable evidence that this thing works. If it does then they will become multi-billionaires and change the course of human history. They will have supplied the world with inexpensive clean energy for the eternal future. I'm willing to bet this is just another load of crap!


Not really. Since the patent office is denying their claim, by the time they prove it's true, that is, if it is true, it's likely someone else will make an equal or better reactor.

They an patent the reactor, but they can't patent the knowledge.

For example:

If this reactor is vertical, then all a competitor would need to do is make a horizontal reactor.

Basicly, what would happen is like Eli Whitney and the cotton gin, or internal combustion engines. Everyone who buys a reactor would figure out how it works, and if they have the means, just make a variation for themselves.
Caliban
4.6 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2011
Sadly the patent office will not intertain any demonstration. That is in direct violation of known, art or science. These inventers are just revisiting prior art, wich was not aceptable 15 years ago. If this is real, they will have to go on a differant path, for it to be acepted. One can only patent something if you can explain it. I read the preliminary rejection and it make sense. If they have truly discovered some thing new and novel?


Another way to interpret it is that, if the Patent Office refuses to issue, then any scumbag(big Petro/Coal, anyone?) can reverse engineer a unit, do a better job of explication on their application, and jack these guys of all the money they would have made(or even just bury it). Or skip the patent, and just put the process into production, and take whatever they can get.

Anyway you slice it, the patent office appears to be dodging a ticking time bomb by refusing to allow a demonstration in lieu of process description.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.9 / 5 (7) Jan 20, 2011
The cumulative reduction in cost of the production, transportation, and storage of goods and services would be so great that employers could give all of their employees significant raises while still maintaining a higher profit margin.

So if the cost of energy goes to near-zero, and they split the difference in price 3 ways between the consumer, the company, and the employee, everyone would benefit in every transaction. Additionally, everyone would effectively have about a 5% to 10% "raise," since the energy cost of home ownership and transportation would be reduced to near-zero.

In short, energy would simply become irrelevant to economics. It would be like breathing air or something. It's just something you do because it's there and whatever, and you don't pay anyone to breathe (unless you live in Europe, since they are now taxing air).
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2011

Copper 60, which is what they claim they are producing from nickel, has a 1/2 life of 23 and 2/3 minutes. After which it's supposed to decay into...guess what:
httpDELETEME://periodictable.com/Isotopes/029.60/index.full.html. (!!!)

Come to think of it their whole thing must be a joke/prank or publicity stunt it's so bad. Maybe they just lost a bet with some colleagues and this was their punishment.


Well, the fusion/decay process you describe there is, in a sense, the "closed loop". So it appears that the nickel is not used, but ratherit is the hydrogen that has to be replaced periodically.
It appears thatthey may have found a way to exploit the everyday mechanics of atomic nuclei. A "trick" if you will.
Yeah, well, but then where is the extra energy coming from? Maybe they *are* onto *something*, but why claim it's cold fusion when you can't explain it, esp. given cold fusion's history. Ah well, as others have said, we shall see....
Silverhill
5 / 5 (3) Jan 20, 2011
"Levi confirmed that the reactor produced about 12 kW and noted that the energy was not of chemical origin since there was no measurable hydrogen consumption."

Since they're allegedly fusing hydrogen with nickel, there should indeed be hydrogen consumption. (Unless the reaction is so productive that only a tiny amount of hydrogen has so far been used?)
Quantum_Conundrum
1.4 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2011
(Unless the reaction is so productive that only a tiny amount of hydrogen has so far been used?)


That is correct. I showed above that at the stated rate of power production, the reaction is happening slow enough that the 1 gram of hydrogen fuel source should last for 2 years 3 months 18 days.

Which means that the hourly use of hydrogen is only about 4.96E-5 grams/hour, or 0.0496 milligrams/hour. Which is to say, 1/20th of a milligram.

A 15 minute demonstration would use only 1/80th of a milligram of hydrogen.

This would be pretty hard to detect for engineering purposes.
jimbo92107
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 20, 2011
My favorite parts:
1. Italian scientists
2. Background in fraud
3. No theory, just stumbled on a recipe
4. The big, blue metal box
5. Blue masking tape
6. The giant foil phallus
7. The laptop computer with "readout"
8. The twitchy thing

Beautiful, boys. May you snare a few suckers before the cops get you.
JIMBO
3 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2011
Have a great idea. Let the local power company do an energy audit ! To them, energy = money, & I guarantee they will nail the % gain to the wall ! Just like they do our billing ! I rather doubt that a pair of academic scientists w/real credentials are hoaxing, in the aftermath of 1989's CF debacle.
QuinnFan
1 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2011
That stuff is piss. What you do is blend stevia in water and it explodes into a white bubbly soup called split h2o. No shit, homie.
lomed
5 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2011
The paper they wrote (to which there is a link in the above article) is not terribly enlightening. They make a number of claims about the energy they have produced, and make general statements about the setup, but never go into details. The more crucial claim of having found copper in the samples after the runs is all in words, they don't provide any data. The most they give is the ratio of the two copper isotopes found compared to the natural value. If my math is right, they should have produced about a quarter of a gram of copper in the run that produced the most energy (if one uses their (implicit) assumptions about the reactions that occurred).

One would think if they wanted to convince people (as well as have a good basis for a patent) they would go into excruciating detail about at least one apparatus and the extreme care they (hopefully) took to rule out other sources of energy (and errors in their measuring devices).
jibbles
not rated yet Jan 21, 2011
"According to a study published by the Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, cold fusion has been replicated 14,700 times in several hundred major laboratories."

while that may be true, none could have come close to breaking even in terms of energy -- for that would surely have made news. i think "cold fusion" in common parlance tacitly assumes a surplus of energy.
Black_Moron
1 / 5 (5) Jan 21, 2011
My favorite parts:
1. Italian scientists

ohh ja, ja.. jewish scientists would be looking much better in such case..ortodoxian ones :D
Argon
1 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2011
If it works or not (and I'm leaning HARD on not), it won't change a thing.

The oil companies of the world would buy up every oz of nickel on the planet and if that didn't work they would soon "prove" that using it will give everyone cancer, thus setting up a pretext for legislation against its use.

The producers of 70% of the world's nickel (Canada and Russia) also happen to be the two largest exporters of natural gas and amongst the top exporters of oil and coal in the world. It would be in their economic interest to freeze all sales of nickel on that basis alone. As for the other 30% of the nickel, that can be bought up and locked up by the powers that be.

Probably, nothing will change!
sudler2008
not rated yet Jan 21, 2011
I've been hearing claims of cold fusion since I was an engineering student 20 years ago. So far I have not seen any real proof of cold fusion. If these claims are real, show me the proof. Otherwise, scientists should be arrested for making false claims of cold fusion.
DoubleHelix
5 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2011
Last time I checked, elements heavier than Iron undergo fission not fusion to produce energy, paired with empirical evidence that Iron and Nickel have the highest binding energy per nucleon this leads me to think that unless nickel is facilitating some level of catalyst in this reaction the only way you are producing energy out of this is some hybrid fusion/fission reaction similar to that required to trigger atomic weapons. That said, the process of fusion for Nickel to Copper is possible, it requires energy not produces it.


They say the reaction fuses nickel and hydrogen to produce copper. And you're right that elements after iron don't release energy on fusion--that's what causes supernovae, a star fuses all its fuel into iron, and then in an instant the furnace shuts down and the star collapses in on itself.

Yep, this is a scam. No doubt about it in my mind.
hush1
1 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2011
C'mon, guys and gals.
Italy is the birthplace of the piano...ah, forte!
In commemoration to that and this (since this site has many Americans here)
Manfred Mann's Earth Band - Blinded by the Light :)
And, of course, very special - to America always -
Bette Midler sings Julie Golds' "the song and voice of every man":

All together now...

From a Distance...la, la..(hum with me), I can see...cold fusion! (Probably saw a star and it was cold that day)
(Change of text for all of you hopefuls out there)

The original text pretty well reflects your sentiments here, though. Except for, maybe, the "God is watching". (Only stated for those susceptible to paranoia)

Question
3 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2011
They say the reaction fuses nickel and hydrogen to produce copper. And you're right that elements after iron don't release energy on fusion--that's what causes supernovae, a star fuses all its fuel into iron, and then in an instant the furnace shuts down and the star collapses in on itself.

Yep, this is a scam. No doubt about it in my mind.

You may be correct that this is a scam but you are not correct that fusion between nickle 62 and a proton would not release energy, it would.
The atomic mass of copper 63 is less than the conbined mass of nickle 62 and a hydrogen atom.
The difference would be released as some form of energy.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 21, 2011
Levi and other scientists plan to produce a technical report on the design and execution of their evaluation of the reactor.


Notice that it does say they plan to give this information. Maybe proving the rigor of the experiment and measurements is more complicated than can be accomplished in a few pages.

Mainstream scientists are such hypocrits. There are all sorts of things mainstream science cannot explain, and yet use, and nobody even wonders about it: Dark Energy, Dark Matter, inertia, etc. We know almost nothing about these things. We know "what" inertia does, but don't really know why that should be the case, etc.

In the end, as I said above, you don't need to know everything about a thing in order to find that thing quite useful. Metallurgy, glass, polymers, and even composite materials existed for thousands of years before atomic theory. Early forms of Quarantine existed at least as far back as 3600 years ago.
Javinator
not rated yet Jan 21, 2011
Rossi and Focardi explain that the reaction produces radiation, providing evidence that the reaction is indeed a nuclear reaction and does not work by some other method.


Put a regular color camera in there. Color cameras don't fair too well in radiation. First, you'd actually be able to see the inside of the apparatus to ensure that it's not just a blue box with a battery in it and secondly, if there is a significant amount of radiation produced, the camera should fail.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 21, 2011
The atomic mass of copper 63 is less than the conbined mass of nickle 62 and a hydrogen atom.
The difference would be released as some form of energy.


After some research, i found that 1 mol of Nickel 62 plus 1 mol of protons has a mass of 6 milligrams more than 1 mol of Copper 63.

So this would give us, by E=MC^2, an exact upper limit in Joules to the energy released per mol.

for one Mol we have:

Ni32 + P -> Cu63 + 541,412,076,261 Joules

So 541.4 gigajoules per Mol isn't half bad, IMO.

Problem is how much of this is actually in a form capable of being captured as energy which can do work?
alq131
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2011
The point of a patent is to describe a device in detail so that others CAN build it and reproduce the "claims" of the patent. The patent is only for money purposes to ensure that if anyone build YOUR device and sells it without your permission, you can sue them.

Patents were established exactly to share details, not to cover them up. In the article the patent office denied it because "the invention does not provide experimental evidence (nor any firm theoretical basis) which would enable the skilled person to assess the viability of the invention."
To support a patent, you have to either provide a theory with proof, or a device-build description with evidence to support the claims of how the device functions.

It's not that complicated. I think that's the point. I mean, really...see the patent on "using a laser pointer to exercise a cat". you just have to describe the function and demonstrate it. These CF guys just need to give the black box to someone to measure in
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2011
Note that since we know nothing of this reaction, the maximum energy produced is hurt somewhat if an additional particle is produced.

For example, if an electron is also produced, then roughly 1/12th of the energy would be accounted for in the mass of the electron.
DoubleD
1 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2011
Its the aether.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 21, 2011
Now to put into perspective what 541.4 gigajoules really is, we consider an ideal electric plasma rocket, such as VASIMIR, but VASIMIR isn't ideal, obviously.

Using the kinetic energy formula, we can figure out what the change in velocity would be if 100% of the energy were converted to thrust.

Ek = 0.5mv^2

v^2 = Ek/0.5m

v = sqrt(Ek/0.5m)

So if we had a 1000kg object and 541.4gigajoules of energy, we would have:

v = sqrt(541400000000joules/500kg)
= sqrt (1082000000m^2/s^2)

v = 32893.7 m/s.
= 32.8937 km/s

Of course, a real engine isn't anywhere near 100% efficient, but a theoretical "working model" of this would still be by far the most efficient and most energy dense rocket engine ever made, assuming this entire thing isn't just another hoax...
Javinator
5 / 5 (5) Jan 21, 2011
That's not really a useful calculation...

Velocity is not what you desire power to maintain in space, it's acceleration.

The limit on acceleration would be the G-forces that a human (assuming a human payload) could withstand for long periods of time. As such, your variable would be mass and acceleration would remain essentially fixed constant (stopping would require deceleration with the same force).

The need for an energy source such as this would be to supply enough power to maintain the desired level of acceleration for a heavy craft (because the heavier the craft can be, the more comfortable we could make the trip and the more stuff we can bring along).
Quantum_Conundrum
2 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2011
Javinator:

I did a more precise calculation assuming the reactor is only 10% efficient, and using data on VASIMIR's net thrust. I then converted the power consumption and efficiencies of VASIMIR's power supply and the plasma rocket itself, this allowed me to figure out what the net acceleration would be for a 1000kg payload on a plasma rocket similar to VASIMIR, but powered by this alleged cold fusion reaction.

The real net acceleration, using the approximation for the rocket itself at 30kilowatt-seconds = 0.5 Newtons (See wikipedia on VASIMIR, and calculate it yourself.) I arrived at a thrust of 0.056r Newtons, and a theoretical specific Impulse, given the new calculations seen above, being 505 days, or about 43661290s. This gives a net delta v of a 1000kg payload being +2474 m/s, or 2.474km/s.

This was using just 63 grams of fuel.

If you want to accelerate faster or longer use more fuel, however, you'd also need far more propellant than VASIMIR in any case...
Quantum_Conundrum
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 21, 2011
As far as world energy supplies goes, this reaction might not actually be as useful as it first appears.

I don't know how much Nickel is actually in the earth's crust in easily minable locations, but based on the alleged 8:1 gain ratio and the alleged fuel, and the calculations of 541.4 gigajoules per mole above, I figured you'd need about 600,000 tons of Nickel per year to fuel the world. This is almost exactly half of the world's current annual primary Nickel production. Since Nickel58 is 68% of the elemental abundance, this means that Nickel62 is less than 32% of the elemental abundance, which means that on average you'd actually need at least thrice as much Nickel as in a pure fuel source, since no more than 32% is the correct isotope anyway.

This means that in order to power the entire world, we'd need to use all Nickel for fuel, and increase Nickel production by about 50% indefinitely, of course, depending on the precise efficiency of the reactors, assuming no hoax...
Quantum_Conundrum
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 21, 2011
Ah crap, scratch the previous post.

You'd need "only" 69,800 tons of Nickel62 each year, which is about 1/19th of annual world Nickel production, not half.

So statistically, this would make it feasible, and increase net world demand for Nickel by basily 5.5% or so...

PS3
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 21, 2011
I've been hearing claims of cold fusion since I was an engineering student 20 years ago. So far I have not seen any real proof of cold fusion. If these claims are real, show me the proof. Otherwise, scientists should be arrested for making false claims of cold fusion.

And you most likely will never see proof as the MAN will shut you down and make you seem like a crackpot.
nxtr
3 / 5 (1) Jan 21, 2011
This is a commodities speculation play to increase the price of nickel.
bewing
5 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2011
I think you guys are missing the point with the calculations. I am a cold fusion skeptic. Let's grant, arguendo, that it works, though -- even using palladium. Are we talking about getting positive energy from a proton + palladium fusion? Of course not. The palladium is a *catalyst* for fusing H into He, like carbon in a star. In the above hypothertical reaction, maybe you make copper, copper gains 1 more proton, then alpha decays back to Ni. The energy comes from the effective H + H fusion. And the product you want to try to detect is He.
Rockinghorse
5 / 5 (1) Jan 21, 2011
Ah crap, scratch the previous post.



You are really missing the point.^^ Nickel is as abundant as iron in Earth's crust. Problem is that because the demand is low for Nickel, the price is also low, so it does not pay well to mine nickel. Therefore production is low.

But what is even more off the mark, that we will get Copper as a by product that is hugely more valuable than nickel!

But thanks for the hoax! It feels so good to imagine world where energy production is almost free. We could cultivate our food crops in Sahara and let our fields grow as wild forests again!
lomed
not rated yet Jan 21, 2011
First, you'd actually be able to see the inside of the apparatus to ensure that it's not just a blue box with a battery in it and secondly, if there is a significant amount of radiation produced, the camera should fail.
The paper itself only claims that there were no gamma rays or neutrons detected outside of the lead shielded reaction areas. They think that anti-neutrinos and beta particles (electrons) should be emitted during the reaction (and presumably for a short time afterward).
Since Nickel58 is 68% of the elemental abundance, this means that Nickel62 is less than 32% of the elemental abundance, which means that on average you'd actually need at least thrice as much Nickel as in a pure fuel source, since no more than 32% is the correct isotope anyway.
In the paper they used the naturally occurring abundances. With their numbers, they would get 3.371 TJ from 1.008 g of (pure) H and 58.69 g of (natural) Ni.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 21, 2011
It feels so good to imagine world where energy production is almost free. We could cultivate our food crops in Sahara and let our fields grow as wild forests again!


Although the initial investment for Solar is huge, the return per cost ratio, at least in currency, is somewhere between 3.5 to 1 and 5 to 1, and no raw materials are consumed. Over time, the energy savings from the first cycle of panels would pay for itself and the next cycle of panels. Then, each cycle thereafter need only pay for it's own replacement.

The amount of useable energy available through solar is truly gargantuan, the problem is it just costs so darn much initially, AND you must, MUST "save" the "savings" to re-invest in the replacement 25 years later.

The initial investment for solar for residential and industrial use for the U.S. would be something like 50 trillion 2011 U.S., which is almost inconceivable, but the return on investment in value of the energy is an inflation-proof 5 to 1...
Quantum_Conundrum
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 21, 2011
In the paper they used the naturally occurring abundances. With their numbers, they would get 3.371 TJ from 1.008 g of (pure) H and 58.69 g of (natural) Ni.


First, what paper? I don't see a link. I only see this article.

Maybe the numbers I found on the internet for of the isotopes are wrong then?

The amount of energy you are talking about is not explainable by any conceivable one-stage fusion reaction, because there's no way to convert enough mass to energy.

There would have to be some sort of 2-stage reaction: 1 fusion reaction, perhaps producing an anti-particle of some sort in addition to the copper, and then a particle/anti-particle annihilation in a second stage reaction.

3.371 TJ is about 6 times more energy than would be expected from a hypothetical "simple" Nickel 62 to copper63 process in molar units.

It would also need to be occuring much slower than possible in pure fusion, else the power would be much higher than 12000 watts...
Quantum_Conundrum
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 21, 2011
In the paper they used the naturally occurring abundances. With their numbers, they would get 3.371 TJ from 1.008 g of (pure) H and 58.69 g of (natural) Ni.


If this is correct, and the claims aen't a hoax, this reactor is actually a cold, stable anti-matter reactor, which uses cold fusion as a "breeder" reaction to produce the anti-matter.

If true, this would be about as close to an ideal, stable long-term fuel source as we could possibly imagine outside of science fiction.
lomed
4.3 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2011
In the above hypothertical reaction, maybe you make copper, copper gains 1 more proton, then alpha decays back to Ni. The energy comes from the effective H + H fusion. And the product you want to try to detect is He.
Actually, it captures an electron from the electron "cloud", so it does go from being one isotope of Ni to the next heavier isotope. Eventually this process ends when the reaction produces Cu-63 or Cu-65, which are stable. Their nuclear physics isn't terrible, they just have no reasonable explanation for the effect (they show in the paper that inelastic collisions and quantum tunneling are not reasonable explanations, though they could have done a better job with some of the calculations). They speculate that it was due to "electron screening". I have no doubt that there is charge screening involved, but I don't think it would be anywhere close to enough to account for their claims.
sstritt
1 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2011
@QC-
in the body of the article, just under the video, there is the word "paper" that is a hyperlink to the paper.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2011
For example, why this couldn't be a 1 stage fusion reaction.

The amount of energy you're saying requires an amount of additional mass above what my faulty understanding was, equivalent to about 60 times the mass of an electron (or positron.)

So for example, to explain this extra energy with a two stage reaction, it would need to be producing an anti-particle with mass about 30 times that of an electron, which is annihilating with some other coresponding particle of similar mass, thus converting the equivalent of an additional 60 (or 61) electron masses to energy.
lomed
5 / 5 (1) Jan 21, 2011
The amount of energy you are talking about is not explainable by any conceivable one-stage fusion reaction, because there's no way to convert enough mass to energy.
They assume that the cross section of each isotope of Ni is the same, so the Ni-58 would fuse with H-1 to produce Cu-59 which would decay to Ni-59, and so on until Ni-62 fuses into Cu-63, which is stable. The energy produced is the difference between the mass of Ni-58 + 5*H-1 and the mass of Cu-63. Also, it appears I forgot in my earlier calculation that it requires several H atoms, so in fact it would require about 4.250 g of H and 58.69 g of Ni per 3.37 TJ. I am a little unsure of their calculations though, as one of the Cu isotopes has a lifetime of 3.3 hours. The value I gave is an upper bound on the amount of energy they could get out of the process, it is much more likely to be on the order of the other estimate given (i.e., the 514 GJ value).
Quantum_Conundrum
3 / 5 (8) Jan 21, 2011
Ok, wow, amazing.

they in fact ARE describing a second stage positron/electron annihilation occuring in the second describing this

NiX + P1 -> Cu(X+1)

Which then decays to:

Cu(X+1) -> Ni(X+1) + Positron + Neutrino

Then the positron is annihilating with an electron, which explains a decent portion of the missing mass to energy conversion.

Then one process produces a neutrino while another process produces an anti-neutrino, so while incredibly unlikely, I suppose if these two collide they too would annihilate.

All of these things taken together would be in the ball park for the right energy for going all the way from Ni58 to Cu63. Since the annihilated electrons are coming from locations other than the atomic nuclei, their mass-energy did not originate in the nuclei, but in the orbitals of surrounding atoms. Positrons, being charged, would naturally be attracted straight to electrons: they probably can't miss...
bfast
not rated yet Jan 21, 2011
Those who try to compare this to solar just don't get it. If this thing works, all one has to do is close the loop. At that point, it may need starting power but once it is going there's energy out, and NO ENERGY IN! That's an infinite power gain. Perpetual motion? Not really. At some point all of the nickel would become copper, and the nickel would have to be replaced. Further, it'll consume some hydrogen.

However, though I have been hopefully watching LENR and cold fusion for years, this thing is being brought to the public forum all backwards. It smells of a scam looking for gullible investors or that 15 minutes of fame to me.
sstritt
1 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2011
It certainly seems suspicious, but does anyone know if any of these guys have reputations worth not trashing in a so seemingly flamboyant scam? I mean, if they can't produce, the wheels on this wagon are gonna come off quick!
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2011
Those who try to compare this to solar just don't get it.


Oh no, friend, I do get it.

You can use SOLAR as the input power for the nuclear reaction, and you can use the nuclear reactions to supplement baseline solar.

By using solar during the day, you could effectively double the lifetime of the nickel and hydrogen.

More to the point, the device looks small enough to fit in a car easily to power an electric motor, and the purported 3400 watts surplus from just one unit is about 400 watts more than is required to fly the Solar Impulse plane...

The paper claims, as I suspected, that the reaction would actually take several months to deplete all of the fuel. Note that I think it's possibly years, but they don't want to overstate it...

So this means you could run a house at peak energy use for several months on about 72 cents worth of fuel, or you could run the equivalent of 3 houses average power useage for several months with about 72 cents worth of fuel.
trekgeek1
4.6 / 5 (5) Jan 21, 2011
This is strange. They must know that if they are lying they will be caught instantly, thus ending their careers and maybe getting arrested if they sell them. There is no way they would think they'd get away with it. So what's the motivation?

It all sounds very fishy. But, some people have apparently inspected it. Half the evidence says yes, and half the evidence says no. I don't know what to make of it.

I really hope this is real. This would be an amazing breakthrough. Space travel, clean energy, enough cheap energy to end drought in Africa by pumping water in and filter clean water from salt water. This would be what we need here on earth. This could end hunger and starvation, leading to a more peaceful world.

If these guys are lying, it will be heart breaking. I hope they are telling the truth. My gut says they're not lying, just mistaken. I think it's not real, but no deception was intended.
Quantum_Conundrum
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 21, 2011
Trekgeek:

Yeah, I've been amazed with this since yesterday, and trying to think of ways to quantify how much more productive and economical this would make civilization.

Based on my best guesstimate of the life-tme of the fuel source in this reaction, I find that electricity would cost about 10,000 times less, at least in terms of the cost of the fuel source itself.

If everyone by-passes the electric company and just buys reactors for themselves, they'd basicly get their power for this rate plus the cost of the device itself.

Now imagine if Google could power their servers adn their cooling systems for just 1 cent per thousand kilowatt hours. Currently, energy is probably over half of their operating costs. Imagine how much more profitable all IT and cloud computing would be with "arbitrarily free" energy costs!!
Quantum_Conundrum
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 21, 2011
In other sectors, such as construction:

Lumber:
I calculated that energy costs of logging, transporting, milling, transporting some more, etc, represents anywhere from 5% to 9% of the sale price of Lumber, based on current random lengths board-feet price and the price of diesel and mileage of trucks.

Basicly, the "materials, milling, shaping, and refining" cost of almost anything you can imagine goes down by 5% to 25% or more due to cumulative reductions in energy costs at some stage of it's harvest, refining, or transportation, etc.

Since energy would cost almost nothing, you'd basicly be "paying" for nothing except labor, insurance, and the physical relative value of the original raw materials.

It's really hard to even comprehend what the "price" or "value" of many things would be if energy is "almost free"...

Food shortage? Not any more. Hydroponics with no energy cost...

Water shortage? Nope. Desalination with no energy cost...
trekgeek1
5 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2011
@ Quantum

Yeah, it would change life as we know it. However, I'm trying to not get excited because I don't want to be let down if it doesn't work.

I think the biggest impact would be that cheaper energy means that villages in poor nations can have a machine that heats their food, pumps water to crops, heats them on cold nights, cools them on hot days, etc. The increase in the quality of life would stop a lot of hostilities between nations. Growing their own crops would weaken their corrupt governments who use a monopoly on food as a bargaining tool. A discovery like this is a huge step to a Star Trek world where happiness is available for all.
trekgeek1
5 / 5 (5) Jan 21, 2011
Oh, by the way. It would be hilarious too, since Back to The Future predicted a Mr. Fusion by 2015. This would be an amazing coincidence. If this works, I'll expect my hover board in 4 years. Just don't use them on water, they won't work.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2011
Here's something that might blow people's minds.

Earlier, it was assumed by me that, if this isn't a hoax, world demand for Nickel would go up by an average of 5% per year compared to current demands, because that's about how much Nickel would be needed to meet the world's energy needs.

However, paradoxically this doesn't necessarily mean an increase in Nickel price, short term nor long term. Let me explain.

As seen above, it would likely cost something like 5% to 25% less total cost to mine, transport, and refine Nickel itself. Thus the cost of Nickel might decrease by as much as 20% even as demand increases by about 5%.

On the other hand, if the net energy value of Nickel became the currency standard, then Nickel's relative net value compared to the energy equivalent cost of fossil fuels would be the equivalent of $92,424.76/kilogram, or about 32 times the price of Gold...
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (45) Jan 21, 2011
This could end hunger and starvation, leading to a more peaceful world.
How do you figure? More resources just increase the population growth rate. And with cultures still extant which base their growth rates on medieval attrition rates, this only means MORE people living in poverty and MORE starvation.

And it would free the west from the need for middle eastern oil, thereby ending our influence there and thus any hope of ending these medieval cultures. Current moderate regimes will collapse and an empire full of hungry, angry fundamentalists would form up and seek to conquer the world. The west will never let this happen.

Of course this could be the Plan. These cultures never end by themselves. They are too well Designed.
rah
1 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2011
Wow! They did it! They solved the world's energy problem! And they invented cold fusion! This is great! I'd like to invest all of my money in this. Where do I send my check?
This web site is getting to be like The National Enquirer of nonsense.
NickFun
1 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2011
I admit the site has lost a but of cf credibility by reporting this as "serious" science.
Bog_Mire
1 / 5 (1) Jan 21, 2011
Otto, just to be clear, could you list all of the medieval countries you would see gone?
hush1
1 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2011
This is fun.
If fission and fusion are secondary sources,
I'm left with nothing. :)
trekgeek1
5 / 5 (5) Jan 22, 2011
How do you figure? More resources just increase the population growth rate. And with cultures still extant which base their growth rates on medieval attrition rates, this only means MORE people living in poverty and MORE starvation.


Some people have many children because of religious reasons. Energy will have little effect on them. Many people have lots of children to run their farms because they need labor. Look at the average family size in the U.S. When you have machines doing the work, you don't need as many people. When quality of life goes up, birth rates go down.
Egleton
1 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2011
Let the dice fall where they may.
The chattering classes are invariably wrong.
beelize54
1 / 5 (4) Jan 22, 2011
Why Randell Mills, who started the whole research with cold fusion of hydrogen at the nickel surface isn't mentioned here? Before ten years his ideas were ridiculed generally, not many people are discussing it seriously.
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (1) Jan 22, 2011
When quality of life goes up, birth rates go down.


Mortality rates go down before birth rates do. The result is a population explosion of the poor, and instead of higher living standard of a society, we get the same or lowered living standard, but with much more people - demographic trap.

Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (4) Jan 22, 2011
More resources just increase the population growth rate. And with cultures still extant which base their growth rates on medieval attrition rates, this only means MORE people living in poverty and MORE starvation.


Oh BS Otto.

Get off of your NAZI world view for once.

This invention would drop the poverty line substantially in all nations.

Automobiles would cost about 10% less to buy, and 5000 times less fuel cost in their life time.

Homes would cost about 5% less to buy, and would cost about a dollar per year for energy, or less.

The cost to plant, water, grow, harvest, transport, process, preserve, store and sell food would go down drastically.

I know of a production facility that would save over $1.4 million per year just in the electricity cost of their 7 largest electric motors alone, not counting the remainder of the facility. Just these 7 motors cost more money in electricity than the wages of 3/4s of the facility's workers combined.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2011
If a person uses 15 gallons of gasoline per week, that's 780 gallons per year. At current prices, that is $2425.80 per year. 780 gallons of gasoline produces 94.4 gigajoules when burned, giving roughly 39 megajoules per penny for gasoline.

ICE are around 20% efficient, which means that only 18.88 gigajoules were converted to work, or 7.8 megajoules per penny.

This device allegedly makes 3.34 Terrajoules using about 72 cents worth of Nickel.

electric motors are 88% efficient, so to convert 18.88 gigajoules to work, we need only 1/4th as much input energy as an ICE, or 23.6 gigajoules.

If this reactor is only a pathetic 1% efficient it would produce 33.4 gigajoules of electricity. As you can see, this is enough energy to power the electric engine for about 1.5 years for $0.72 at the same amount of mileage.

If the reactor is 10% efficient, it would enough to power the car for 15 years at the same annual mileage, for just $0.72.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (3) Jan 22, 2011
I got the above numbers from the article and paper itself, plus real efficiency ratings of ICE and electric motors and energy values of the gasoline which can be found on internet.

So now let's take the 10 year warranted life time of an automobile today, and figure the savings for a 1% reactor and a 10% reactor with electric motor, vs gasoline and ICE.

10 years:
1% reactor: $5.04
10% reactor: $0.51
Gasoline: $24,258.00

The Gasoline cost is close to the MSRP of the vehicle itself.

the 1% reactor and electric motor would literally be 4813 times cheaper fuel cost across 10 years.

the 10% reactor and electric motor would be 48,130 times cheaper fuel costs across 10 years.

In either case, the energy cost savings would pay for the vehicle during it's 10 year warranted life time.

I didn't make this stuff up. I used reasonable fuel usage for a typical person, and real numbers on the gasoline and engines, and then the actuall numbers from the paper, with assumptions on %
alycanshaning
not rated yet Jan 22, 2011
...next thing you know, we're being controlled by the Italians.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (3) Jan 22, 2011
Has this article been updated?

The middle portion of the article has some extra details that I don't remember seeing when I first read this article two days ago. If you go back to the third and fourth sentences before the video screen:

Although the reactors can be self-sustaining so that the input can be turned off, the scientists say that the reactors work better with a constant input. The reactors need to be refueled every 6 months, which the scientists say is done by their dealers.


Either I missed that sentence somehow, or it has since been added.

Based on my prior observations, this "six months" suggests that about half of the energy produced is being released in a non-useful form: Neutrinos and anti-neutrinos that avoid annihilation, or some other non-interacting particle or wave energy.

Ok, so basicly we conclude it's about a dollar to run an electric automobile for a year (you can charge battery during down time with the reactor).
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (3) Jan 22, 2011
Ok, yeah, I'm re-reading some other parts, and this article has definitely been edited since I first read it.

the experiment provides a power gain of 12,400/400 = 31


This is actually irrelevant, because if you have a self-sustaining reaction, your 400 watts input can come from the generator itself, facilitating this catalyst effect.

So basicly, your only "energy in" cost would be the "1000 watts for a few minutes".

so your "power gain" would be 31, but the "net energy gain" across six months, if you never shut it down, would be:

Energy out: 189216000000Joules = 189.2 gigajoules.

Energy in: 1000watts * 2 minutes = 120,000 joules.

For practical purposes, the "energy in" is nearly insignificant.

But to be precise, in this example, the net "energy gain" ratio is actually 1576800 joules out per joule in.

If 1% of this is converted to electricity for the end user, that would still be 15768 Joules out to 1 Joule in...
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Jan 22, 2011
Nuclei are very small and Neutrons even smaller. You need a lot of thermal neutrons in order to get any getting close enough to a nucleus to react. Most can be expected to just leave the electrode material.

Hoax until proven otherwise.
StarDust21
not rated yet Jan 22, 2011
Looks like the usual scam to me, but I would so love it to be the real deal that I want to believe it. The potential is so great that we cant dismiss it, btw are these guys professors?

Did they allow any independent observers?

If they don't understand the theory behind it then how did they optimize it to have max output/input? trial and error?

Wheres the data on the radiation emission?

Did they rule out oxidation and other sources?(I know it seems trivial but theres no detail..)

Whats the isotopic composition of the claimed fusion product?

How does the machine work?

No heavy water like in previous cold fusion cases?

that looks fishy, but I want to believe hehe..
Shawn_Goldwater
not rated yet Jan 22, 2011
Seems to me I read similar claims for the so-called "Blacklight process" a couple of years back. It attracted investors and some pretty big money and then... nothing.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (5) Jan 22, 2011
StarDust21:

The alleged amount of power being produced for the alleged duration is absolutely impossible by any chemical means.

At this scale, and this rate of production, any chemical combustion, oxidation, or battery-like fuel source would burn up within a few minutes to a few hours at most.

The claims is that it produces 12400 watts with an input of 400 watts, for a gross gain of 31, or net gain of 30 times the input.

This is equivalent of burning 0.0846 grams of hydrogen every second. Since the article says the fuel doesn't need to be re-supplied until 6 months, then in order for this to be a chemical reaction it would need to burn 1334.4kg of hydrogen in the pressence of oxygen.

Since hydrogen is the most energy dense material in terms of combustion, this means it is physically impossible for this to be a chemical reaction of any kind, and by a factor of 3.5 orders of magnitude.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (42) Jan 22, 2011
Otto, just to be clear, could you list all of the medieval countries you would see gone?
All the fundamentalist cultures which relegate women to the task of making and raising babies. Anything which resembles catholic Europe. Iran for example. Gaza. This is certainly not something otto cooked up- let me look around for you.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (42) Jan 22, 2011
Here's one:
http
://www.theinformationist.com/the-informationist/2010/11/outlasting-the-islamic-dark-ages.html
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (41) Jan 22, 2011
Here's another one, pre-Iran war. Probably written for spin, but true nonetheless:
http
://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/a-beacon-in-islams-dark-age-1359578.html
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (6) Jan 22, 2011
Otto:

Everyone except Bush and Obama already know that Islam is the religion of evil, murder, and cowardice.

We don't need any more reminders, especially not a double post.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.4 / 5 (44) Jan 22, 2011
Foreigner being executed in Saudi Arabia for sorcery:
http
://humanrights.change.org/blog/view/saudi_arabias_sorcery_problem

-150 witches arrested in gaza in 2010- sound familiar?

QC
-No double post dweeb, the gentleman asked me to provide evidence of medieval religionist cultures which I am doing. You quit dumping entire loads of bullshit in threads and I will consider your objections in the future. Hey, I hear you invented cold fusion all by yourself. And someone said you weren't a nookleer phismasist-
lomed
not rated yet Jan 22, 2011
It just occurred to me that they claim to have produced Ni-53 but have no explanation as to how. Specifically, they claim to observe the products of the the decay of Cu-64, which they claim to have produced from Ni-53. However, Ni-53 is not present in natural samples of nickel (since it is radioactive), cannot be produced from Cu-63 (since it is stable), and (as far as I know) neither standard nuclear theory nor their postulated reaction can produce this nickel isotope under the conditions given.

The isotopic composition of copper is not consistent with all of it having been produced in the proposed reaction. With their assumptions, Cu-63 should at least have been produced by Ni-62, and Cu-65 from Ni-64, given the natural abundances of these isotopes, the ratio of Cu-63 to Cu-65 should have been 3.9 whereas they report 1.6 versus a natural ratio of 2.24.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (43) Jan 22, 2011
When quality of life goes up, birth rates go down.
Only in cultures which can provide rewarding alternatives to producing and raising more children. Historically, investment has always led to growth in populations which at some point begins to tax available resources.

This causes inflation which leads to economic slowdown, job loss, and the erosion of social stability. Economic cycles- an age-old problem, and only the west has enabled an enduring solution to it.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (3) Jan 22, 2011
given the natural abundances of these isotopes, the ratio of Cu-63 to Cu-65 should have been 3.9 whereas they report 1.6 versus a natural ratio of 2.24.


Well, I don't think it's as straight forward as that. You have to figure that since the natural composition of Nickel is spread around, different portions of the fuel source are starting at different "links" in the chain of the potential reactions.

So even though the natural Ni59 is non-existent, it gets produced by the Ni58 process. Then the Ni59 would make Ni60, etc.

2 paragraphs below Table 2:

Cu63 is produced by Ni62, but is stable, thus not making the Ni63. He states that the chain ends at Ni62 because it is the last Ni isotope that could be made on that chain from a previous isotope of Nickel, but the whole chain ends at Cu63.

They never made the claim of having fully depleted the Ni fuel source, so ratios may not have fully matured, since all of the material hasn't been used.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (3) Jan 22, 2011
So every Ni58 atom would eventually go through the entire chain, ultimately becoming Cu63.

Cu63 is becoming Ni63 through a different proces: anti-neutrino emission. This appears speculative, and what is causing this isn't explained.

Pure personal speculation:
Maybe the neutrinos emitted by other parts of the process somehow facilitate the release of an anti-neutrino here, allowing a "bridge" in the chain. At least intuitively, it makes sense that if something absorbed a neutrino it might emit an anti-neutrino.
End personal speculation:

Then Ni63 and Ni64 return to the same rule that Ni58 is following:

NiA + p -> Cu(A+1)

Cu(A+1) -> positron + Neutrino

so in theory, if you let this run long enough, you should end up with no Nickel at all, and only Cu 63 and Cu65. However, it might not be feasible in terms of energy return to just let that go on so long.

the amount of Cu63 remaining might be variable because not all of it would undergo the anti-neutrino emission.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2011
Now if you fully depleted the fuel source, and it stopped fully at Cu63 and Cu65, then the final ratio of Cu63 to Cu65 would be:

99.07% to 0.93%

106.53 to 1

The natural ratio of copper isotopes is irrelevant, since they started with a pure "natural" Nickel source.

If all isotopes of Nickel went through the processes at an equal likelihood, and if you started only with Ni62 and Ni64 in the fuel source, then you should end up with a ratio of 3.9, if and only if cu63 doesn't undergo anti-neutrion emission.

However, if the Cu63 is doing the anti-neutrino emission, then you'd end up with "extra" cu65, and "missing" Cu63, lowering the ratio somewhat.

If just 10% of Cu63 is doing anti-neutrino emission then that would shift the ratio to 2.525.

If 20% of Cu63 is doing anti-neutrino emission, that would shift the ratio to 1.75, which is very close to what they are reporting.

You can get ratio 1.6 with 23% anti-neutrino emission from Cu63.
luke_connell_au
3 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2011
What stands out to me is that the scientists cannot explain how the cold fusion is triggered.

Surely any scientist would ensure they can explain the process causing fusion before they would even consider announcing it to the public, applying for patents and most of all commercialising the technology.

They are either attempting to conceal information from everyone including the patent office or they are overly naive and lack common sense to realise that they must be capable of explaining the phenomena causing fusion.

I'd love for Andrea Rossi and Sergio Focardi to be successful, however it is obvious that one must first fully understand and be capable of explaining what they are doing before they should expect to receive recognition and general acceptance of their actions.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (4) Jan 22, 2011
By molar masses:

Ni58 through Cu63 chain:

P = 1.007275883g

5*p = 5.03637941661

Ni58 = 57.935342907

Cu63 = 62.929597474

So:

5p plus Ni58 - Cu63

gives a mass loss of 0.042124849607 grams/mole.

This becomes "energy equivalent" of: 3.79 terrajoules, which is in the neighbourhood of what the paper reports.*

For the Chain Ni63 to Cu65:

2p plus Ni63 -> Cu65:

Gives mass loss: 0.016431655grams/mole.

This is energy equivalent of: 1.47 terrajoules**

Chain 1 plus chain 2 gives 5.26 terrajoules***

*** The extra ~2 terrajoules is offset by the fact much of this energy is in the form of other low mass particles such as electrons, positrons, neutrinos, etc.

In general, at least on paper, the numbers "should" work and should be exothermic at every stage of the reaction on the normal chain, with the exception of Cu63 to Ni63, which would normally not happen, and ~40% of Cu64 would be Zn64.

So "on paper" there is no good reason why this doesn't work...
lomed
not rated yet Jan 22, 2011
Well, I don't think it's as straight forward as that. You have to figure that since the natural composition of Nickel is spread around, different portions of the fuel source are starting at different "links" in the chain of the potential reactions.
Yes, but even if you assume that the average Ni nucleus that reacts reacts only once, one would expect to have ~3.63% of the reactions to produce Cu-63 and ~0.97% to produce Cu-65. Even though the rest of the Ni isotopes will produce Cu isotopes, if they only react with H once, the resultant Cu isotopes will decay back to Ni within a few hours. If more than one reaction occurs to a Ni isotope on average, this only serves to further increase the Cu-63 to Cu-65 ratio.

Assuming they don't produce large amounts of Ni-63, it is not likely to be involved in a reaction in order to produce Cu-64.
if and only if cu63 doesn't undergo anti-neutrion emission.
Cu-63 is considered stable, so the decay probability must be very small.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (3) Jan 22, 2011
I'd love for Andrea Rossi and Sergio Focardi to be successful, however it is obvious that one must first fully understand and be capable of explaining what they are doing before they should expect to receive recognition and general acceptance of their actions.


Have you read the article a few screens down in Physics section, entitled "New Territory in Nuclear Fission explored with ISOLDE"?

and I quote:

From the fundamental research point of view, fission is not yet fully understood decades after its discovery and its properties can still surprise nuclear physicists.


So the reality is, nobody "really" understands nuclear processes completely, even though we've been actively using them for 65 years now.

they are overly naive and lack common sense to realise that they must be capable of explaining the phenomena causing fusion.


Reality is what it is, whether or not you can explain it.

Read the paper
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (3) Jan 22, 2011
Cu-63 is considered stable, so the decay probability must be very small.


Under normal circumstances, I would agree.

However, in ths alleged reaction, it's confined to a space in which lots of other fusion and decay reactions are taking place, with particles and particle pair annihilations occuring:

e-, e+, gamma rays, neutrons, neutrinos

think about a particle accelerator. Does it "care" whether the target atom is "stable" or not?

Of course not. The particle hits the target atom and makes a new atom, OR splits the target atom, etc.

Also, consider fission reactions and certain "breeder" reactions in which fission of an otherwise stable material occurs in the pressence of neutrons (or other particles). i.e. The U238 shield in stage 2 in Thermo-nuclear warheads undergoes fission.

So it isn't decaying by "natural" means.

It is decaying because it's struck by one of the other particles produced by other stage of the reaction chain in confined space.
lomed
5 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2011
The natural ratio of copper isotopes is irrelevant, since they started with a pure "natural" Nickel source.
If I am not mistaken, they only assume that they started with pure (natural) nickel and pure H. This is the sort of thing it would be nice to have actual data about (they could have had samples from before the runs analyzed just like they ones from after).
Cu63 is becoming Ni63 through a different proces: anti-neutrino emission. This appears speculative, and what is causing this isn't explained.
Yeah, all they say is that "More details on this analysis will be given in a successive paper".
Maybe the neutrinos emitted by other parts of the process somehow facilitate the release of an anti-neutrino here
It's an interesting idea, but neutrinos don't interact with matter very often. If it takes a light-year of Pb to stop half of the neutrinos traveling through it, I doubt a single reaction made Cu-63 nucleus interacts with the (anti)neutrinos produced in the decays.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (3) Jan 22, 2011
Continuing the previous:

If Cu63 is hit by a neutron, it might become Cu64.

then the Cu64 would decay to Ni64(61.5%) or Zinc 64(38.5%), skipping the Ni63 entirely.

Apparantly, if Cu63 is hit by a neutrino, it would apparently become Ni63 and emitt an anti-neutrino. The odds of this happening would be very small, but non-zero. However, Neutrinos are made in all of the copper decay processes described except the case of Zinc and the case of Cu63 to Ni63, which means there will be more Neutrinos throughout the lifetime of the reaction than Cu63 atoms, but almost all of the Neutrinos will miss hitting a Cu63 atom, or anything else in the universe for that matter.
lomed
5 / 5 (1) Jan 22, 2011
It is decaying because it's struck by one of the other particles produced by other stage of the reaction chain in confined space.
But the only particles involved are the nuclei themselves, the orbiting electrons, the (anti-)neutrinos produced in the reactions, and gamma rays produced in the annihilation of positrons produced by Cu decays. The orbiting electrons are involved in the electron capture mode of decay. The gamma rays produced would be 511 KeV, not enough to even excite a Cu-63 nucleus. So,as far as I know, there are no particles involved that have a good chance of causing Cu-63 to become unstable.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (3) Jan 22, 2011
If it takes a light-year of Pb to stop half of the neutrinos traveling through it, I doubt a single reaction made Cu-63 nucleus interacts with the (anti)neutrinos produced in the decays.


Avogadros number is very, very big. Even bigger than light year numbers.

6.022137E23 atoms/mole

mole would be 6E23 Ni58 atoms, making 6E23 neutrinos when Cu59 decays.

Half per light year would be 3E23

vs

9.4608E15 meters

If we convert this to scales relevant to the volume of 1 mole of Nickel, ie ~58 grams, which is 6.5cm^3.

Depending on shae of fuel source, a neutrino forming inside a 1cm wide prism would travel an average of about 1.5cm in any direction through fuel.

then something like 477401 neutrinos per MOLE of neutrinos produced should hit "something" inside the fuel source. The odds of it being a Cu63 atom depends on how much of the lighter Ni and Cu atoms have already been converted to Cu63...
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (3) Jan 22, 2011
But the only particles involved are the nuclei themselves, the orbiting electrons, the (anti-)neutrinos produced in the reactions, and gamma rays produced in the annihilation of positrons produced by Cu decays.


Section 6 produces a neutron and anti-neutrino via electron capture.

Presumably, A neutron could, among other things:

A) Ni62 +n -> Ni63

B) Cu63 +n -> Cu64 -> ni64+ v_ Or Zn64

c) Collide with something else in the apparatus, such as the lead shielding. (pick an isotope.)
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2011
"Depending on shae of fuel source, a neutrino forming inside a 1cm wide prism would travel an average of about 1.5cm in any direction through fuel." QC

You are off by several dozen orders of magnitude.

And where do these Neutrino's come from anyhow? Neutrino Land?
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 22, 2011
"What stands out to me is that the scientists cannot explain how the cold fusion is triggered." - Luke

Have they explained anything? Anything at all?

There is a claim made. Zero details provided as to what is in the big blue box.

Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2011
"Depending on shae of fuel source, a neutrino forming inside a 1cm wide prism would travel an average of about 1.5cm in any direction through fuel." QC

You are off by several dozen orders of magnitude.

And where do these Neutrino's come from anyhow? Neutrino Land?

Eh? The volume of 1 mole of Nickel is 6.5cm^3, which makes a prism 1*1*6.5...

The Neutrinos come from, according to the paper, process 4.

Cu(X+1) -> Ni(X+1) + Positron + Neutrino

Reactions of this form are the most common in the alleged chain.

If 1 mole of Ni58 went through the entire chain, it should eventually make a total of 5.615 moles of neutrinos all told...

Have you read the paper?

They didn't explain everything yet, but if you had read the paper, you shouldn't have made the "neutrino land" comment, because that was clearly explained in process 4, which is perhaps the most important process in the chain...
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (3) Jan 22, 2011
"Depending on shae of fuel source, a neutrino forming inside a 1cm wide prism would travel an average of about 1.5cm in any direction through fuel." QC

You are off by several dozen orders of magnitude.


I think you were misunderstanding what I was saying there. I wasn't saying all neutrinos were stopped there. I was talking about the average distance to travel to exit the object of given dimension, when starting at a random point inside the object and traveling in a random direction in 3 dimensions.

This was then used to calculate how many neutrinos out of a mole of neutrinos would be expected to hit something within that distance.
lomed
not rated yet Jan 22, 2011
Section 6 produces a neutron and anti-neutrino via electron capture.
Electron capture involves a proton inside a nucleus. The proton is turned into a neutron, so the neutron is bound to the nucleus and not free to interact with other nuclei.
then something like 477401 neutrinos per MOLE of neutrinos produced should hit "something" inside the fuel source.
That would mean at most 477401 atoms of Ni-64. Even if all of these atoms are converted into Cu-64 only about 184000 atoms of Zn-64 would be produced. If they could not distinguish Zn-64 and Ni-64 in a mass spectrometer, there must indeed have been very little measured. This raises the possibility that the sample was (accidentally) contaminated (it doesn't take much to transfer micrograms of contaminants much less a few hundred thousand atoms per mole).
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2011
Electron capture involves a proton inside a nucleus. The proton is turned into a neutron, so the neutron is bound to the nucleus and not free to interact with other nuclei.


Yes, but you're forgetting hydrogen is a naked proton.

That would mean at most 477401 atoms of Ni-64. Even if all of these atoms are converted into Cu-64 only about 184000 atoms of Zn-64 would be produced. If they could not distinguish Zn-64 and Ni-64 in a mass spectrometer, there must indeed have been very little measured. This raises the possibility that the sample was (accidentally) contaminated (it doesn't take much to transfer micrograms of contaminants much less a few hundred thousand atoms per mole).


Their data did have 1 data point which they pointed out was suspected of contamination (Line 3 table 1).

It's impossible to create 100% pure of anything.

Commercial grade Nickel can be refined to excess of 99.99% purety, which implies less than 6mg/Mole of contamination.
MorituriMax
3.8 / 5 (4) Jan 22, 2011
"Further, the scientists say that the reactor is well beyond the research phase; they plan to start shipping commercial devices within the next three months and start mass production by the end of 2011."

Wow, this will certainly go against any and all other such articles I have ever read, even apple doesn't put out iphones this quick. I don't even care about it being cold fusion, putting out ANY commercial grade hardware that fast sounds impossible.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (4) Jan 22, 2011
Wow, this will certainly go against any and all other such articles I have ever read, even apple doesn't put out iphones this quick. I don't even care about it being cold fusion, putting out ANY commercial grade hardware that fast sounds impossible.


The original paper is dated March 22, 2010. In the paper, they imply they've ran some experiments over a period of several months, and in this article it implies at least one reactor has allegedly already been running for 2 years. So they've allegedly been experimenting with this for quite some time, back at least to May of 2008.

An iphone has several billion nano-scale parts.

A basic, experimental reactor need only have relatively few macroscopic parts, perhaps a few dozen parts by the time you count sensors, shielding, cooling, pipes, generator, and things of this nature.

Oh yeah, I've worked in facility where people sometimes did complete redesign, rebuild, and install of complicated machines in a few days.
lomed
5 / 5 (1) Jan 22, 2011
Yes, but you're forgetting hydrogen is a naked proton.
Naked protons do not undergo electron capture, it is a form of nuclear decay that can occur in place of positron emission. It is the copper isotopes that would undergo electron capture to produce nickel isotopes with the same atomic mass numbers.
Commercial grade Nickel can be refined to excess of 99.99% purety, which implies less than 6mg/Mole of contamination.
500000 atoms per mole is less than a part in 10^18 whereas 99.99% is a part in 10^4.
zuggerjack
2 / 5 (1) Jan 22, 2011
Maybe they're on to something here, but need to know if this new cold-fusion device is comparable in energy output and cost to space-based solar power as described by David Kagan in his monumental book Sunstroke. Kagan explains that huge satellites orbiting Earth will convert sunlight up there into microwaves for power-beaming to the ground to supply us with more energy than five nuclear power plants (albeit with major potential biohazards involved). What are the biohazards associated with cold-fusion, another untested new technology?
Evil_Earl
not rated yet Jan 22, 2011
"Italian scientists Andrea Rossi and Sergio Focardi of the University of Bologna announced that they developed a cold fusion..."

HA! Cold fusion and bologna all in the same sentance. I love it.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (4) Jan 22, 2011
Naked protons do not undergo electron capture, it is a form of nuclear decay that can occur in place of positron emission. It is the copper isotopes that would undergo electron capture to produce nickel isotopes with the same atomic mass numbers.

500000 atoms per mole is less than a part in 10^18 whereas 99.99% is a part in 10^4.


Well it's unclear then.

Maybe someone will figure it out.

Personally, I don't think it necessarily matters "how" it works, if it works.

Maybe there is an unknown particle at work in some of the reactions. Not necessarily a "new" particle, just something not mentioned here?

Or "natural" neutrons or neutrinos from the environment might be enough i.e. cosmic radiation.

The Lead shielding, or contaminants thereof, could hold the answer to the discrepency.
Evil_Earl
not rated yet Jan 22, 2011
"Italian scientists Andrea Rossi and Sergio Focardi of the University of Bologna announced that they developed a cold fusion..."

Heh..Cold fusion and bologna all in one sentence. I love it!
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (4) Jan 23, 2011
Maybe they're on to something here, but need to know if this new cold-fusion device is comparable in energy output and cost to space-based solar power as described by David Kagan in his monumental book Sunstroke. Kagan explains that huge satellites orbiting Earth will convert sunlight up there into microwaves for power-beaming to the ground to supply us with more energy than five nuclear power plants (albeit with major potential biohazards involved). What are the biohazards associated with cold-fusion, another untested new technology?


Space-based solar power would require so much energy in and computer and robotics technology not yet invented.

Based on life-time of solar panels, orbiting panels would produce around 173 gigajoules at a cost of $660 (not counting launch cost for orbit,) in their 25 year life time.

By comparison, this device would allegedly produce a gain of 189 gigajoules in just 6 months at a fuel price of just about 70 cents.
feisl
not rated yet Jan 23, 2011
Maybe the hydrogen-hydrogen fussion is catalyzed by Ni
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2011
Maybe the hydrogen-hydrogen fussion is catalyzed by Ni


Unless I missed something, hydrogen-hydrogen fusion isn't claimed to be ocurring in the reactor at all.

Read the Paper. The link is the highlighted word "Paper" in first line in first paragraph under the video.
feisl
not rated yet Jan 23, 2011
The elcetron shielding effects may make it easy for the protons to penetrate into the Ni nucleus. This is not completely impossible as the paper says.
lomed
not rated yet Jan 23, 2011
The elcetron shielding effects may make it easy for the protons to penetrate into the Ni nucleus.
There are shielding effects when more than one charged object is involved in a quantum mechanical system. However, just as in classical electromagnetism the screening of the nuclear charge is only effective as long as the projectile is outside of the electron "shells". Inside, the H atom will be affected by a non-zero, non-uniform electric field which will cause the electron "cloud" of the H atom to elongate and be drawn off-center towards the nickel nucleus. Thus the proton will be exposed to more and more of the charge of the nucleus. It seems reasonable to me that not far inside the valence electron "shell" the potential could be approximated as that of another hydrogen atom (though in fact it would probably already have more effective charge). So, I doubt the probability of fusion is more than a couple orders of magnitude higher than they calculate via simple physics.
sdchanman
2 / 5 (4) Jan 23, 2011
Looks like they are already going after them. You really think they are going to get a patent or stay alive?

/
sorg
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 23, 2011
It always amazes me that people do not believe in the evidence of cold fusion when we do not even have a working blue print of how the common magnet works.
If i ask a kid how a magnet works, he will say, "It just does."
Quantum_Conundrum
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 23, 2011
They stated that the fuel source would be replaced about 6 months.

so doing some math, I found that at the stated power gain of 12400/400, which I've been using throughout this discussion, assume a net output of 12000watts since 400watts must be fed back in to maintain the reaction.

At this power rating, one mole of nickel fuel is producing a net energy gain which is equivalent to energy released in detonating 40.25 tons of TNT.

This means that by mass, the net gain from this reaction is 619364 times the chemical energy of TNT.

So the net gain in energy is already 5.5 orders of magnitude more energy dense than TNT, and it's already around 6 times as energy dense as fission.

The net gain is around 60% as energy dense as pure hydrogen-hydrogen fusion would be, which would support the notion of the positron-electron annihilation, in that at least some of the energy MUST be coming from an anti-matter annihilation (See process 5,) since the reactor cannot be 60% efficient.
sstritt
1 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2011
Looks like they are already going after them. You really think they are going to get a patent or stay alive?

/

What do you mean? Have you seen any reports that "they" are going after them? I don't doubt that there could be an element of danger involved in introducing (if proven real) the most disruptive technology in history. What is the global energy market worth- $1 trillion-or more per year? How would one best play their hand if they had this technology?
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (4) Jan 23, 2011
On the electron-positron annihilation:

If one mole of Ni58 went through the entire chain to Cu63 we would produce 4 moles of positrons.

e- + e+ -> gamma + gamma.

if we convert the mass energy of 4 moles of positrons and 4 moles of electrons to gamma photons the energy of these gamma photons is:

394.9gigajoules

or

511.7 KeV per gamma photon

Since the team alleges no radiation is escaping, all of this energy must also be contained in the reactor or else absorbed by the shielding, which should still produce some sort of thermal, ionic, or nuclear effects in the shielding.

Since the electrons are not originating from the nucleus of the source, their mass loss doesn't count towards the mass loss of the source, but is rather coming from the environment. So half of 394.9 gigajoules is 197.45gigajoules from positrons, which is still accounts for just 5 percent of the expected mass loss between Ni58 plus 5 protons to make Cu63.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (4) Jan 23, 2011
Seeing as how the neutrinos interact so rarely at the scale of the distances of this device, and the only thing else that is being made, according to the equations, are the isotopes themselves, it's not explained what the carriers are for the energy releases reported in MeV, unless this energy is in the form of kinetic energy in the atoms themselves(temperature increase.)

Some of the difference would have to be explained by the reaction not having gone through the entire chain to completion.

One wouldn't be able to calculate the true efficiency of the device unless you could figure out exactly which portion(s) of the reaction chain are actually happening.
Foolish1
5 / 5 (4) Jan 23, 2011
"plan to start shipping commercial devices within the next three months and start mass production by the end of 2011"

Queue excuses and missed deadlines :(

Real devices in the field producing large usable quantities of energy qualify as extraordinary evidence. I'll wait a year for commercial shipments before passing judgement.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (4) Jan 23, 2011
If the reaction goes to completion, the anti-matter annihilation from positrons and electrons produces gamma photons of energy equivalent to 84 tons of TNT.

If the reaction goes to half completion it would be 42 tons of TNT from annihilation alone.

If only the natural Ni62 reacted, it would still be 3 tons of TNT from annihilation alone...

If only th natural Ni58 reacted, it would be 57 tons of TNT from anti-matter annihilation alone.
DrScott
5 / 5 (5) Jan 23, 2011
There is still plenty of valid debate as to whether such a cold fusion reactor is even possible.

The question at hand is whether or not the claims about this particular "fusion reactor" are legitimate or accurate. The inventors' refusal to reveal the working system they has run continuously for two years is highly suspect.

Also, they claim it CAN be self-sustaining, but "runs better" with continuous input. That's a red flag. Pons and Fleischmann discovered the hard way that you have to be very careful about your measurements.

It is not enough to submerge some palladium and nickel electrodes into a tank of water, hook everything up to a motorcycle battery and then say a prayer.

They say it produces radiation only while it's turned on, and produces no radioactive byproducts, only stable copper?

A cryptic private press demonstration is simply not sufficient. Prove it.

I certainly won't buy one till Underwriters Laboratories gets to poke it with a stick.

Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (4) Jan 23, 2011
DrScott:

the scientists are currently manufacturing a 1 MW plant made with 125 modules. Although the reactors can be self-sustaining so that the input can be turned off, the scientists say that the reactors work better with a constant input.


Ok, notice that they said the reaction actually IS self-sustaining even with the input turned off. They simply stated that it "works better" with a constant input.

Since the reaction is self-sustaining, you can use the energy from the reaction to produce it's own input in a closed loop.

Notice also they are going to make a 1MW plant with 125 modules.

You realize they'd have to be pretty stupid to get this wrong, as they should theoretically need an inital input of 1000watts for a few minutes, then the reactors in sequence and parrallels should provide one another's inputs, with a final net gain of 30, which would be 1.5 megawatts, but makes sense by the time you figure losses in wiring.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (4) Jan 23, 2011
So in order to "fake" this 1 megawatt power plant, they'd need an input of 1 to 1.5 megawatts from an external source, which would be so ridiculously obvious as to be laughable.

For diesel or gasoline electric generators to make that much power to facilitate the hoax, by the time you count ICE is only 18 to 20% efficienty...

...they'd need to be burning a gallon of gasoline every 24 seconds, which is around 75 times as fast as you use gasoline in an automobile.

Therefore there is no physical way they could possibly hoax somebody on a device as large as a 1 megawatt power plant.
MorituriMax
5 / 5 (6) Jan 23, 2011
Therefore there is no physical way they could possibly hoax somebody on a device as large as a 1 megawatt power plant.

Never underestimate the gullibility of humans or the ingenuity of fraudsters.. There is a thing going around lately (well more than usual) that claims if you wear a (power balance) "special" "resonant frequency" bracelet, it will restore your balance and body strength. And the only thing they needed for my sisters boyfriend to buy into it (he defended its claims vigorously when I pointed out the australian version balance tricks) was a simple demonstration of balance and such in the video. Also sports coaches said they believe it so there. The american version is the iRenew and uses almost the same exact model discredited in australia by skeptics.
MorituriMax
5 / 5 (5) Jan 23, 2011
Oh yeah, when I started telling him about how the australian version pretty much matched the one he was talking about over in the US, before I knew it he was saying that me saying the physics of the bracelet claims was a bunch of hooie was arrogant on my part since I hadn't worn one. Then he and my mother started saying that me claiming it violated physics and other scientific principles was as arrogant on my part as claiming I knew how 911 happened or that people moving things with their minds had happened so that obviously didn't violate physics since they had personally witnessed objects moving, etc. etc.

It's truly amazing what one can step into when one goes against "common sense" beliefs of others.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (4) Jan 23, 2011
Here's something bad news about this alleged device.

If this device was used as the primary power for an electric automobile, it would be incredibly dangerous under some circumstances.

The amount of gamma radiation being produced continuously is about 1200 watts, of which half is coming from the mass loss of the source adn the other half is coming from the environment.

If the reactor was ruptured in an accident, then even if the reaction totally stopped within a few seconds; just one second worth of that much gamma radiation is 2.4 times the guaranteed lethal dose for a 185lbs person, or 4.8 times the LD 50/30, i.e. 4.8 times the dose needed to kill half of victims within 30 days.

A leak of just a few seconds before the reaction stopped would be enough to kill or seriously injure perhaps dozens of people (rescuers or by-standers).

Moreover, this could be weaponized by a terrorist to make a "gamma bomb" or "gamma gun" WMD.
Azpod
1 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2011
Show me the neutrons.

I believe cold fusion is possible using deuterium and a platinum-class metal as a catalyst. Other groups have claimed to have found the neutrons generated by such reactions, which is the smoking fun that fusion has taken place.

However, fusion only releases energy when it creates elements lighter than iron. Nickel is heaver than iron. So fusion between hydrogen and nickel, if possible, should CONSUME energy, not PRODUCE it.

I could believe that some form of deuterium (present in small amounts in the water) fusion may be taking place through some unknown mechanism that could be producing the extra heat, but if it is, we'd see neutrons and plenty of them.

So I say this: show me the neutrons or I call you a liar.
yyz
5 / 5 (4) Jan 23, 2011
@MorituriMax

"There is a thing going around lately (well more than usual) that claims if you wear a (power balance) "special" "resonant frequency" bracelet, it will restore your balance and body strength. And the only thing they needed for my sisters boyfriend to buy into it (he defended its claims vigorously when I pointed out the australian version balance tricks) was a simple demonstration of balance and such in the video."

Australian authorities have recently gone after PowerBalance for making false and misleading statements about their product:

http
://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/12/24/power-balance-ordered-to-remove-misleading-statements/

Unfortunately this action is limited to Australian peddlers of this bogus product, but yeah, this type of hokum is (sadly) common.
MorituriMax
not rated yet Jan 23, 2011
yyz, yes, I had heard that a skeptics group down there in the AU had given quite a good effort in bringing their claims to the attention of the authorities and how the power balance bracelet claims were ... questionable.

Thanks for the link.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 23, 2011
However, fusion only releases energy when it creates elements lighter than iron. Nickel is heaver than iron. So fusion between hydrogen and nickel, if possible, should CONSUME energy, not PRODUCE it.


Oh come on now. You don't really believe the arbitrary mainstream theory that elements heavier than iron only form in supernovae, do you?

Besides, if you check the atomic masses for yourself, you'll find that it "should" work, at least on paper.

Going from a proton and NiX to Cu(X+1) and then to Ni(X+1), in all cases results in a net mass LOSS which means the reaction had to be exothermic.

If you don't believe this, do Google for mass of protons and Ni X and Cu (X+1) isotopes.

You'll eventually end up on of several sites that will give you the known values.

In all cases, the math supports the idea that the reactions should be exothermic.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (42) Jan 23, 2011
If the reactor was ruptured in an accident, then even if the reaction totally stopped within a few seconds; just one second worth of that much gamma radiation is 2.4 times the guaranteed lethal dose
So is a lethal dose of dashboard or steering wheel. Ever see a gas tank explode?
http
://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frb6kGzii8E
http
://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuApN8qVJJw&feature=related
http
://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HciztOjDpv4&feature=related

-Here is QCs little cold fusion-powered citroen, no warranty:
http
://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1sS1TmXF38&feature=related

Dying by radiation or severe immolation are little different. We can learn to be less fearful of radiation I think.
ZeeP
4 / 5 (8) Jan 23, 2011
You know Andrea Rossi has a past as a scammer, do you?
Check italian wiki: http
://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroldragon
He claimed (about 1980) he could get carbon petrol and gas from an high efficency process starting with waste.
Summing up, all ended in 57kton of high polluting waste left undisposed, 56 trials, jail, 50million€ of debt and 5 million€ of fine.
After that (1995), he was again jalied for traffic of gold ingot between Italy and Switzerland.
aldo
1 / 5 (1) Jan 23, 2011
I hope this is right but i think it will be without social cost. In italy (werei live) no much people discute on the matter .... (pour italy) people discute on berlusconi sexgate .... we are crazy
ABSOLUTEKNOWLEDGE
Jan 23, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
sstritt
1 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2011
You know Andrea Rossi has a past as a scammer, do you?


Well I guess that's pretty much the turd in the punch bowl. I'll be moving along now. Maybe in a few days someone will come up with a nice warp engine or a quantum flux capacitor.
trekgeek1
2 / 5 (1) Jan 23, 2011

Never underestimate the gullibility of humans or the ingenuity of fraudsters.. There is a thing going around lately (well more than usual) that claims if you wear a (power balance) "special" "resonant frequency" bracelet, it will restore your balance and body strength. And the only thing they needed for my sisters boyfriend to buy into it (he defended its claims vigorously when I pointed out the australian version balance tricks) was a simple demonstration of balance and such in the video. Also sports coaches said they believe it so there. The american version is the iRenew and uses almost the same exact model discredited in australia by skeptics.


Yeah, I saw these in the mall a week ago. I wanted to approach them and lecture them on science and ethics (It was a kiosk). Also the T-mobile booth trying to pass enhanced 3G as 4G. I want to ask them what their optimal data rate is for download. It isn't 1Gb/s, which is the 4G standard.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.3 / 5 (7) Jan 23, 2011
In the Fleischmann and Pons experiments, the rate of inferred excess heat generation was in the range of 10-20% of total input.


One can see how 20 years ago that might have been within margin of error of instrumentation or calibration.

However, this article is claiming a gain of 31, which corresponds 3100% for Rossi and Foccardi's apparatus.

Additionally, fleischman and pons' apparatus allegedly used a deuterium-deuterium process to make helium, which is really nothing like what this device here is allegedly doing.

the claim here, if true, should be incredibly easy to prove with the alleged gain of 31.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) now rejects patents claiming cold fusion.[130] 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


How do you know unless you actually bother to at least watch a demonstration?
bronx_phy
4 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2011
Lets at least respect the Scientific Method. If they cant prove it and have it replicated then f- em. On to the next. (Secretly I hope that it works)
PS3
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2011
As the copper atom decays, an energy emitting positive beta decay occurs, according to the following equations:
P = N+ e+ + v, where
P = proton N = neutron
E+ = positron v = neutrino
The positron forms the electron antiparticle, and hence, as positrons impact against the nickel electrons, the electron-positron pairs are annihilated, thereby generating a huge amount of energy.

Does this make sense?
neiorah
1.7 / 5 (3) Jan 24, 2011
I hope it works and who cares what others in the field think. They should not consider how others may react if it does work. In medicine books they clearly state that they are unsure of how the drugs work and can only provide speculation.
TigerDad
1.5 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2011
Just checking the math under "The Claim;" Heating 292g of water by 80°C (or °K) takes about 98kJ (292g × 80cal/g × 4.2J/cal). The article says this happens every minute, so we take 98kJ/60s = about 1.6kW. Still an interesting result, but not nearly the 12.4kW in the claim.
Fuda_87
3 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2011
Hey I have a Philosopher's stone! Anyone wants to buy it?
nickelsworth
1.4 / 5 (5) Jan 24, 2011
If it were not for 'Patents' [aka intellectual property] mankind would now be traveling outside our solar system exploring new worlds. Knowledge that is of benefit must be free and common. True science is free thought. That said, the 'snake-oil' salesmen will be differentiated. FREE THOUGHT is precious. It requires no Patent. It requires truth and openness. Truth is not something to profit from. It is a natural right intrinsic to our existence! There is an oligarchy that rules over all sciences... and the politics of mankind. It weilds an iron fist. Ironically, all it takes is to not 'play the game'. Listen to the science that beats within your heart. We have only just begun! Now is the time to reclaim the gift entitled to our children.. and their children's children. We are the new renascence.
jmcanoy1860
3 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2011
renascence?
Quantum_Conundrum
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 24, 2011
TigerDad:

You have to figure the heat of vaporization of water, which is 2257KJ/Kg. This is how much additional energy must be added to 100C liquid water before it will become 100C water vapor. so:

292g *80cal * 4.184J = 97738.24 J

Then you need to add heat of vaporization:

97738J + (0.292kg * 2270000J) = 760578J.

And then add specific heat of 292g of vapor to get to 101C from 100C:

292g * 1840J/kg = 537

Total:

537J + 760578J = 761115J.

Now divide this by 60 seconds:

761115J/60S = 12685W...

I think they are exactly right in their math. The numbers I used for heat of vaporization may have been a point high in the 3rd or 4th decimal place. I rounded up they rounded down...

12685W vs 12400W...That's close enough for me...
krundoloss
2.7 / 5 (6) Jan 24, 2011
Look I dont care about the theory, we can figure that out later. If it works, it works. Does a caveman have to understand a gun to use it? Know, just point and pull the trigger. Thats what we should do. Build the thing and use it, figure out the theory later. Sometimes usefulness preceeds understanding, think about Compasses hundreds of years ago. They didnt know why it worked, it just did and they used it.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.4 / 5 (7) Jan 24, 2011
Now consider this:

They said the input is at 1000w for "a few minutes", then it goes to 400w.

1000W * 120S = 120000J

400W * 60S = 24000J

So the total input energy, Ei, for any time t in minutes is:

Ei = 120000J + (t-2)*24000J

At this rate, if there was no chemical or nuclear reaction inside the device, and if it was ideally insulated, it would take 28.71 minutes to produce enough heat to make one minutes worth of steam at the stated 292 grams.

It would take a further 31 minutes for every addition 292 grams. I am here deriving the gain in reverse.

Interested to see if they could be mistaken about the "steam" and maybe this was H and O gas made from somehow electrolysis or thermolysis of water, I did some maths, and it would never happen.

To produce 292 grams of H and O vapor per minute would require something like 5840000Joules per minute, or 97333watts, which would be 7.85 times more than the claim.
dankgoat
4.8 / 5 (5) Jan 24, 2011
BTW everyone. They claim to fuse nickel and hydrogen to make copper. But lets face it there is no mass loss at all in that so there cannot possibly be in anyway a release of energy. Remember E=mc^2 ? No mass no energy.


The mass that is converted to energy comes from the different binding energies of the reactants and products. The specific isotopes of copper and Ni are needed to calculate this. But generally, in any nuclear reaction (fusion or fission) there is a difference of mass before and after, but this is not form the atomic masses of the players but their binding energies.
frajo
3.8 / 5 (4) Jan 24, 2011
think about Compasses hundreds of years ago
They used compasses more than 2000 years ago. Guess where.
Stygian
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 24, 2011
What I dont get is the guys in Utah who said they had accomplished it. Why would they say it if it were not true? They knew that it would be tested and tried, and that if they lied there careers would be over and there credablity would be out the window. So did they find some thing? Got discredited and maybe payed to go away? Were talking about billions of dollars here. Just strange.
Stygian
2.7 / 5 (3) Jan 24, 2011
think about Compasses hundreds of years ago
They used compasses more than 2000 years ago. Guess where.

earth?
Joe_Acerbic
3.3 / 5 (4) Jan 24, 2011
It looks like a scam, it walks like a scam and it quacks like a scam: it's a scam.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.9 / 5 (7) Jan 24, 2011
Guys, if you read the paper they show a chart on the energy releases in MeV, and if you do the math yourself independently, it checks out.

Ni58 + p - Cu59 = 0.003674u (lost mass)

Cu59 - (Ni59 + positron) = 0.004602u (lost mass)*

* Note that the positron annihilates with an electron, so in reality it's entire mass later gets converted to gamma photons.

So for Ni58 to Ni59 + e+ + neutrino we lost 0.0082767u worth of mass, because it was converted to energy, i.e. 744.9 gigajoules/mole, in this case, again, not counting the positrons shortly annihilates with the electrons converting each mole of positrons to 49.37 gigajoules of gamma photons. Then double this for the annihilated electron: 98.74gigajoules.

When you add this back to the mass energy difference above, you get:

843.6 gigajoules total per mole of Ni58 converted to Mole of Ni59.

However, some of this is in the mole of neutrinos and isn't available to do work.
Joe_Acerbic
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 24, 2011
Anybody with (European) high school physics can make up a reaction and "energy output" so that the calculations "check out". It doesn't mean that the reaction actually happens.
71STARS
2.2 / 5 (11) Jan 24, 2011
I have just read 235 comments re this (controversial) article which I know nothing about. However, I must commend all of the most intelligent data and questions that have been posed. Never fear to question.

As for QC, please refrain from using this site as your mathematical calculations blackboard. I believe half of these comments were from YOU. All I learned is that "hydrogen is a naked proton." And I could have live without that knowledge just fine.

71STARS
1.3 / 5 (4) Jan 24, 2011
Excuse my typo: And I could have lived without that knowledge just fine. (Thx)
coopsci
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 24, 2011
If this was true it would solve all the earths power problems. It would save the lives of all the starving kids and bring all third world countries on a par with the rest of us.

If this was true it would be on every news channel throughout the world.

If this was true all the worlds oil barons would go out of business.

If this was true it would replace all the petrol and diesel engines.

If this was true we would solve the carbon problem and end global warming.

Nuff said.
MorituriMax
1 / 5 (1) Jan 24, 2011
I smell the work of tjFrazir in this... wonder if he is still going to sell his miracle engine that will end the oil age.
Yevgen
3.5 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2011
Here is some data to the topic, including link to original patent application and papers (remove the _remove):
http_remove://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://pesn.com/2011/01/19/9501747_cold-fusion-journals_warming_to_Rossi_breakthrough/

Regards,
Yevgen
Quantum_Conundrum
1.6 / 5 (5) Jan 24, 2011
Here is some data to the topic, including link to original patent application and papers (remove the _remove):
http_remove://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://pesn.com/2011/01/19/9501747_cold-fusion-journals_warming_to_Rossi_breakthrough/

Regards,
Yevgen


Well, that's even more detail on the experimental results than this article or the paper.

The margin of error they report definitely makes it impossible for this to be a chemical reaction of any kind.

They allegedly totally vaporized 8.8kg of water in an hour. Neither your microwave oven nor your stove top could ever even remotely do that, even at full power. A stove couldn't do it even if you had all 4 or 5 eyes boiling the water in 4 or 5 pots.

It takes about 2.5 to 3 minutes to bring a 5oz coffee cup of water to a "rolling boil" in a microwave oven. to totally vaporize 5oz of water in a microwave over would take around half an hour.

8.8kg of water = 295 liquid oz...
Quantum_Conundrum
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 24, 2011
Testing:

Why won't this thing let me post this link?
Quantum_Conundrum
1.4 / 5 (5) Jan 24, 2011
Rossi estimates that the cost of energy made with this system will be below 1 cent/kWh, in case of electric power made by means of a Carnot cycle, and below 1 cent/4,000 M J in case of thermal power production for heating purposes. That is several times cheaper than energy from fossil fuel sources such as coal or natural gas


This can only be consistent with a nuclear fusion reaction, given the price of Nickel, the price of a process to prepare some sort of rods or whatever form the Nickel needs, and the cost of the device. No chemistry or fission process could do this for that price.

Go here:

peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Andrea_A._Rossi_Cold_Fusion_Generator

this is indeed a fusion reaction, as he says that in the case of the 6 months experiment it produced 30% copper.

A charge which has worked for 6 months, 24 hours per day, at the end had a percentage of Cu superior to 30%


proof?
Quantum_Conundrum
2 / 5 (6) Jan 24, 2011
This is from the patent filing:


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

...

... 1 g nickel would generate an energy amount equivalent to that produced by 517 tons oil...


wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO=2009125444&IA=IT2008000532&DISPLAY=DESC

1g nickel = 517 tons of oil...

hee hee...

This is obviously assuming almost all of the nickel goes through the entire chain and ends as a stable Cu atom...

This is consistent with my above "tons of TNT" comparisons...
dinkster
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 24, 2011
Appart from fusion or not.
Looking at their demonstration equipment in relation to the claim to have a marketable product within reach I had agood laugh.


As an engineer, I've seen a lot of crap in a box go to market inside 3 months. Fabbed parts have a surprisingly quick turn around (both milled and pcb). Just sayin'.
Sin_Amos
2.3 / 5 (4) Jan 25, 2011
I believe the level of expertise by self-assured experts on this comment board is inflated to a point of brain numbing proportions. Imagine all the paradigms that you base your knowledge on come from the exploits of minds before you, rather than the scientific rigor it would take for you to establish the validity of each assertion you make. The reason I point this out, is because challenging others work based on "learned", rather than experimental study, gives your arguments little weight. Imagine if you will, if these two scientists are correct, the number of caloric energy wasted by those on this board asserting their error or failure. On that note, I believe the human's ability to imagine and re-imagine what is plausible is inherent, yet paradoxical in a reality that has no regard for the limited perception of a self-perceived being.
Greville
1 / 5 (2) Jan 25, 2011
Lets ignore the science for a moment (I'm an accountant, not a nuclear physicist) we are looking at converting Nickel (at USD26,000+ per tonne) into Copper (at USD9,000+ per tonne) and look to sell this deceptively cheap electricity? ME THINKS NOT!!!!
sstritt
3 / 5 (4) Jan 25, 2011
Lets ignore the science for a moment (I'm an accountant, not a nuclear physicist) we are looking at converting Nickel (at USD26,000+ per tonne) into Copper (at USD9,000+ per tonne) and look to sell this deceptively cheap electricity? ME THINKS NOT!!!!

I don't get your point- if the thing works then the electricity is worth vastly more than either metal.
Pkunk_
1 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2011
Quote from Ramos on his website:
"Dear Pierre,
Thank you for your important questions, here are the answers:
1- the Ni powder I utilized were pure Ni, no copper . At the end of the operations in the reactor the percentage of copper was integrally bound to the amount of energy produced. A charge which has worked for 6 months, 24 hours per day, at the end had a percentage of Cu superior to 30%


Just wait a few months for their "commercial" models to come out. If there really is Copper produced after a few months in operation then it should shut up the skeptics .
On the other hand , if no Cu is produced then the scientific community has a golden chance to tar and feather these "frauds" .
Quantum_Conundrum
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2011
Lets ignore the science for a moment (I'm an accountant, not a nuclear physicist) we are looking at converting Nickel (at USD26,000+ per tonne) into Copper (at USD9,000+ per tonne) and look to sell this deceptively cheap electricity? ME THINKS NOT!!!!


Well, at current prices of electricity, the value of the metals is insignificant.

The value of the electricity which could be produced by a 41% efficient Rankine Cycle generator powered by the heat allegedly produced by this reaction, at current prices, is ~$1.61 per hour.

Since the reaction runs for 6 months with 30% transmutation, we have:

AT $0.13/kWh:

182 days * 24 hours * $1.61 = $7032.48 per 0.3 mole Ni,

or $23441 per mole Nickel

===

Note that the depleted rod could be re-processed using existing Nickel refining technology as it became too depleted to be useful in the reactor. So if you had a 30% depleted rod, you might sell it back to the company for the value of copper plus have the cost of Nickel
Quantum_Conundrum
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 25, 2011
Forgot to do the 41%

0.41 * 23441 = $9610.81 per mole.

So at present energy prices, the energy produced by the Nickel would be worth many, many times it's weight in present price of gold or platinum...
Pyle
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 25, 2011
Math fun!

Using QC's numbers, in response to Greville...
That USD 26,000 tonne of Nickel would make about
USD 163,700,000 worth of electricity. (1 mole of Nickel is about 58.7 grams)

The lost Nickel is .01% of the revenue generated by the energy sale, at current prices, which would drop if this fantasy process actually worked, naturally.
RMT
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2011
In the words of the late Carl Sagan:
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

'nuf said.
Howhot
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2011
QC's numbers seem to be right. The genie is out of the bottle. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Extraordinary evidence has been show with a live demonstration, it up to us to accept our observations.
RMT
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 25, 2011
I have been to Vegas enough times to know that one person's "live demonstration" is just another person's magic show. If you consider their press conference to be sufficient evidence to prove what could only be described as a REVOLUTIONARY ADVANCE IN NUCLEAR SCIENCE then you have already compromised several basic standards of scientific scrutiny among them: repeatability, peer review, independant confirmation of results, and statement of methods. I am not familiar with this genie of whom you speak, but I do know a man who can pull a quarter from your ear. Really - I've observed him doing it in a live demonstration.
Lila_Sovietskaya
3 / 5 (4) Jan 26, 2011
Before buying the donkey check its teeth
Prima di comprare l'asino, vedi i denti
megs
4 / 5 (4) Jan 26, 2011
Tony Stark built this in a cave with a box of scraps
tyblossom
1.3 / 5 (4) Jan 26, 2011
I don't know anything about physics, but if this does what it's supposed too...they will find a way to make the price higher to the consumer. Also, I would think that the prices of the metals would change too. Copper would probably be almost worthless if that muchw as being made and Nickel would be way up. Thanks to those who are trying to figure out if it can work rather than just saying it won't work. It's sad to see people dismiss something just because it seems so good. I get being skeptical, but to knock something that soon is sad. As a person who is skeptical(but won't just dismiss something), I'm surprised they would say it will go to market so soon. Also, Just FYI, I saw that the Patent office won't even allow any patents to say they are for cold fusion.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.3 / 5 (4) Jan 26, 2011
I don't know anything about physics, but if this does what it's supposed too...they will find a way to make the price higher to the consumer. Also, I would think that the prices of the metals would change too. Copper would probably be almost worthless if that muchw as being made and Nickel would be way up.


Nickel is too common for it's price to go up significantly in the short term. If the Nickel mining companies started chrging more, for example, there are coal mining companies and oil companies who already have lots of relevant equipent who will also change to mining Nickel.

The amount of Nickel on the earth's crust is so high that "supply and demand" issues will be insignificant for the duration of the planet's life time.

A person could even salvage several tons of Nickel from any local junk yard.
mats_svensson
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 26, 2011
Question:
Is there any Flubber at all involved?
nferguso
not rated yet Jan 26, 2011
A commenter at another website made a discouraging observation. He claimed that the instrument used to measure output steam "dryness" measures the ratio of steam to suspended liquid by volume. Because of the extreme difference in mass between gaseous and liquid water per unit volume, it's very possible that although the volume of liquid particles in the exhaust was relatively very small, its mass still constituted the great majority of the total mass coming out. In short, there was a lot less energy in the exhaust that it seemed. The fact that the experimenters didn't use a flow meter on the exhaust might be a red flag.
piolenc
5 / 5 (3) Jan 26, 2011
Years ago, after the Pons & Fleischman débâcle, I became aware of the fact that a small group of scientists around the globe, mostly electrochemists, were still pursuing cold fusion - or whatever process was producing excess heat in some, but not all experiments. At least one very active group was in Italy. This could be the outgrowth of their efforts. Interesting that the fusion reaction thought to be occurring is between a metal nucleus and hydrogen and not a hydrogen-hydrogen reaction as originally postulated. That would account for the earlier non-reproducibility, as some of the experiments could have had copper in usable quantities and configurations, others not. I'm not ready to declare victory yet, but so far this is making sense. The next step, of course, is for other groups to take these protocols and try to reproduce their results. I'm looking forward to those results.
PS3
1 / 5 (1) Jan 26, 2011
A commenter at another website made a discouraging observation. He claimed that the instrument used to measure output steam "dryness" measures the ratio of steam to suspended liquid by volume. Because of the extreme difference in mass between gaseous and liquid water per unit volume, it's very possible that although the volume of liquid particles in the exhaust was relatively very small, its mass still constituted the great majority of the total mass coming out. In short, there was a lot less energy in the exhaust that it seemed. The fact that the experimenters didn't use a flow meter on the exhaust might be a red flag.

Doesn't any steam mean it works though?
nferguso
not rated yet Jan 26, 2011
If most of the water going in comes out as an aerosol (liquid), that means relatively little is boiling; total energy of exhaust is much lower. There could be an ordinary chemical process producing any needed excess over the 400W they're inputting for the steam actually produced. Hydrogen loading, "contamination" of the "catalyst", many things like that. A meaningful test would involve measuring the exhaust rate (for true power output) and running the experiment for many hours (precludes overlooked chemical processes).
scientistnumber6
2.5 / 5 (2) Jan 26, 2011
I just want to say a couple things about this. I don't know the physics of nuclear fusion anywhere near enough to have any clue whether this is real. However-

-I can see why no peer reviewed journal wants to touch it. Cold fusion is the 3rd rail of physics. After the debacle of the first scientists claiming to discover it, the danger to the reputation of whatever journal they approached would outweigh any gain of publication.

-There is no benefit to patent this and show the exact workings. A patent (as a famous inventor once said) only gives you the right to sue. Good luck suing any major oil company or a manufacturer like G.E. (or any Chinese firm, for that matter)

-I've enjoyed the discussion more than the article. With a few exceptions, the comments have been intelligent and well written, and the names "Obama" and "Palin" have been thankfully absent
scientistnumber6
5 / 5 (1) Jan 26, 2011
I don't know anything about physics, but if this does what it's supposed too...they will find a way to make the price higher to the consumer. Also, I would think that the prices of the metals would change too. Copper would probably be almost worthless if that muchw as being made and Nickel would be way up.


I'm sure that they'll change more than the cost for the energy, but historically, once oil was pulled out of the ground it wasn't sold for anywhere close to the previous cost that whale oil was going for- whaling, one of the wealthiest industries in america was eliminated in a matter of months. Just my $.02 on the economic side
PS3
1.5 / 5 (2) Jan 26, 2011

-I can see why no peer reviewed journal wants to touch it. Cold fusion is the 3rd rail of physics. After the debacle of the first scientists claiming to discover it, the danger to the reputation of whatever journal they approached would outweigh any gain of publication.

This part I don't get as it seems they did discover something and does work just nobody can replicate the process 100 percent of the time.
Jayman
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 27, 2011
How many grams of Unobtainium does this cold-fusion reactor need? That would be the real deal-breaker.
Pooua
1 / 5 (2) Jan 27, 2011
Where are the neutrons? No neutrons, no fusion.
goodtoknow
2 / 5 (1) Jan 27, 2011
Since the publication of this Physorg.com article, an analysis of some of the radiation components has appeared. Here is an excerpt from one of the (Google-translated) conclusions:

"... regardless of the internal details of the reaction chamber, shieldings, and other industrial secrets, the rates γ Measured with the NaI counters seem not compatible with the rates deduced or expected assuming that the energy production was due to nuclear fusion or decay reactions, as suggested in [1].
Thus at present nuclear reaction HAVING found no fingerprints, Further investigations are indeed needed to identify the energy production process."

Source:
htp://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=it&tl=en&u=http://www.22passi.it/downloads/LENRMain.pdf&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&usg=ALkJrhjZwYYTI7RuX9CBctExEhJZacOUew
paublus
4 / 5 (3) Jan 27, 2011
What this whole idea reminds me of is the Baker Test at Bikini Atoll. They had a whole bunch of lithium in the test that they never added to the reaction since the common form was thought to contain only a small amount of the isotope they wanted. Surprisibus! the lithium 6 went all the way too, because of not calculating the hydrogen isotopes which were in the reaction. Let us say 8 times higher than expected release? This can certainly be something of the sort here. just sayin
alanf777
3 / 5 (2) Jan 27, 2011
Let us suppose it's a fake. How?

It's a cylinder 6 in diam by 5 feet long = 1700 cubic inches = 28 litres.

The observed excess power has been noted at 12KW.

Leaving out nuclear, consider a self-contained system of batteries or chemicals.

Wiki Energy_density has a table of energy densities for enclosed systems.

The best battery is Lithium-Manganese, energy density of 2 MJ/L * 28 L = 55.6 MJ or 15.5 KWH.

For the observed output of 12 KW batteries could sustain this for 1.3 hours.

The 30 minute test was too short to rule out batteries.

The best chemical is Copper Thermite, at 20.9 MJ/L = 581 MJ or 161 KWH. This could run for 13.4 hours at a rate of 12KW.

The "black box" experiment should be run for 24 hours to rule out any known chemical reaction.

(resubmitted without wiki link)
BlackSpot
3.5 / 5 (2) Jan 27, 2011
Scam or not, they should publish the whole thing and wait for the Nobel prize, which is worth a pretty penny these days.

Anyone trying to sort out the world's energy problems will have no problems making money.
goodtoknow
2.7 / 5 (3) Jan 27, 2011
How could this be some dreary fake? Let us count the ways:

1. As noted by alanf777, the “black box” might have contained a conventional chemical or stored-energy heat source.
2. There was some additional undetected, and undisclosed, electrical/thermal input beyond the reported 1000W/400W, during the demonstration.
3. The reported 12KW of output was somehow vastly miscalculated, misrepresented, and/or overstated.

The alternative—that some new and practical mechanism for producing abundant, cheap, non-polluting energy has been invented—has magical implications. Time will certainly tell.

In the meantime one can only hope, contrary to one previous commentator’s suggestion, this is not mere slight-of-hand.
alanf777
3.5 / 5 (2) Jan 27, 2011
Actually, goodtoknow, I believe LENR (Or C* F*) is real (H-Ni and D-Pd ).

Rossi's system is the first which can be turned on and off instantly, and checked with "bulk" Calorimetry, vs delicate systems which have to run over months.

I've looked at the credentials of the scientific observers, and I believe their reports and calculations (2) and (3) are credible and correct.

I also accept why Rossi insisted on a black-box demonstration. I'm NOT saying he DID cheat.

I'm proposing a protocol which eliminates ALL plausible cheating.

For the system demonstrated the two easiest ways to cheat are batteries or chemicals.

Batteries are the easiest to eliminate .. just run it for two hours.

I initially proposed a CLOSED chemical system. An easier way would be just to have a hydrogen bottle in the black box and burn it with air. The results would be heat (to boil the incoming water) steam, and nitrogen in the outlet.

I'm designing a setup to detect any possible fraud short of nuclear.
jibbles
2.5 / 5 (2) Jan 27, 2011
ain't never been a financial bind a bit of modern-day alchemy couldn't bail one out of!
Jayman
not rated yet Jan 28, 2011
How wonderful it would be if this was the real thing! I guess it would be screaming off every newspaper headline if it was. Clean, cheap and abundant energy for all. I hope I see it happen in my lifetime. I am not holding my breath though.
ZeeP
3.3 / 5 (3) Jan 28, 2011
I smell some powder of a highly-unstable isotope mixed along with nickel...
Quantum_Conundrum
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 28, 2011
One of the independent scientists actually did report a 50% increase of gamma radiation vs background.

People get mixed up when they read the article, because the article reports Rossi's claim of having no nuclear waste.

However, there was radiation during the test. It just doesn't produce any "toxic waste" because it's all in a form that disipates or gets absorbed immediately...
Moebius
3 / 5 (4) Jan 29, 2011
I don't think this is any more a scam than F&P were. You don't go public with a scam, that isn't the way to make money off a scam. You keep it private and find a few rubes. Public scrutiny is the last thing you want for a scam.

I think F&P observed something real, we just don't know yet what caused it and it won't be reproducible until we do. I am glad there are people investigating anomalies, there should be more of it. If there is new science to be found that is a great place to look.
rah
1 / 5 (2) Jan 29, 2011
If I hook their cold fusion thing to my time machine it's gonna be big I tell ya!
soulman
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 29, 2011
Scam or not, they should publish the whole thing and wait for the Nobel prize, which is worth a pretty penny these days.

Why would they publish if it's a scam? It's precisely because it is a scam, that they're not publishing details.
MarkyMark
not rated yet Jan 29, 2011
It would be nice if this was for real, sadly tho after so many fakes its a bit hard to get enthusiastc about this .
tyblossom
2 / 5 (1) Jan 29, 2011
Has anyone tried to contact these guys or their company to find out where we'll see more info next?
cocoacrispy
1 / 5 (2) Jan 29, 2011
12kw of low grade heat gives 3kw of electricity by Carnot engine. Starsciences dot com claims electricity from low grade heat. Together with cold fusion, these could end the need for oil.

Even low radiation is scrutinized by Nuclear Regulators. No cold fusion box is going to be at the local hardware store any time soon.

The hydrogen bottle is suspicious. There's more than a MegaWatt in the bottle. Could be shenanigans. With a hydrogen tank inside the concealed apparatus, it could run for hours on a charge, with the radiation supplied by Americium from a smoke detector.

For patent, must explain how it is built. No need to explain the physics. PCT gives small inventor 31 months to come up with the money. Without a PCT, it if's reverse engineered, inventors are out of luck.

Cost for hydrogen is not appealing. Bloom fuel cells run from natural gas. Hydrogen is for NASA missions where costs doesn't matter.
Targon
not rated yet Jan 30, 2011
Spam filter doesn't allow me to link the manufacturer page but the operation temperature for the indoor air quality monitor they used is -5 - 50 celcius for temperature and 0-85% for relative humidity.

Sorry but you referenced operation range of the monitor, not the probe. To be exact device used was "HD37AB1347 from Delta Ohm with a HP474AC probe". Anyone can google into page and see that any of HP474AC series probes has range of 0...100% Rh with the accuracy of +-3.5% in range used.
In general I would encourage people to think about possible mechanisms instead of repeating their opinions about it being scam.For me it doesn't hurt to wait until summer to see public 2 week demonstration. If it turns out being scam (burning 1.5kg hydrogen hidden inside device for example), I have lost nothing, because Mr Rossi is not asking any money from anyone. What would be his benefit trying to get temporary publicity with scam which he has to prove before summer 2011. Would you try that?
Yevgen
5 / 5 (3) Jan 31, 2011
Black box demonstration does not allow to verify that something unusual is happening - only device made by independent group would verify it.

For example they might have filled up their cylinder with NiO2 which is an excellent oxidizing
agent (it is a cathode on NiCd and NiMH batteries), and feeding H2 into it (followed by heating)
would cause a very energetic reaction:
NiO2 + H2 --> Ni + H20

One litter of NiO2 (that is their reactor size) would be enough to explain the amount of energy generated for 20 min and conveniently what would be left afterward would be only nickel metal and water vapor which would be undetectable in their apparatus which generates steam by design.
Add some other oxides to the mix, such as CuO etc, and you get your "heavier elements" produced by the supposed nuclear reaction.

So it is possible to fake it by all means. The only question would be "why do it??". That would certainly
destroy their reputation. But people do act irrationally sometimes...
alanf777
5 / 5 (1) Jan 31, 2011
Progress on FAKE reactor:

Control Box is 60L (Villa) or "a few kg" (Levi) : say 20kg.

Horiz part of reactor:22L Vert:9L

Total weight before & after=18.6kg (Rossi - unconfirmed)

Anything in the control box can only get to the reactor via electricity, so candidates are batteries or fuel cells.

For reactor: batts, cells or chems.

My spreadsheet uses energy density by volume OR weight : I have NOT constrained the contents by BOTH. (eg fill volume with X might exceed weight). Some schemes change weight, not excluded.

Controller, by volume, best battery could drive it 62 hours. Perfect H+air fuel cell = 174 hours.

Reactor by volume,bat=32H,H+air=90H Be+Air=1116H.

By weight, best is H+Air=442H (Controller AND Reactor)

Best PERFECT fake is H+Air,Be+Air = 1211H
Actual fake 10%?

NiO+2H only 2*MJ/kg of Li Ion bats.

Per Yevgen steam-gen system easy to hide.

More time needed, or check I/O vol & chem -- ALL H2O to steam only.

Sorry for 1000-char English!
alanf777
not rated yet Jan 31, 2011
Note : I excluded "explosive" compounds. It must be possible to turn the reaction on and off.

A possible reaction is Magnesium+Steam --> Magnesium Oxide + H

Note that my "FAKE" is 100% efficient -- for example, for the "battery" the entire volume is filled with material -- no packaging or wires. For Hydrogen and Oxygen, weightless tanks, no plumbing ..

Constraints:

Open the control box for inspection, or check power on all wires.

Check the output to make sure it contains only steam from the input water supply. Condense and measure the steam. Use distilled mix of H2O/16,17,18 as a cross-check.

Continually monitor weight.

Seal the reactor so no air can get in or exhaust can get out except via the steam pipe.

Possibly contain entire reactor in a calorimetric case, filled with Nitrogen.

These severely restrict possible fakes -- only self-contained systems work:

Batt by vol: 32H weight: 1H
Cmpr H,O : Vol 21H : Weight 13H
Cmpr O,Be : 25H (outputs H)
georgek
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 01, 2011
one thing is for sure: Rossi, the "inventor", repeatedly claims he is working with a greek company, "Defkalion energy" and redirets all questions about commercialization of his "discovery" to a certain Symeon Tsalikoglou, allegedly working for "Defkalion energy". The company is real, it's based in Athens and they actually deal in clean energy and stuff but, guess what: They sounded genuinely surprised when they heard that their name was involved in this. They've never heard of Focardi, Rossi, the experiment or Symeon Tsalikoglou. As a matter of fact, the president of this (very small) company makes his living working somewhere else. I think one gray area, --the black box--, is already enough, two gray areas are just too many. I say "hoax", unfortunately.
iffzy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 01, 2011
...but, guess what: They sounded genuinely surprised when they heard that their name was involved in this. They've never heard of Focardi, Rossi, the experiment or Symeon Tsalikoglou...


Source?
nferguso
1 / 5 (1) Feb 01, 2011
I sent the following e-mail to Delta Ohm srl, asking if the instrument cited by the experimenters, the Delta OHM # HD37AB1347, could be used to measure steam "dryness".
Ms. Valentina Meneghini responded:
"Actually we regret to inform you that we do not have any instrument among our production which is suitable for your application."
alanf777
not rated yet Feb 02, 2011
In my MJ/Weight calculations I forgot to convert MJ to KWH.

IF the reactor's weight were 100% hydrogen, the fake could run for 5 weeks.

The actual test 45 minutes would only have consumed 20g of hydrogen. Rossi (not an observer) reported the weight, before and after, as 18.67 kg ... I'm not sure it could have detected a 20g change

There are new phone interviews with Rossi and Levi at
www DOT nyteknik DOT se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3081694.ece
( I hope that passes the spam filter! )

I'm not sure if it's been reported here -- the 1MW reactor will deliver steam, not electricity.

Levi says that Rossi has agreed to another test.

I am forced to conclude that the initial test is inconclusive -- but that is NOT Rossi's fault, it's the scientific observers.
alanf777
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2011
Rossi performed an additional trial with Levi on Feb 18.

See www DOT lenr-canr DOT org/News.htm

This time they used water only (because of the problems with performing calorimetry with steam). It produced around 16KW for 18 hours.

Levi inspected EVERYTHING except the reactor itself. He says the size of the reactor was about 1 liter.

If the ENTIRE volume is composed of the fake material :

Lithium ion battery : 0.81 hours
Diesel, external oxygen : 7.25 hours
Compressed Hydrogen, external oxygen : 0.81 hours
Beryllium, external oxygen : 28.1 hours

Even if the entire "reactor" arm of the original L-shaped rig were used -- 22l :

Lithium ion : 17.82 hours
Diesel, external oxygen : 159 hours
Compressed hydrogen, external oxygen : 17.8 hours
Beryllium, external oxygen : 619 hours

It would hard to hide the combustion products. I don't think one could even make a Beryllium-burning fake.

In my opinion, chemicals are eliminated.
knockknock
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2011
May I have some cheese with that invention from Bologna please :)
sailorjw
not rated yet Mar 06, 2011
It will be very simple to see if this is true or not. Install a reactor at a commercial site and turn it on.
unclep2k
1 / 5 (1) Mar 07, 2011
I'm a natural skeptic, but I'm actually starting to beleive in this. If not yet completely in the Rossi device, certainly in the excess heat as observed by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleishmann, and which has now been reproduced in many labs around the world. Whats really sad is how mainstream science refused to properly investigate this, and hounded P&F out of science. What a tragedy. Where was the US government and the department of energy. This sounds like something that might have happened in the dark ages. I guess some things never change. We probably could have had this technology 10 years ago.
frajo
5 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2011
I'm a natural skeptic,
Your comment history doesn't support this statement.
but I'm actually starting to beleive in this.
What made you change your mind?
If not yet completely in the Rossi device, certainly in the excess heat as observed by Stanley Pons and Martin
Fleischmann. And this you are starting to believe right now, only two decades after the feat?
alanf777
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2011
I've made significant progress in my analysis:

lenr DOT qumbu DOT com

Although the January experiment could theoretically have been done with a fake, the 18-hour February experiment rules out any possibility of its being a fake.