Here follows my translation into English of the very clear explanation of the physics behind the Fleischmann-Pons experiment, given in 2010 to a wide audience by the Italian theoretical physicist Emilio Del Giudice, in one of his popular conferences:
“The famous article by Fleischmann and Pons published in the ‘Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry‘ was very well written, so Giuliano Preparata and I thought we had figured out what was the phenomenon, and we felt that such explanation fit very well with our ideas about ‘coherence‘, which at the time Giuliano was developing.
The original paper by Fleischmann and Pons published on the J. Electroanal. Chem.
So, within a month and a half, we wrote a paper in which we proposed a possible explanation of the phenomenon. It should be said that the deuterium nuclei are formed by a proton and a neutron, so two deuterium nuclei consists of two protons and two neutrons, which would correspond to a helium nucleus if they were held together.
Given that, because of the Einstein’s Theory of Relativity the energy of an helium nucleus is a bit lower than the sum of the energies of the two deuterium nuclei, the fusion process leads not to a stable helium nucleus, but to a helium nucleus that I would say ‘hot’, i.e. that must get rid of energy. How can it get rid of this excess energy?
One option is usually studied by nuclear physicists, namely that the two nuclei come together on their own, without connections with others, in the empty space. There are no third bodies to which immediately transfer the excess energy. Due to momentum conservation, the only way that the core has to dissipate this energy is to break.
An example of outcome from a D-D fusion in the empty space.
In practice, from the core is ejected a proton or a neutron, or, with a probability of 1/1,000,000, a gamma photon, namely a ‘packet’ of electromagnetic energy. And this is the conventional nuclear fusion, or ‘hot fusion‘, so called because the nuclei are electrically charged, so they repel and a big effort is required to bring them closer to one another.
Simple calculations show that, to achieve the kinetic energies necessary to keep off nuclei enough to produce a nuclear fusion, it takes temperatures of millions of degrees, which we find only in the stars or in a nuclear bomb. For example, the hydrogen bomb, or H-bomb, is composed of a nuclear fission bomb which acts as a detonator, developing the temperatures required to ignite the nuclear fusion of deuterium.
To realize a hot fusion reactor, on the other hand, is a real challenge, because there are no materials that can withstand temperatures of millions of degrees, and to prevent the nuclei from touching the walls with the aid of powerful magnetic fields is an extremely difficult enterprise. Therefore, the hot fusion is certainly the energy of the future, in the sense that it will never have a present!
Using a metaphor, we can say that the problem of merging the two nuclei is in a way similar to the meeting of two candidate lovers that, if they can to overcome the hurdle of their bad character, would lead to an overwhelming passion. The just described road of the hot fusion, in this metaphor, corresponds to a ‘rape’.
There may be, however, another way to nuclear fusion, and it is the ‘cold fusion’, i.e. a fusion that does not require the high temperatures necessary for the hot fusion. In practice, instead of increasing the kinetic energy of the nuclei, we decrease the potential energy. In my metaphor, it is the path of ‘seduction’. But since the two nuclei repel, they cannot follow this route by themselves: a third body is required.
So if, instead of being in the empty space, we are in the matter – where there are not only positive charges but also negative charges, the electrons – there may find clouds of electrons that facilitate the fusion of two deuterium nuclei favoring their approach, a bit like the ‘old aunt’ who, once allowed two young people meet and fall in love, then disappear from the scene.
So, we could understand why, if the deuterium nuclei were placed not in the empty space but inside a metal – where there is an abundance of electrons that can perform the function of the old aunt – there is a density threshold such that when it is exceeded deuterium nuclei spontaneously begin to merger, as found by Fleischmann and Pons”.
EMILIO DEL GIUDICE (1940-2014) was an Italian physicist who has worked in the field of condensed matter. Theoretical physicist and professor at the University of Naples and pioneer of string theory in the early Seventies, later became known for his work with Giuliano Preparata at the Italian National Institute of Nuclear Physics (INFN). It is also known for its excellent qualities of popularizer, in particular on quantum mechanics.
I asked Alessandro Cavalieri to explain us the achievements described in the Brillouin Energy’s poster presented at ICCF-19:
Brillouin Energy’s reactor, with still only a few watts produced, is (on the paper) one of the possible future alternatives to Rossi’s E-Cat, whose 1 MW plant in these days has outperformed all the competitors with its huge COP: >20 according some rumors from Mats Lewan and others.
But what is interesting in the case of Brillouin’s reactor is not the quantity of energy produced (in 2015, at 642 °C they have 24 W of thermal production from a 6 W power input), but the fact that there is a quite clear theory behind their device and – the most important thing – it seems to be in agreement with the experimental results.
Therefore, it can be useful to analyze this theory in the light of the latest info presented in a poster at ICCF-19 by the Company of Robert Godes, to see if there may be points in common with the E-Cat. He said in Padua that the theoretical basis of their reaction is the Electron Capture and that multiple tests run by Tom Claytor, formerly at Los Alamos National Laboratory, detected a production of Tritium which matches this hypothesis.
The poster presented by Brillouin at ICCF-19 (courtesy Brillouin Energy).
Indeed, as shown in the poster, in 2014 they detected, near their running reactor, a slight increase in activity of the background radiation level from the 0-18 keV tritium window, whereas the higher energy window 18-150 keV showed no excess activity.
Tritium, or H-3, is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen, containing one proton and two neutrons. Naturally occurring tritium is extremely rare on Earth, where trace amount are formed by the interaction of the atmosphere with the cosmic rays. It has a half-life of 12.3 years and decays (through a so-called “beta decay”, a type of radioactive decay in which a proton is transformed into a neutron) into Helium-3, releasing 18.6 keV of energy in the process.
Brillouin’s technology converts the hydrogen – most easily directly from water – to helium gas, a process that releases large amounts of useful heat. The process starts by introducing hydrogen into a suitable piece of nickel. Then, a proprietary electronic pulse generator creates stress points in the metal where the applied energy is focused into very small spaces.
This concentrated energy allows some of the protons in the hydrogen to capture an electron, and thus become a neutron. This step converts a small amount of energy into mass in the neutron. Further pulses both create more neutrons and allow neutrons to combine with some of the hydrogen to form deuterium, or H-2 (a form of hydrogen with both a proton and a neutron in the nucleus). This ‘combination’ step releases energy.
The process continues, again, with some neutrons combining with deuterium to form tritium (hydrogen with one proton and two neutrons). This step actually releases still more energy. The process continues with some neutrons combining with the tritium to form the so-called “quadrium”, or H-4 (hydrogen with one proton and three neutrons).
As pointed out by Brillouin, since quadrium is not stable, it quickly turns into helium in a process that releases more energy than it took to create all the preceding steps (2.4 units of energy go in and 24 units come out). The released energy is initially absorbed by the metal element, and then made available as heat for thermal applications.
The Brillouin controlled Electron Capture reaction (courtesy Brillouin Energy).
In Brillouin’s theory, the nickel (or other metal elements with the correct internal geometry) acts only as a host and catalyst, and is not consumed, the only consumable is hydrogen, and the electron capture reaction is controlled by the proprietary electronics developed by Godes (an electronic engineer), which compress the electrons to create the right conditions: probably coherent phonon waves within the metal lattice created by electro-magnetic pulses.
Hydrogen enters as an ion in the nickel (or metal) lattice, where it is highly confined. According to a study of Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) – a U.S. Department of Energy research laboratory – confinement energy alone can drive electron capture events. However, it is the electrical stimulation to provide energy levels in excess of the 782 KeV threshold needed to produce a neutron out of the combination of an electron and a proton.
The lattice, stimulated with precise, narrow, high voltage, bipolar pulse frequencies (called “Q-pulse” by Brillouin) cause protons to undergo electron capture. The Q-pulse reverses the natural decay of neutrons to protons, plus beta particles, catalyzing – through a dramatic increase of the phonon activity – an electron capture in a first endothermic step, then an ultra cold neutron is formed. This triggers the cascade of reactions described above, resulting in a beta decay transmutation to Helium-4 plus heat.
ALESSANDRO CAVALIERI is a physicist who teaches Mathematics and Physics in a secondary school, in Northern Italy. His cultural interests goes from Chaos Theory to the Mind-Matter connections. He loves to read books on the history of Physics.
An interesting post sent by Alessandro Cavalieri on a scientifically promising Ni-H research line performed in Italy producing an unexplained “side effect”:
I found extremely intriguing – because it could open a completely new area of research in Physics if it will be confirmed by other researchers – the effect of spontaneous generation of a potential difference, or voltage, found in Constantan wires by Francesco Celani (Italian National Institute of Nuclear Physics, INFN), Giorgio Vassallo (University of Palermo, Italy) and their many collaborators.
The experiments performed by the professional Italian group are very original and instructive for many aspects and have been well described in the poster presented at ICCF-19, and that you can find here.
Since the end of 2011 Celani et al. introduced, in the LENR research field, a new (low
cost) material, Copper-Nickel alloy, named “Costantan” (ISOTAN 44, Isabellenhutte – Germany, composition: Cu 55% Ni 44% Mn 1%), and demonstrated that it, at nano/micrometric dimension and at high enough temperatures (>120°C), catalyzes the dissociation of H2 to 2H and absorb/adsorb protons in the lattice.
In a typical setup, they have a Platinum wire (diameter = 100 Micrometers) used mainly for calibration purposes (“reference”) and two Constantan wires (the “active”) with different diameters (100 and 200 Micrometers, respectively) and/or surface treatments. Each wire is inserted inside a Boro-Silicate Glass fiber sheet (the 3 sheaths are closely braided each other).
Photo of the small, dissipation type, transparent reactor operating at INFN-LNF. The
volume is about 250cc. The 2 wires, reference and active, are rounded on a mica support. The thermocouples are Type K, SS screened (diameter 1.5 millimeter).
Some of the results obtained using these wires in a simple dissipation reactor (see the picture above) made of a thick-walled boro-silicate glass tube, were quite reproducible and the Anomalous Heat Effect (AHE) detected (at Constantan wire surface temperatures of 160 – 400°C) was about 5-10W with 50W of electric input power.
Periodically, the resistance of one constantan wire was measured by a general-purpose multimeter to evaluate the presence of absorbed Hydrogen. They observed that the wire resistance decreases (up to values as low as 70% of initial one, the so-called R/Ro ratio), when the Constantan wire is heated in presence of Hydrogen.
Details of first loading by H2-Ar mixture. The “trigger” temperature, to get the large resistance decrease of sub-micrometric Constantan wire, was about 125°C. Temperature measured by a type K thermocouple (SS sealed) inside the gas cell.
On June 25, 2014, the group noted, almost by chance, that Constantan wire generates by itself a macroscopic voltage (>>100 Microvolts), that is function of many parameters (temperature, gas type, pressure, value of R/Ro). Maximum values (not stable over time, only few hours) were of the order of 1400 Microvolts and current of 120 Microampere. Stable values were about half.
What is more interesting is that the effect is not the usual Seebeck effect, because they use only one wire, NOT a junction of 2 different materials, like in thermocouples. According to Celani et al., the new spontaneous voltage (and the low excess heat) are related to some of the following parameters and conditions:
- absolute value of temperature (as large as possible, avoiding material sintering);
- enough amount of Hydrogen absorbed/adsorbed by the catalytic material, i.e. to the use of a proper nanomaterial;
- flux (as large and fast as possible) of Hydrogen from a region of high concentration to a lower one;
- the addition of elements that have Hydrogen concentration increasing with temperature (like Fe);
- the wires that have good performances from the point of view of excess heat values show values of spontaneous voltages quite remarkable;
- the non-equilibrium conditions, as large as possible, look the most important condition to get any type of thermal or electrical anomalies.
So, it is clear that more work is necessary to better understand the complex phenomenology and to increase further useful “anomalies”. There are also clear “connections” with the results obtained by Andrea Rossi and Brian Ahern – which are a first indirect confirmation of this excellent work – but Celani’s apparatus seems more suited to a further experimental study of the parameters and physics involved, hopefully under the umbrella of the INFN.
ALESSANDRO CAVALIERI is a physicist who teaches Mathematics and Physics in a secondary school, in Northern Italy. His cultural interests goes from Chaos Theory to the Mind-Matter connections. He loves to read books on the history of Physics.
As you can see from all my previous posts, I have many first-hand sources. When I prepared the book “E-Cat – The New Fire”, I contacted one of the people who had worked on the development of the E-Cat (therefore, not Rossi). He told me that the Hot-Cat running was a sort of “Sun in a box” and that once he had also seen the reactor sublimate!
Also Andrea Rossi, later, has described this type of event in a comment posted on JoNP:
December 28th, 2013 at 8:32 PM
Very sorry, I cannot answer to this question exhaustively, but I can say something. Obviously, the experiments are made with total respect of the safety of my team and myself. During the destructive tests we arrived to reach temperatures in the range of 2,000 Celsius degrees, when the “mouse” excited too much the E-Cat, and it is gone out of control, in the sense that we have not been able to stop the raise of the temperature (we arrived on purpose to that level, because we wanted to study this kind of situation). A nuclear Physicist, analyzing the registration of the data, has calculated that the increase of temperature (from 1,000 Celsius to 2,000 Celsius in about 10 seconds), considering the surface that has increased of such temperature, has implied a power of 1 MW, while the Mouse had a mean power of 1.3 kW. Look at the photo you have given the link of, and imagine that the cylinder was cherry red, then in 10 seconds all the cylinder became white-blue, starting from the white dot you see in the photo (after 1 second) becoming totally white-blue in the following 9 seconds, and then an explosion and the ceramic inside (which is a ceramic that melts at 2,000 Celsius) turned into a red, brilliant stone, like a ruby. When we opened the reactor, part of the AISI 310 steel was not molten, but sublimated and condensed in form of microscopic drops of steel.
The photo cited by Rossi: a Hot-Cat exhibits a hot-spot during a destructive test, in 2012.
Sublimation is a process during which a solid on heating changes directly into the vapor phase without passing through the intermediate liquid state. When the vapors are cooled, they condense to form solid. The temperature at which a solid changes into vapor is called the sublimation point (and corresponds to the boiling point of the liquid).
Typically, the pressure at which a material sublimate is atmospheric pressure, so the sublimation points are normally referred to the standard pressure of 760 mm Hg, and the temperature is the determining factor to the change of state in those cases. However, more in general, a material will change from solid state to gas state at specific combinations of temperature and surrounding pressure.
The temperature of a material will increase until it reaches the point where the change takes place. It will stay at that temperature until that change is completed. Some substances sublime at room temperature. A common example of this is dry ice, where solid carbon dioxide becomes gaseous without being a liquid during the process.
You can see below its phase diagram:
The phase diagram for carbon dioxide (from Wikimedia).
For each solid, raising temperature at low enough pressure takes the material directly from solid to gas, but at higher pressure it will go through the liquid between. The pressure where that behavior changes turns out to be a lot different for different materials, so at atmospheric pressure some behave some way, some the other. For water, if you lower pressure to about 1/160 of atmospheric pressure, it will go straight from solid to gas.
It is interesting that metals exhibit evidence of a tendency to sublimate – or, more exactly, show volatility – at temperatures considerably below their melting points. Krafft already in 1903 investigated in some detail the volatilization of a number of metals at low pressures. Rosenhain obtained beautiful crystals of sublimed zinc by heating a piece of zinc to 300 °C for some weeks in a glass tube containing hydrogen (!) at atmospheric pressure.
From the book “Hot-Cat 2.0 – How last generation E-Cats are made” we know that the reactors used in these destructive tests were made of metallic and non metallic materials: steel (external cylinder and inner cylinder), a ceramic material (between the two steel cylinders), some heating resistors (made of metal) and nickel (main component of the charge). So it is interesting to check what are the sublimation points for some of such materials.
The sublimation point for nickel is 2800 °C. However, very few metals are used in pure, or even relatively pure, forms. Steel, for example, is the name for a whole family of iron alloys (containing carbon and often some other elements). The boiling point of iron (not steel) is 2750 C, so the sublimation (or boiling) point of steel is likely to be close for most steels: around 3000 °C. Steel melts at much lower temperatures: around 1300-1500 °C.
The phase diagram for pure iron (from Wikipedia).
In the phase diagram above you can see that iron is solid at room pressure and at standard temperature (25 °C), but melts around 1540 °C and sublimate around 2750 °C. Alpha (α) iron, or ferrite, is the name given in material science to pure iron with a body-centered cubic crystal structure. It is this structure which gives steel its magnetic properties and is the classic example of a ferromagnetic material. Mild steel consists mostly of ferrite.
Regarding the ceramic materials contained in Rossi’s type of Hot-Cat used in the destructive tests (different from the alumina used in the Lugano test, as described in the cited book), their melting point is around 1900-2000 °C, and their sublimation point is about 3000-3500 °C.
Therefore, at the end of this “exploration” we can conclude – taking into account also the temperature gradient along the reactor from inside to outside – that the temperature reached in the destroyed Hot-Cats was well beyond 3000 °C! This is extremely interesting, because there is no way to obtain such a result using electrical heating resistors…
This post has been written with the kind collaboration of the physicist Alessandro Cavalieri.
I sincerely hope that the next edition of ICCF – the International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science – can be assigned to a structure that has the due regard for the media.
In fact, the following is the unfortunate story that happened to me and that I think hurts the LENR world and all the people who, like me, dedicate with passion and professionalism their time to try to bring these issues to a wider public, including top politicians and notable scientists, as already documented in previous occasions.
Here is briefly what happened. About three months ago, I dedicated a post to ICCF-19 and, after some weeks, I sent an e-mail to the local organizer proposing a written interview, imagining that it would make him happy, because in the last few months very few posts (if not “0”) on ICCF-19 had been published even on the blogs specialized on LENR.
So, on January 6 I wrote at the cold and impersonal address – no physical person mentioned! – indicated in the web site of ICCF-19: email@example.com. But I didn’t receive a response, so I did not know if my letter had been read or not. Therefore, more than two weeks later, on January 22, I wrote again asking if the organizer was interested or not in being interviewed.
I finally received an answer, because in the meantime I had known through friends the name of the person who reads the e-mails in the private company organizing ICCF-19 and therefore I had sent the e-mail just to this person. Well, the reply was positive: I could send the questions for Eng. La Gatta. Therefore, I spent an entire weekend to document about the company and to prepare the questions, which you find at the end of this post.
On January 27, I sent the questions. But I never received the answers, or justifications for the growing delay. After 5 (five!) weeks, on March 3, I kindly requested the promised response, not just for me but for the readers, who certainly deserve the maximum respect from those who organize such an event. But to date, I have not received feedback.
Finally, to be fair, on March 11 I informed the man managing the e-mails of ICCF-19 for the local organizer that, having lost a weekend to prepare the interview, the questions would have been published in any case and therefore they would not have made a good impression. I also indicated next 10 days as a final deadline for sending the answers.
Again, no answers, no justifications, anything (!). I leave you to judge whether this is the proper way to interact with the media by the organizer of a public event as ICCF.
For this reason I have decided not to cover the event and not to be present in Padua. Maybe I have a concept of professionalism and good manners too high for the Italian standards (see also what is happening with the EXPO in Milan), but I was brought up to work well.
That’s all, no further comments are needed. I wish everyone a Happy Easter!
The QUESTIONS (of the accepted interview) STILL WAITING for a reply:
1) Eng. La Gatta, thank you for accepting this interview. Do you remember when and how did you get interested in Cold Fusion or LENR for the first time?
2) How and when did you get the idea of organizing a major and complex event such as an International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF)?
3) Your company, TSEM, is quoted in the Italian stock exchange, so shares price can benefit from investments in a so promising field. What are the activities of TSEM and how do they reconcile with LENR?
4) About 5 years ago, you led TSEM into the study of high bandwidth calorimetric measurement of palladium excess heat. What types of researches, if any, are you performing or planning now? Have you ever tried to replicate Rossi’s reactors?
5) LENR can be a business also not having a working reactor to sell: some years ago, your Company provided a calorimeter to SRI. If an Italian or foreign Company is interested in buying a calorimeter for LENR, can TSEM provide a turnkey product or other kinds of products/support for LENR?
6) We saw you sitting next to Bill Gates in his visit at ENEA last year, and I’ve read somewhere that he will be at ICCF-19. Can you confirm this participation and do you think that finally Gates will invest on Italian researchers (public or private)?
7) In this edition of ICCF, you’ve added an “Engineering Application Committee”, a direct link between academia and industry. In practice, what tasks will have this committee?
8) ICCF-19 has received the “High Patronage” from the Italian Prime Minister’s Office. It seems a first tangible sign that the political class is opening to these researches. Is this also your feeling?
I found a document written in Italian and published online here by the retired physicist Camillo Urbani, who has been following for a long time the evolution of the “new energies”. It contains some interesting reflections resulting from the first Alexander Parkhomov’s report presented in Russia on a his successful replication of a Hot-Cat. I asked Eng. Ventola to translate it into English, also making all the necessary adjustments. Here’s the result:
I will illustrate a method proposed by Camillo Urbani to quickly test the fuel powders. It is based on the so-called “heat after death”, i.e. the heat progressively lost from reactor until it equilibrates with that of the surrounding medium, and with the “death” referring to cessation of electrical heating. So, now I report Camillo’s words, even though I made some little changes and integrations:
The 8 minutes of “heat after death” are well visible in this chart of the Parkhomov’s experiment.
“In the above chart published in the Parkhomov’s report, showing the external temperature of his reactor corresponding to different constant values of power input, we see that, with the electrical power off due to the breaking of the heating element, there is a temperature collapse of about 100°C, then there is an up and down trend, followed even by a strange rise in the last part. Finally, after 8 minutes from discontinued power supply, the temperature sharply falls.
The point is that, without power supply, these things can NOT happen. Indeed, a hot body at a temperature of 1200 °C has walls which emit a huge amount of energy by radiation (about the 85% in the ‘Dog Bone’ reactor of Andrea Rossi illustrated in the Lugano report), while the remaining thermal energy is dispersed mainly by convection. Then the cooling should be relatively gradual, and the temperature curve should lack ‘ascents’.
The intensity of the temperature drop depends on 3 factors: (1) Mass: the greater is the mass to disperse and more heat is present, so that the cooling time is longer; (2) Temperature: the higher is the temperature and faster the body emits heat, with an exponential trend in which the exponent value is 4; (3) Emitting surface: more is extended and sooner it cools, so the shape of the container affects the trend (a sphere requires more time to cool).
I looked on YouTube some movies like this, in which pieces of iron weighing about 0.15 kg were heated at a high temperature. In such cases, the time of variation of their color, in general, does not exceed 10 seconds. So, the 8 minutes of ‘heat after death’ resulting from the Parkhomov’s experiment in my opinion cannot be explained with a known process.
A video showing a 15 kW induction forge. You can see it clicking here.
Assuming, hypothetically, that there is some repeatability of this phenomenon, it would be useful to have a valid instrument, based on such process, to assess the fuel’s efficiency in producing excess heat – that is the goodness of the test with regard to LENR reactions – with various mixtures of powders and different experimental conditions.
Since we can expect a low reproducibility of the experiment, given the precedents of many types of experiments with LENR reactors made in the world over the past 25 years, it would be even more useful to have a method of analysis as fast as possible to be able to make many attempts. So here’s a simple proposal of a fuel test that allows a high execution speed and probably is more sensitive to the “heat after death” with respect to a Hot-Cat reactor.
You put all in an electrical heater, which leads the reactor to a high-temperature. Then, turning off the power to the heater, you can track the temperature diagram vs. elapsed time, graph which gives important indications about the amount of produced excess heat, useful for comparing different combinations of fuel through a differential analysis of the output energy.
To speed up the test and simplify the setup, you could consider to use an induction heater (similar to those used for cooking), which uses the electrical currents induced in appropriate materials to generate heat. But we should first see what is the effect of its intense variable electromagnetic fields (with frequencies of hundreds of kHz) on the reaction. You have also to tailor the reactor and the materials to make them suitable for this type of use.
An example of an induction heater used for applications other than cooking.
If using the method of inductive heating the reaction on which the Hot-Cat is based still works, the advantage would be considerable: indeed, in a few minutes it would be possible to bring the reactor to the desired temperature and to plot the cooling diagram for the powder we are interested in analyzing. However, steel loses its magnetic properties when heated above about 700 °C (the Curie temperature), so we cannot heat it with this method above 700 °C.
In a little time, therefore, one could test a powder mixture, then another powder sample prepared in another container, and so on. A small group of researchers, in a few days, could test hundreds of possible variants assessing the different effectiveness. In practice, with the typical budget and equipment available in a research center, it would be very easy.
The first variable to be analyzed will be, possibly, the type of gas contained in the reactor. I imagine that the first test should be done by introducing the dust in the quantities suggested by Parkhomov in his presentation, then heating to 200-300°C and heat-sealing the reactor. In this way, the original air remained inside will be less than 5% of the normal one. If you want to try with other gases, you can introduce appropriate chemical agents that release them.
The volume of the reactor chamber in which the powder is placed is another parameter to be evaluated, or to take into account. Indeed, if the available space for the expansion of the gas doubles, the pressure will halve. Since the operating pressure may have its importance, one can use multiple cylinders different from each other as regards the volume of the chamber, or you can vary its volume with a threaded screw (see the picture below).
The simple reactor for fuel tests based on “heat after death” proposed by Camillo Urbani.
The other variables to be analyzed, at this point, would be many. They include the variation of the relative amounts of the chemical elements already present (for example, the proportion between Nickel and Lithium Aluminum Hydride), the addition – one after the other, in rotation – of small traces of new elements (not only of new gas), etc.
The use of the induction heater would also have the additional advantage that the inductive pulse in the solenoid may then be modified, trying to get ‘Tesla-like’ pulses, characterized by a ‘hyper-current’ at least 10 times higher than the tolerable but maintained for very short moments, with a suitable dead time between a pulse and the other”.
Camillo Urbani – Physicist (translated by Eng. Roberto Ventola, author of the book “Hot-Cat 2.0“)
The oil prices, after that for some weeks had “U” shaped suggesting the beginning of a solid rebound, now are again falling down, prospecting gloomy scenarios, with values below the threshold for a likely global recession, as explained in an our previous post.
The official explanation for these falling prices, as well explained on some blogs by Tom Whipple – a retired 30-year CIA analyst considered one of the most highly respected experts of oil issues in the United States – is that “US oil stockpiles continue to climb and that, about a month ago two major investment banks issued reports forecasting that prices would fall still further in the next few months. The large drop in active drilling rigs in the US, and the assumption that US oil production would soon start falling too, sparked the recent rebound”.
End of day Commodity Futures Price Quotes for Crude Oil WTI (NYMEX).
According to the qualitative analysis of Whipple, “without any surge in demand, and none is currently in sight as the Chinese economy falters, the oil glut seems likely to continue for the next few months. Nearly all observers are saying that oil prices will eventually move higher, but that they are unlikely to stabilize at the higher level until there is solid news concerning major supply reductions, either from the US shale fields or from OPEC”.
But we prefer to analyze the facts searching for the “smoking guns” given by the coincidence in time between specific events and price variation, because the classical explanations of the ongoing trends in oil prices do not take into account the important new actor, that are LENR, and this is a big weakness of a traditional old-style approach to the problem.
In these last weeks, there have been many events regarding LENR. Have they had some effect on the oil prices? No one has discussed this topic. Let charts to speak!
We see that on February 18, shortly (more than a few minutes but less than a few hours) after the publication online, on Andrea-Rossi.com, of many impressive photos showing a 1 MW E-Cat in advanced stage of development by a large team, the oil price fell by about $ 2. The news about the photos is circulated starting from around 19:00, published on E-Cat World here (the post shows the date of the update, but the news has been posted on Feb 18).
Crude Oil chart showing the fall happened on February 18, 2015.
The important announcements made by Prometeon Srl on March 6 and, especially, on March 10 have triggered a new and more sharp fall of the oil prices, as shown in the chart below. In fact, on March 6, the blog E-Cat World has published the news that, according to a video of LENRG featuring Eng. Guido Parchi (President of Prometeon Srl), a group of researchers headed by the expert Prof. Christos Stremmenos is working on LENR for Prometeon Srl, former licensee for the E-Cat distribution in Italy and now a LENR startup.
Guido Parchi said also that his company is collaborating with STMicroelectronics regarding a new system of direct conversion of thermal energy into electricity, that let many speculate about a possible application to a LENR reactor. Parchi revealed: “We are already doing the first interesting experiments. The first tests have proven themselves very, very promising”.
A very interesting detail of Crude Oil prices in the last 3 months.
On March 10, E-Cat World has published an interview with Guido Parchi made by Frank Acland. Parchi gave new impressive details. He started with: “At the very first test we found some new elements in the ashes undoubtedly resulting from transmutation processes; their atomic numbers are in accordance with Storms’s theories”.
Then, he continued: “The scientific team has developed new advanced and challenging hypothesis about how to activate the LENR, control the reactions and avoid runaway phenomena that could cause the melting of the device and/or of the reacting cell; we are now realizing two new different reactors to check the theoretical assumptions”.
Obviously, it is likely that the announcement, made in the following days, of many other replication efforts ongoing and the news by Daniele Passerini about a possible new mechanism energetically advantageous to obtain methane from CO2 may have reinforced the effect, visible as an almost continuous fall in the oil chart. For all these reasons, probably hereinafter the oil prices will be quite difficult to predict and we’ll see unforeseen behavior.
This piece has been written in co-authorship with the Italian trader Simone P.
In the last 12-18 months there have been many tangible signs of a growing interest in LENR among different “types” of scientists, especially physicists. I would like to focus my attention on some of them, just to give an idea of the ongoing trend to the reader.
First of all, I can confirm – having information from another first hand source in Sweden different from Mats Lewan – that the Swedish branch of Lugano testers continues to investigate the LENR phenomenon. Their effort in such a direction includes some kind of replication (likely, of Rossi’s Hot-Cat) and the work is made in silence at the University of Uppsala. With their experiments, they want to give a real and independent contribute to the LENR research.
Also some mainstream physicists working at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) – soon directed by the discoverer of the Higgs Boson, the Italian Fabiola Gianotti, likely as a little “compensation” for the denied Nobel Prize – are studying some aspects related to LENR, but they prefer to operate in silence in this phase, so I cannot give further details, at the moment, regarding the researches underway in the European laboratory.
Fabiola Gianotti, the first female physicist appointed Director-General at CERN.
On the opposite side, some physicists still fight to refuse LENR: we know for sure that many researchers of the Italian National Institute for Nuclear Physics (INFN) are working on themes somehow related to LENR, but only to “deny” them, even if in reality they are pathetically fighting – as Mats Lewan recently noted – “against Nature”.
For example, the INFN researchers Antonio Davide Polosa and Riccardo Faccini illustrated LENR with an unusual criticism at a so-called CERN colloquium titled “Low Energy Nuclear Reactions?”, hold in Geneva on January 16, 2014 (you can see the video streaming here). I would point out the “badness” that you can hear in the words of the speaker…
The INFN speaker attacks with badness LENR at the CERN colloquium, in Geneva.
So, it is quite clear that new people are appearing on the scene of LENR – even if not all with a real open mind and a wide knowledge of the field – and I have no difficulty to predict that, thanks to Rossi’s work, in the coming years there will be more and more scientists studying these phenomena from both the theoretical and experimental point of view.
Regarding the other replications of the E-Cat, Alexander Parkhomov‘s successful experiments and the ongoing attempts by the Bob Greenyer‘s Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project represent only the tip of the iceberg, that is the public tests, but much more work is done behind the scenes. Some interesting revelations will follow soon. Stay tuned! 😉
The first technical book on the E-Cat technology has just been published! The title is “HOT-CAT 2.0: How last generation E-Cats are made” and it is a valuable introduction to the more advanced reactor devices developed by Andrea Rossi and Industrial Heat.
The cover of the book, available as paperback on Amazon (click on) .com .uk .fr .de .es .it
From the Preface by Vessela Nikolova:
“I want to be absolutely sincere: this book was written by Eng. Roberto Ventola (a contributor of this blog), who has a technical background, and I appear undeservedly as an author. Therefore, I want to tell the reader how things really went.
Seeing as Eng. Ventola sent many technical articles to be published on the blog and I could not publish them all together, I suggested collecting and publishing them in a book, an idea that he enthusiastically agreed on, offering – in exchange for this opportunity – to donate half of the earnings to Vessy’s Blog Fund through my co-authorship.
Since my blog is financed only with free contributions coming from generous readers and sponsors, and because this is essential for its future survival, I have agreed to appear as co-author. However, my real contribution was only to standardize the style of the book to that of previously published articles and to make a few public communications.
I am very happy to have contributed in some way to the birth of this work, which I think will remain for many years as a reference book for all those who are seriously interested in the last generation Hot-Cat. It is a bit more technical than my book ‘E-Cat – The New Fire’, but I’m sure that most of readers will be able to appreciate it.
Despite the fact that I am not able to assess its more technical content, it nevertheless seems very intellectually stimulating reading to me, enhanced by about 115 figures that enrich the text, making it almost unique. I hope that this is really the beginning of a world energy revolution, though at this point many new characters will need to appear on the scene”.
You can read also the Introduction of the book written by Eng. Ventola downloading on your personal computer this excerpt of the first pages.
The full cover of the book:
Contents of the book “Hot-Cat 2.0”:
Some of the approximately 150 pages of the book (from the first draft):
You can find “Hot-Cat 2.0” on the bookstore Amazon.com clicking here
Amazon.uk – Amazon.fr – Amazon.de – Amazon.es – Amazon.it
ROBERTO VENTOLA is a 38 years old Italian Electrical Engineer. With over a decade of experience, he is currently working in a multinational company manufacturing electronic equipment, particularly in the computer field. He has a strong foundation in mathematics and possesses the creativity needed to develop projects regarding new technologies. His dream? To be the first to replicate a second-generation Hot-Cat.
VESSELA NIKOLOVA, psychologist, lives in Tuscany, Italy, and is already author of a book, E-Cat – The New Fire, the biography of Andrea Rossi. She founded and now manages a blog about Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) and the E-Cat, touching on new themes in technology, targeted at an international audience.
I found extremely interesting the paper on some fundamental “Questions About Mechanisms and Materials for LENR”, appeared in the issue 118 of Infinite Energy magazine and written by David J. Nagel, an American distinguished scientist whose current research centers on “Lattice Enabled Nuclear Reactions” (LENR). He is also the founding CEO of NUCAT Energy LLC, a company that provides various consulting and educational services for LENR.
Here’s a brief summary from his 14 pages article:
1) Is there only one, or more than one, basic physical mechanism(s) active in LENR experiments to produce the diverse measured results?
“In LENR experiments have been measured: (1) large thermal power releases and high energy gains; (2) output processes as fast as microseconds; (3) nuclear products ranging from tritium and helium through elements with intermediate masses to heavy elements; (4) fast particles, especially neutrons, charged particles and energetic photons; and (5) other effects such as emission of radio-frequency and infrared radiation and sound. The lack of many correlations between different experimental outputs from LENR experiments would seem to favor the operation of two or more fundamental mechanisms for LENR, either simultaneously or sequentially”.
2) Is excess heat from electrochemical loading and gas loading experiments due to the same basic mechanism(s)?
“It is possible that different mechanisms are active in these two major approaches to creating conditions that result in LENR. It might be possible to address this question by the use of the same materials in both types of experiments. Some cylindrical rods of some material that are coated, several at a time in the same equipment, with a thin film of a material conducive to producing LENR, maybe containing Pd or Ni, could be used as electrodes in electrochemical experiments and others put into gas loading experiments. Comparison of the results obtained with the two methods of loading might provide an answer to this question, although that is not the only potential outcome. It remains possible that the same mechanism(s) occur for both methods of loading, but differences in the two techniques would lead to divergent results”.
3) Do LENR occur exclusively as individual uncoupled events, or is it possible to have cascades of LENR, in which a reaction makes more likely the occurrence of more LENR?
“During energy production by nuclear fission, the proximity of fuel nuclei is necessary, if neutrons released by prior reactions are to be efficiently captured to produce further fissions. That leads to the question of whether or not similar effects might operate during the production of energy by LENR. That is, are cascaded or chain reactions operable during production of heat by LENR? There has been very little discussion of this possibility in the field to date. The answer to this question will ultimately depend on understanding of the basic mechanism(s) that produce LENR. There is indirect experimental evidence for the nearly simultaneous occurrence of numerous LENR in small spatial regions. However, that evidence alone does not indicate whether the reactions are independent of each other or occur in causal sequences”.
4) Is the excess heat due entirely or only partially to nuclear reactions, and, if partially, what other mechanism contributes to the heat output?
“It is conceivable that, under some conditions, all of the excess energy is due to nuclear reactions and, under other conditions, little of it is nuclear. Intermediate situations could also exist. Fleishmann and Pons thought that the only alternative explanation for the excess heat found in their experiment was nuclear reactions. However, there was and remains the possibility that there is some entity between nuclei and atoms in both size and energy, which can be formed with the release of energy, that is, without requiring nuclear reactions. Many theorists have postulated ‘compact objects’ (for example, the hydrino postulated by Randell Mills), the formation of which would yield eV to keV-scale energies, rather than nuclear MeV energies. Such entities supposedly involve one of the hydrogen isotopes as nuclei and also orbital electrons. Because of their small size and electron shielding, the protons or deuterons at the center of these objects can move closer to other nuclei in materials, which increases the probability of later true nuclear reactions”.
A slide from a presentation shown by D. Nagel at “2014 Cold Fusion Colloquium”, MIT.
5) What are the keys to making and maintaining materials that produce excess heat regarding both composition (notably impurities) and structure (vacancies, dislocations, cracks, etc.)?
“It is thought by many people that subtle, but critical variations in materials within LENR experiments are what make production of excess power challenging, and also account for variations in both reproducibility and output power. It was realized over 15 years ago that low level impurities could produce modest excess powers in LENR experiments, if the impurities were reactants. Even if impurities are not actually fuel, they might be needed to produce nuclear active regions in which LENR can occur. Very many physical and chemical processes have been employed to prepare the interior bulk and exterior surfaces of materials for LENR experiments. So, development of a quantitative and predictive theory for production of nuclear active regions might resolve this question. However, it is also possible that only very careful parametric experiments, in which key factors are both varied willfully and characterized in detail, will suffice to solve the materials riddle”.
6) The location of LENR has important implications. Do LENR occur on or near surfaces or in the bulk of materials or at any locations on or in a material?
“It matters greatly, both scientifically and practically, if LENR occur on or very near to surfaces of materials, in their bulk or in both types of locations. Surface sites, including cracks that extend to the surface, are readily accessible from the surrounding liquid or gaseous atmosphere. There is substantial empirical evidence of varying quality which indicates that LENR occur on or near the surface of solids. A systematic study of Pd material characteristics in relationship to their ability to produce excess power was conducted by Vittorio Violante and his coworkers at the Italian ENEA laboratories in Frascati, showing that surfaces with structures in the sub-micrometer (nanometer) scale favored the production of LENR power. However, the case for where LENR occur is certainly not closed. If LENR occur on surfaces, it will be easier to bring reactants together and to remove products compared to reactions occurring within materials, and it will also be easier to reconstitute nuclear active reactions on the surfaces of materials”.
Another slide from a presentation shown by D. Nagel at “2014 Cold Fusion Colloquium”, MIT.
7) Are nano-scale structures or particles sizes necessary for occurrence of LENR?
“We cited some evidence just above for LENR occurring mainly on or near the surfaces of materials. If that is the dominant situation, then nanometer-scale structures could be fundamental to the occurrence of LENR. That is due to the fact that the surface and nearby regions on materials are generally on the order of 1 nanometer or less in thickness. As the size of material particles decreases toward the nanometer-scale, the surface-to-volume ratio increases. There is a significant body of research on LENR that involves particles with dimensions on the order of nanometers. It might be necessary to have structures with nanometer scales in two or three dimensions, in order to cause LENR. There has been some work published on the production and use of surfaces that have nanometric structures on or embedded in them prior to experiments. Such surfaces can be made by a wide variety of physical and chemical techniques”.
You can read the full article “Questions About LENR: Mechanisms and Materials” here.
DAVID J. NAGEL graduated Magna Cum Laude in Engineering Science. He has received an MS degree in Physics and a PhD in Materials Engineering. After graduating, Nagel worked as an officer in the US Navy and in 1990 joined the civilian staff of the US Naval Research Laboratory (NRL). He is currently Research Professor at The George Washington University, in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering.
The official website of Andrea Rossi is online! You can reach it at the following address: http://andrea-rossi.com/. Some of the beautiful photos you can find there:
Some specialists of the USA team at work on the 1 MW plant.
(Copyright © Andrea-Rossi.com)
Electrical Engineer Fulvio Fabiani working on the control unit “Sandy”.
(Copyright © Andrea-Rossi.com)
The images above refer to the final phases of the manufacturing of a 1 MW E-Cat working at low temperatures (< 120 °C) and were made some months ago in Raleigh’s factory, in North Carolina. Now this American and much more advanced version of the old E-Cat first invented and built in Italy, is working at an industrial customer’s factory in a secret locality that I cannot reveal, where it is hosted in a red shipping container instead of the old blue case.
The current 1 MW E-Cat plant they are working on had originally, according to Rossi, a volume of reactors of half a cubic meter (500 liters of volume), which would mean a “power density” of 2 kW per liter, later increased to about 10kW / 1 liter. The tests of this first commercial 1 MW plant based on LENR delivered some months ago to an Industrial Heat’s customer will end between November 2015 and February 2016. The commercial phase will likely start shortly after the end of the 1-year test period of the 1 MW plant.
ENEL is Italy’s major energy utility company, the second largest in Europe by market capitalization. So, it’s particularly interesting to illustrate its early behavior towards research on LENR, as shown from publicly available sources.
Formerly a state-owned monopoly founded in 1962 and with headquarters in Rome, ENEL is now partially privatized with Italian government control: the largest shareholder (31,2%) is the Italian Ministry of Economy & Finance. Today, ENEL manages the majority of the Italian electricity distribution network and is a multinational power company operating in 32 countries, with a particular focus in Europe and in Latin America.
As very well documented in a video broadcast on the Italian TV some years ago and also available on YouTube clicking here, in 2004 ENEL analyzed the opportunity to participate in the successful research program on LENR carried out, in Italy, by the ENEA (at the time, the Italian “National Agency for Alternative Energies”) at its laboratories in Frascati, near Rome, under the supervision of Carlo Rubbia, Nobel Laureate for Physics in 1984.
Indeed, the authors of the TV program “L’inchiesta”, conducted by the journalist Maurizio Torrealta (see the photo above), were in possession of an ENEL’s document dated February 2, 2004, in which the Company evaluated the possibility to come into play. Such program of investigative journalism, lasting about 25 minutes, was created in 2004 and has been broadcasted on the Italian state-owned TV channel RaiNews24, addressing over 100 topics.
We read, in this very interesting letter shown on TV: “The phenomenon does not seem to be totally a hoax, although its application in the field of power generation seems remote”. And the ENEL’s internal report, signed by G. Liberati, concludes with these words: “The decision on the possible financing must consider, alongside the scientific aspects, also the aspects regarding the image”. It was a bit like saying: be careful not to lose your face!
The cited conclusion of the analysis made in 2004 by G. Liberati on the ENEL’s possible participation in the financing of ENEA activities related to the cold fusion.
The management of ENEL got the message and, at the time, not even one euro was invested in this type of research, despite it was already knew – especially among the experts of cold fusion – that similar studies could have some impact in the energy field.
It is curious that the same TV program, some minutes before, had revealed that on March 4, 2003, the managers of Electricité de France (EDF) – the French energy giant – had met the heads of the French “Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission” (CEA), the institution which manages all nuclear activities in Paris, civil and military. In such summit, the French power company asked the CEA to return to work on cold fusion.
Antonella De Ninno – physicist leader at ENEA of an excellent research group on LENR including also Antonio Frattolillo – tells some details: “We received a strange call by the High Commissariat for Atomic Energy. Then we received a letter in which their chief invited us to go to Paris to hold a seminar on cold fusion. Scientists from the Commissariat for Atomic Energy listened the report of the ENEA’s physicists and decided to pursue the matter”.
Antonella De Ninno, researcher at ENEA, Frascati, tells on TV the here cited story.
The three scientists invited in France by the CEA were Emilio Del Giudice (INFN, Milan), Antonella De Ninno and Antonio Frattolillo (ENEA, Frascati). But the CEA was not interested in a collaboration. It simply responded to a request by EDF to see what Italian scientists had done.
As Antonella De Ninno reports to the interviewer: “Three persons came here, were guests at ENEA for one day, visited the laboratory, made very detailed questions, took photographs, made drawings. We misinterpreted it as a willingness on their part to cooperate”.
Thanks to the information collected at ENEA in Frascati, EDF created in France a cold fusion laboratory in one of its research centers, located near Paris. On the contrary, almost in the same period the Italian ENEL had missed its first opportunity in this field…
This piece realized by the physicist Alessandro Cavalieri is about the Gullström’s theory, an interesting attempt to explain how the E-Cat works. It shows that Sweden believes in LENR and that Swedish graduate students are studying it and writing papers on it:
To produce an isotopic shift in an E-Cat reactor we need an “ad hoc” mechanism, i.e. a good theory taking account the detailed experimental results obtained by Rossi and his team, because for many reasons it is not plausible that the fuel burning in the reactor is due to the thermal neutrons. As we do not have yet much totally reliable information about the fuel and the ash, this is not an easy task.
This is the reason for which Rossi considers interesting the theory developed by Carl Oscar Gullström – a doctoral student in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Uppsala University, Sweden, where also prof. Bo Höistad works – and described in the paper “Low radiation fusion through bound neutron tunneling”, released on October 25, 2014.
The Uppsala University, founded in 1477, is the oldest in Sweden and in the Nordic countries.
It tries to explain the isotopic shifts resulting from the analysis performed on fuel and ash powders after the Lugano test and published in the second Third Party Report (TPR-2). So, the different tunneling probabilities are calculated, in the so-called “WKB approximation”, for interaction between nickel (Ni), lithium (Li) and protons (H).
The expression “bound neutron tunneling” in the title of the paper simply means that a neutron which is bound to a nucleus (e.g. Li-7) moves to another nucleus (e.g. Ni-60). Being neutrons particles with no charge, there is no a Coulomb barrier, but instead a strong interaction potential barrier which tries to keep the neutron attached to its original nucleus.
But what is the meaning of the word “tunneling” in physics?
Everyday experience teaches us that surmounting a hill implies climbing up it (see picture). Quantum physics knows another way. Objects can get to the other side of the hill without climbing: they penetrate the hill horizontally. This phenomenon, dubbed tunnelling, has been understood in terms of the wave-like nature of matter.
A very simple explanation of the “tunneling” in physics.
For macroscopic objects its probability is very low, that’s why we have never observed it. By sharp contrast, in the microcosm particles may – with significant probability – “tunnel” through regions of space where they could not be according to the laws of classical physics (e.g. in the bowels of the hill in the figure above).
Due to the tunneling effect, quantum mechanically described particles are able to overcome potential barriers without having sufficient energy to do so – they hence “tunnel” through the barrier. In contrast, as we’ve seen for particles described by classical mechanics only a “climbing over the barrier” is allowed.
The tunneling effect occurs in various different processes in nature. These are, for instance, nuclear fusion, nuclear fission, and alpha decay in nuclear physics as well as ionization processes, photo-association and photo-dissociation in biology and chemistry.
These processes almost exclusively take place in systems that are open and consist of many particles interacting with each other. The tunneling process of single particles has been well-understood in quantum mechanics since decades – yet almost nothing is known on the tunneling process of many particles interacting with each other.
The question to which extent the interactions between the particles cause the occurrence of cooperative phenomena is of particular interest in the context of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR), where such conditions may occur.
Illustration of one-body tunneling (left) and the many-body tunneling process (right).
Well, the idea behind Gullström’s paper is that “bound neutron tunneling between 2 potential wells created by two nucleons should be considerable larger than Coulomb barrier tunneling. Bound neutron tunneling should give rise to a ground-state to ground-state interaction if the neutron energy level is close in the two considered nuclei”.
In his work, Gullström analyses a particular class of reactions theoretically allowed, in which the neutrons are stripped from one nucleus and captured by a second nucleus. So, they do not have to be generated, as in Widom-Larsen theory, where they result from electron capture by a proton (i.e. from an inverse beta decay).
Gullström’s theory is derived from basic quantum mechanical tunneling principles, whereas a detailed calculation should be done with advanced quantum mechanical process including spin-orbit and 3D properties for tunneling probabilities. Moreover, he does not explain why such reactions do not occur in ordinary lump of matter.
Finally, the scientists have shown that the many-body tunneling process cannot be described as the tunneling process of a single effective particle, because such a description neglects the occurrence of the collective phenomena and the build-up of correlations. The scientists found with the aid of exact numerical simulations that collective phenomena show up in the many-body process even for weak interactions.
However, this theory received some positive attention from Bo Höistad, one of the authors of the Lugano report, who told Mats Lewan: “It is very interesting. It fits like a glove with our results, both the isotopic changes and the absence of radiation. It is the first time that I see a scenario that could explain the results: it has not existed before!”.
In another paper published on November 18, 2014, titled “Collective Neutron Reduction Model for Neutron Transfer Reaction”, Gullström refines his neutron transfer theory. Again, the paper was not released through the normal scientific channels and there is not mention of a peer review, perhaps advisable on sensitive topics like these.
Here’s his comment: “I have improved the neutron transfer theory. In my first attempt the radiation was still a bit high but it is solved now. The trick is to not have high energy protons to drag out the neutrons but instead neutrons that are so low in energy that they can’t enter the nucleon but at the same time they could drag out more neutrons”.
The problem is whether “bound neutron tunneling” is something real or not. Experimental work in such direction would be necessary. Moreover, we don’t know if Nickel and Lithium are the only participants in the heat generating process, because it’s sure that the old E-Cat used a secret catalyst (which could not be Lithium, probably introduced only for the storage of hydrogen in a tablet) and LENR are probably a multi-stage process.
Indeed, on October 31, 2014, Rossi wrote on his JoNP: “As a matter of fact I think a (our) theory is ready, but it is strictly bound to particulars of the reactor that cannot be disclosed so far. I am working on this issue in collaboration with nuclear physicists”.
So, we must be patient: the answer is in the future!
ALESSANDRO CAVALIERI is a physicist who teaches Mathematics and Physics in a secondary school, in Northern Italy. His cultural interests goes from Chaos Theory to the Mind-Matter connections. He loves to read books on the history of Physics.
It is my aim to inform the general public in the widest sense possible of LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions) and their enormous potential for our society, knocking down the thick walls often built by local and international energy lobbies who see this technology as a danger to their economic interests.
This blog sets out to take a first step in that direction. However, as you can imagine also looking only at the graphics, it requires the collaboration of external professionals and experts, without even considering the time that it takes away from my normal profession.
After this exploratory phase, I now need to understand if and how to continue with this work which will involve greater commitment both on my own behalf and that of my growing number of collaborators. In order to dedicate myself completely to such responsibilities and to do so in a free and independent way, I do not want to have a unique ‘employer’. The only way to be truly free is to have the support of the community.
I am satisfied with the work that has been carried out until now. This web site and the blog have been visited by important companies, investors and stakeholders, among whom, just to name a couple, the Department of State (Washington DC, USA) and the Presidency of the Italian Cabinet of Ministers (see below and another screenshot here).
Visit by a top level US politician, Department of State (I have covered the name for privacy).
I am by character an optimist and I feel sure that there are many people who share with me the desire allow the public opinion to discover – involving in this mainstream mass media – the revolutionary potential of LENR and Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat.
I would therefore kindly ask you for a contribution in line with your appreciation and resources in order to help me at least in part with the costs and to keep this blog alive. Not only me, but many other people in the world will be extremely grateful for your generous contribution.
If you want to be part of this project this is the moment to act.
Single readers can help ‘SUPPORT VESSY’S BLOG’ with free donations, but we also invite blog sponsorship from companies involved in the renewable energy sector and in LENR.
Donations are always anonymous for amounts less than 50 €, so you’ll find them grouped by amount. Whereas, for larger amounts, donations are anonymous only on your explicit request, otherwise the name of the donor – DISTINGUISHED (= or >1000 €) or MAJOR (= or > 50 €) – will be published together with the donated amount in the DONATIONS’ PAGE (click here).
“Donate is a pleasure that we do not give to others, but to ourselves” (Vessela Nikolova)
You can give your donation in a few seconds just by clicking on the Paypal button below (even if you do not have a Paypal account but only a credit card) and indicating, in the donation field, the sum you wish to contribute. In alternative, you can make a bank transfer to the following account: Bank: Hello Bank!, Beneficiary: Vessela Nikolova, IBAN: IT04 J010 0524 8000 0000 0002 146 (do not write the spaces), BIC / SWIFT: BNLIITRRXXX.
If our community grows we will easily be able to reach our target, so it is important to tell your friends about the project (by e-mail or through blogs, social media, etc.).
In this virtual age, we sometimes think that humanity is cold, but our ‘opponents’ do not understand the strength there is in sharing and how this has been made possible by communication systems which thanks to the web can cancel out the distances between us all.
My aim is to make sure that the contents of the blog can help people to understand that the technology exists which will save the planet from atmospheric pollution due to our use of the carbon fossil energy sources, responsible for the climate changes that are clear to everyone.
Maybe that is your dream as well in the same way as you wish to find out the secrets of the ‘New Fire’, which I will play as great a part as I can in revealing …
So, if you are not a troll, support this project and spread the word about this invitation! 🙂
“If oil drops below $30 a barrel (now it’s around $44), a global recession is inevitable”, according to a recent survey of investment professionals, performed by ConvergEx Group. More than half those surveyed represented buy-side firms such as asset managers and hedge funds, and about a quarter of them were from sell-side firms such as banks or broker dealers.
The oil price fall in the last US recession, when the first was a consequence, not a trigger.
ConvergeEx polled 306 investment professionals, asking what oil price would show that a global recession was inevitable. The most common answer was $30 a barrel, from 26% of respondents, with $35 a barrel being the second most common answer (16% of respondents). All told, 62% of respondents said $30 or lower crude was a global recession’s canary in a coal mine.
This is the bad news. The good news is that, according to a report of the World Bank release in mid-January, all of the major commodities may fall in price this year: “the steep decline in oil and related energy products is driving down the cost to extract other commodities”.
The risk that the scenario of a global recession may occur is real, according to the more careful analysts. Indeed, the current fall of oil price was surely triggered by the Lugano report on the E-Cat, as it has been well illustrated on this blog by a former oil trader in the post: “Why the E-Cat is responsible for the fall of oil price”.
As confirmed by some independent analysts, a sharp decline in the price of Brent oil was observed in the immediate aftermath of the report’s release, coinciding with a download of the report by the hedge fund Blackrock. Thus many financial little firms looked at this “strange” choice for their later moves and strategies, enhancing the drop.
Indeed, better known as a multiasset-class titan, with more than $4.6 trillion under management worldwide, New York-based BlackRock has been in the hedge fund management business since 1996, and is now the world’s largest money manager. Although hedge funds account for a minuscule 0.7% of the firm’s overall assets, BlackRock ranked sixth worldwide on Pensions & Investments’ most recent listing of hedge fund managers.
But LENR are suspected to be still hitting the oil market: take a look at the oil price and you can notice its behavior near the Parkhomov’s announcement of his really independent replication of the Rossi Effect, made on December 25, 2014: this event broke the consolidation phase in place and kicked off the possibility for an immediate rebound of the oil price.
Oil price after the announcement of a Hot-Cat replication by the Russian physicist Parkhomov.
The independent trader “Sifferkoll” explains, on his homonymous blog, that “the ‘Big Oil’ companies put their money from selling their oil fields in the bank and enabled the merchant banks to short oil, i.e. to bet on an its further drop”. So, the Big Oil avoided bankruptcies and fire sales, whereas the big merchant baks such as Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan among others have been extremely well positioned for this fall of the oil price since 2011.
Saudi Arabia wants to undercut oil production to allow the market to stabilize on its own, as already decided in December, even if non-OPEC nations did so or wanted to do so. In this way, Saudi Arabia can kill off as many of its competitors as it can now. So, when the oil drops to $30, the Saudis will be the sole suppliers and they will earn thanks to the large volumes.
Indeed, already an oil price below $50 means that U.S. shale oil and gas production, which has surged in recent years, causing a large build in global oil supplies, will be curtailed. Also investments in Brent crude oil – extracted through expensive offshore platforms in the North Sea – will be reduced, as profitability from these ageing fields has worsened. In both cases, the new projects of exploration and drilling will be cancelled or deferred.
This is already happening. In December, the US-based oil giant ConocoPhillips said they were cutting 230 out of 1,650 jobs in the UK. It announced a 20% reduction in its worldwide capital expenditure budget, in response to falling oil prices. Other big oil firms are expected to make soon similar cuts to their drilling and exploration budgets.
But what could happen if in the next months there will be new major announcements regarding the LENR? It’s reasonable to expect that, when LENR will become widely known by the general public, the oil crash could worsen, and oil stocks – i.e. the stocks of oil companies quoted in the stock exchange – will plunge as well, since their stock price reflects many years of potential growth and huge profits, which will evaporate within 10 years or so.
Sifferkoll’s prediction for the oil price is “30 Dollar Oil within a year and 10 Dollar on the long term”. This could mean a global recession and, apparently, the end of the fossil fuel age. However, oil is used for producing fuels, lubricants and as a precursor chemical for the chemical industries such as plastics, therefore that market will probably still exist for a long time, until these material will be replaced in some way by others.
Therefore, oil prices can go lower for a relatively long time, and the new “normal” could be far lower than we thought. Perhaps, at the end of this year we will look at the relatively high prices of the oil reached in 2014 such as a bubble, that LENR has now popped.
But also the opposite – a new surge in oil price in the next years – is possible, for a simple reason. There is a natural decline of 5% a year from existing fields around the world. That means by 2030 more than half of the existing global oil production will disappear. If now there are not investments in new oil fields, soon or later there will be a production shortage, and low availability of a commodity results in higher prices.
There is an enormous amount of money that needs to be invested now to get another 50 million barrels per day of new production. In absence of such investments, the cycle will come back and higher prices will come back. And by that time hardly the LENR may already have reduced the need for oil of our energy-consuming society.
Therefore, big up and down in the oil price are likely to happen in this decade, perhaps a new world recession could be triggered by these events, and one thing is sure: the E-Cat is not yet on the mass market, but its effect are for real and already quite heavy.
This article has been written in collaboration with Simone P., an Italian trader that I want to thank.
One year ago, on January 26, 2014, Prof. Sven Kullander – who many of you know because he became interested in the E-Cat since 2011 and he was convinced that the “Rossi Effect is a reality beyond any reasonable doubt” – passed away. His friend and colleague Prof. Bo Höistad has very kindly translated for us in English the obituary he wrote in his memory for a Swedish newspaper (I added a couple of interesting links):
“Our highly esteemed friend and colleague Sven Kullander, Professor Emeritus in High Energy Physics, has left us at the age of 77 years. The foremost mourners are his wife Eva, the children Anna, Fredrik, Klas, Lisa and their families.
Sven was born in Karlstad, Sweden, and studied as young student at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, where he received his Master of Science degree in Electrical Engineering 1961. He received his doctorate in 1971 at Uppsala University on a dissertation on particle scattering on nuclei at high energy.
In the beginning of the sixties Sven begun his doctoral studies as a research assistant at “The Enrico Fermi Institute for Nuclear Studies” at the University of Chicago, and later he continued at the Gustaf Werner Institute in Uppsala as well as at CERN, where he worked at the synchrotron in the Department of Experimental Physics.
Sven was appointed in 1979 as professor in High Energy Physics at Uppsala University. He served as a dynamic and highly appreciated Prefect for the Gustaf Werner Institute and later for the Department of Radiation Sciences, and he was also Dean of the Faculty of Mathematics and Science. He was engaged in the Swedish Natural Science Research Council, as member of the Council and as Chairman of the Program Committee for Physics.
Sven was a very active and energetic researcher in elementary particle physics for many years both at CERN and later at the The Svedberg Laboratory (TSL) in Uppsala.
The “Gustaf Werner” Cyclotron, at today’s The Svedberg Laboratory: 1: Magnet yoke, 2: Internal Ion source feedthrough, 3: RF system, 4: Vacuum system, 5: Beam transport.
At CERN, Sven carried out experimental measurements of pion and proton scattering from nuclei and of deep inelastic myon scattering, which became groundbreaking studies of the inner structure of nucleons bound in nuclei.
Sven was an exceptionally creative scientist who took remarkable initiatives in several areas, which benefitted numerous researchers in the scientific community. On his initiative the TSL-laboratory was created 1986, and by the transfer of the storage ring ICE from CERN to TSL, this ring could be converted into the CELSIUS ring for high-energy protons. The aim was to make precision experiments on rare decays of certain mesons in order to get information on basic symmetry properties in particle physics.
In connection with this project, Sven developed many of the advanced experimental techniques required to carry out these experiments, particularly the development of the advanced multi-particle detector WASA. Sven initiated the development of a particular target pellet for use with the WASA detector in the circulating particle beams in the CELSIUS ring. Sven was, furthermore, a great authority in accelerator technology (I recommend this beatiful article he wrote for the Nobel Prize official website: “Accelerators and Nobel Laureates“).
Sven has published about 200 scientific articles in areas including nuclear and elementary particle physics, in recent years also in the energy field, and he has authored a number of popular science books. Sven also contributed to the development of physics at Uppsala University through several notable initiatives in undergraduate, graduate and senior education.
In recent years Sven has been involved in energy issues. As President of the Royal Academy of Sciences Energy Committee, he has illuminated every conceivable aspect of the energy sector in Sweden. A unique compilation and analysis of the Swedish and the global energy situation has been made by the committee under his leadership. A large number of debate articles related to this work have been published in different media.
Very recently, he paid a lot of attention to the possibility to perhaps obtain energy releasing fusion reactions at low energies, as indicated by a new remarkable invention by the Italian researcher Andrea Rossi.
(You can read the post “Sven Kullander on the E-Cat“, E-Cat World, November 7, 2012).
Sven was a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Vice President of The European Academies Science Advisory Council, member of the Royal Society of Sciences in Uppsala and he has held several honorary positions both nationally and internationally. Sven received the 2001 Björkén prize at Uppsala University and received the 2010 Gustav Adolf gold medal and the Seraphim bands of the 8th size in 2013.
As late as a week before his death Sven gave a highly appreciated lecture on “Sweden’s energy resources in a European and global perspective” for Uppsala’s senior university.
Sven was exceptionally engaged in everything he was involved in. With his never ending energy, enthusiasm and most friendly manners, he easily attracted his colleagues’ interest in all the excellent projects he initiated. All scientists who had the privilege to work in his presence have a lot to thank him for. His decease is a great loss for us and we remember him with great gratitude”.
Bo Höistad and colleagues
The Department of Physics and Astronomy, Uppsala University
I decided to publish a review of the book “Models of the Atomic Nucleus” by Norman D. Cook, whose reading has been repeatedly suggested by Rossi, who considers it his favorite book of nuclear physics. In a presentation made at ICCF-18, Cook claimed on his slides that Rossi told him that his book helped him a lot to understand what’s going on in the E-Cat.
“Models of the Atomic Nucleus” is a largely non-technical, comprehensive and introductory book on nuclear models, which addresses head on the inconsistencies of traditional nuclear theory and proposes a solid state model for the nucleus: a lattice model.
The bottom-line is that one specific lattice structure reproduces all of the known energy shells and subshells of the quantum mechanics of the atomic nucleus. Normally thought of as a tiny “gas” of nucleons, or a liquid-drop, a solid-phase lattice achieves the same results.
After a review of the basics, the book explores and compares the competing models, and addresses how the lattice model best resolves remaining controversies.
The compelling argument is that the diverse “models” of nuclear theory are unified in the lattice: a “frozen” liquid-drop with all of the shells of the gas model, and even the alpha structures of the cluster model. But, as the Author explains, “it is specifically the ‘coincidence’ of the lattice model symmetries and the experimental data that is the model’s strength”.
It is the first nuclear physics text to address in a rational way some of the results of the Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) experiments that have been reported in the literature. So, it’s highly recommended for nuclear physicists and nuclear engineers that are not convinced that Low Energy Nuclear Physics is not a dead science.
The book contains far more words than equations. So, it’s an excellent essay suitable for general readers, a not easy task when the topic is highly specialized physics. The argument is clearly stated, colorfully illustrated and comes with easy-to-use, but sophisticated software on CD for Windows, Mac and Linux systems.
The Calcium-40 nucleus in the Face-Centered-Cubic (FCC) model (from the book).
The very intuitive and physically precise visualization CD-software package for nuclear models, including a database of all nuclei and isotopes, supplies users with an interactive experience for nuclear visualization via a computer-graphical interface, similar to the molecular visualizations already available in chemistry. All nuclear parameters are adjustable in a wide range.
For the first time, an easy-to-master software for scientific visualization of the nucleus makes this notoriously ‘non-visual’ field become immediately ‘visible’. The appendix explains how to obtain the most from the software provided on the accompanying CD. So, the book/software supplements virtually any of the current textbooks in nuclear physics.
Paperback, 2nd ed. 2010 – Publisher: Springer – Pages: 324 – Price: 43$ – On Amazon.
About the Author
NORMAN D. COOK is full professor at Department of Informatics, Kansai University (Osaka, Japan). Undergraduate at Princeton University (Princeton, USA), he has been graduate student at Tohoku University (Sendai, Japan) and Oxford University (Oxford, UK), post-doctoral researcher at Zurich University (Zurich, Switzerland), invited researcher at ATR (Kyoto, Japan). He is author of 70-plus articles published in refereed science journals and of 4 monographs.
Linus Pauling (1901-1994) was a brilliant chemist who received a Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1954 for his research into the nature of the chemical bond and another for Peace in 1962 for his work against warfare resulted in the Partial Test Ban Treaty, which banned all the nuclear tests not underground. He also contributed to the medical discovery of his century, the determination of DNA’s structure, and it’s not so surprising that his formidable mind was captured, in the last years of his life, by the Cold Fusion.
I asked to Mr. Russ George, a 65 years old US consulting scientist for industry and government who knew Linus Pauling and started talking with him around 1990 (and continued until a year before his death, though much less as he neared the end) to answer some questions to remember the man, the scientist and this late passion:
Russ, how did you meet an already so famous person like Linus Pauling?
“I came to know Linus Pauling in Palo Alto, where I lived with my wife, working in the biotech industry. Linus had a large private institute and facility three blocks from my house. It was offices and labs where his substantial team studied many topics he loved, amongst them vitamin C. Pauling had long given up academia. Being so near, I walked into his office one day without any real hope of meeting him and to my surprise did. What a gentle man Linus was! Over the course of a few years while I worked on cold fusion in my Palo Alto garage lab – I was an autodidact in this field – I was lucky enough to be able to walk to his office many times to share my observations and chat with him. Brainstorming with Linus was science to the max, an extreme sport!”.
What Pauling, that at the time was in his nineties, has been for you, an eclectic and autodidact cold fusion researcher with no institutional overhead?
“He became a mentor beyond my wildest dreams not only willing but eager to encourage me, a Palo Alto garage experimentalist, to talk through my experimental observations and ideas. Linus was fascinated that I could produce in my Palo Alto cold fusion work results that confirmed that cold fusion is allowed in physics and encouraged me to forget about trying to satisfy the hordes of cynics and skeptics and just do the explorative experiments. He was a man of such brilliance that even as his body was so frail with age his still nimble mind was an incredible ecosystem of experience and wisdom. It was tough keeping up with him. It was also a privilege to be invited to do so. I remember that in one meeting he gave me some words of wisdom, reminding me that ‘in his experience frequently the most remarkable discoveries almost always came unexpectedly’”.
The gold medal of Nobel Prize for Chemistry, December 10, 1954, the first of two won by Pauling.
What was the attitude of Pauling towards cold fusion? This field flourished in 1989 was quickly abandoned by the mainstream scientific community…
“Linus had spoken favourably about cold fusion since its first announcement. He was a true judge of science and not afraid of controversy. He was on record proposing some ideas on how cold fusion was allowed in physics. Pauling tinkered around this topic with methods of prompting fusion with the idea to someday patenting them in the early nineties. His ideas lay fallow and a little over two years later, Linus passed away. He was 93. His notes, however, remain useful insofar as they contribute to the on-going conversation as to the possibility of cold fusion and of ways of facilitating hot fusion. Pauling’s thoughts on modern subjects such as nuclear fusion and cold fusion were also further evidence of an active and inquisitive mind even as he neared the end of his life”.
As suggested to me by Russ George, we can find some interesting notes and documents about Pauling’s thinking on cold fusion in the “Pauling Blog”:
“In 1989, after Fleischmann and Pons’ announcement, Pauling sent a letter to Nature magazine in which he suggested that the decomposition of small amounts of PdHx were responsible for thermal anomalies. During the following years, his interest on the topic of nuclear fusion, and particularly cold fusion, continued. In May 1992, while at home on his ranch in Big Sur, California, Pauling had a conversation with his grandson Barclay J. ‘Barky’ Kamb, during which he revealed his idea for a nuclear fusion invention. Pauling had taken note of the fact that many experiments reported a ‘liberation of neutrons or helions or other indication of nuclear reaction greater than the background count’, but that not all interested researchers had observed the phenomenon”.
The Pauling’s letter to “Nature”, April 24, 1989 (from the Pauling Blog, click image to enlarge).
In the same blog, we find also some a little more technical information on his ideas about cold fusion that I resume here for their historical interest:
“As revealed also with letters to his loved grandson Barky, Pauling had an idea for increasing the amount of energy within certain compounds, and came up with a few theories on how to maximize the amount of energy held by particles in order to achieve cold fusion. He hypothesized that ‘the stored energy in PdDx, x > 0.6, might be produced either by high pressure of H2 (D2 or T2) – heavier hydrogen isotopes – with Pd, Ti, or other metals’. Pauling speculated that an augmented detonation could produce shock waves that would accelerate particles, perhaps along channels in the metals, to prompt fusion by reaction. His proposed methods of increasing stored energy included shooting pellets of the compound into a heated chamber, utilizing plasma in a tokamak or focusing a detonation wave within conical metal or something similar”.
Finally, you can find a very long and beautiful interview with the late Pauling here. The following is an extract in which he gives advice to young students:
“Even 50 years ago I was recommending to students in the California Institute of Technology – where I taught for many years – who came to me for advice to do graduate work in chemistry rather than in biology, even if they were interested in biology. They could take some courses in biology, but they could do reading by themselves to learn most of biology. Genetics was already a good science in biology. I recommended taking a course in genetics. So ever since then, I have said to students: if you are interested in science, I think a good thing for you to get is as much training as possible in the basic sciences – mathematics, physics, chemistry, including physical chemistry. And then you can move on into these more applied fields”.
“I have always liked working in some scientific direction that nobody else is working in”.
Linus Pauling, Nobel Laureate
I received from Eng. Ventola this original contribute, inspired by a Swedish document online that seems to contain some interesting info about the “Rossi Effect”:
In 2011, the Swedish Defense Material Agency (FMW) has financed some very rudimentary experiments with nickel and hydrogen, trying to experimentally reproduce the excess heating power claimed by Andrea Rossi and prof. Sergio Focardi (Physics Department, Bologna University) in their paper “A new Energy Source from Nuclear Fusion” (2010).
This information is contained in an original document 25-pages long, titled “Experiments with Nickel and Hydrogen”, by Curt Edström and Jan Erik Nowacki. You can find it here. FMW, a government agency connected with the Swedish military, is the Sweden’s equivalent of DARPA (Defense Advanced Projects Agency) in the US.
Some vessels used by the Swedish scientists in their experiments on Ni-H systems.
The report is a short description of some experiments on the nickel-hydrogen line of research, in which 4 different forms of nickel (see the table below) were tested in contact with hydrogen at different pressures and temperatures. Some of the nickel samples also contained other metals as “catalysts” like lithium, potassium and iron.
In some of the samples the nickel was in micrometer large crystal grains, in other samples – for example, some powders provided by Brian Ahern upon request, because he had said to have powders that had resulted in some form of reaction – the nickel was in the form was in the form of nanometer grains embedded in zirconium oxide.
Examples of powders used in the experiments of the Swedish Defense Material Agency.
However this document is interesting not for the description of their experiments – as neither significant excess heat, nor any radiation indicating nuclear reactions has been detected by these Swedish researchers, likely due to a not extended experimental effort – but because the group received precious advice directly from Rossi.
Indeed, we read already in the first page of the report: “Contact were taken with many active researchers in the field, including Andrea Rossi, for guidance to find a functioning solution. Andrea Rossi could not reveal his catalyst for us but thought that we would get a small indicative response using just pure nickel and hydrogen”.
The other precious information contained in the Swedish paper is the following: “Rossi also mentioned that a hydrogen pressure of at least 200 bar and a temperature of 500 °C was necessary in order to see any effect without the catalyst”.
This is a news, because Rossi has never publicly stated that to reproduce his “Rossi Effect” the catalyst is NOT necessary. We have had a clue of this only from the recent Alexander Parkhomov’s successful replication of a Hot-Cat, but the powders used by the Russian physicist include also Lithium and Aluminum under the form of lithium aluminum hydride (LiAlH4), so in theory one of these two elements (or both) could be a catalyst.
A. Parkhomov has used a LiAlH4 powder as Hydrogen source, instead of a gas cylinder.
As, according to the prof. Sergio Focardi (that collaborated with Rossi since around 2008), the function of the catalyst probably was to transform the hydrogen from normal, or diatomic, into monatomic – so that it could penetrate into the metal lattice of nickel – it is reasonable that, at high pressures and temperatures, the catalyst is not necessary to make the hydrogen penetrate the nickel lattice, then showing a hint of “Rossi Effect”.
However, the words of Rossi should be taken with caution, since it is well known that at high temperatures nickel powders sinter together, probably making impossible the occurrence of Rossi Effect. It seems that also the Swedish researchers, in some of their experiments – probably for a deliberate choice – did not address this problem.
Therefore, presumably, the situation can be summarized as follows: at high temperatures a catalyst is not necessary, but rather an element or a substrate which avoids the sintering; whereas, at low temperatures, a catalyst – in the strictest sense of the term – is required to make the hydrogen monatomic. I prefer not to say more.
Regarding the values of pressure and temperature suggested by Rossi to the Swedish researchers, it is interesting to notice that the first Rossi’s international patent application for the E-Cat, filed in 2008 (WO2009125444A1), mentioned in the Abstract “a reaction between nickel and hydrogen atoms in a tube” having a pressure “preferably from 2 to 20 bars” and heated to “a high temperature, preferably from 150 to 500 °C”.
The two “allowed zones” for Rossi Effect on the Temperature-Pressure diagram.
The picture above shows the “allowed zones” for the Rossi Effect, according to the old patent application and the advice given by Rossi himself, 3-4 years later, to the Swedish scientists. I added in red the likely or reasonable position, on this Temperature-Pressure diagram, of the recent Parkhomov’s experiment, which would explain its success.
Moreover, it’s quite remarkable that 200-220 bar is also the typical pressure of gas in Hydrogen cylinders, used by Rossi in his early experiments. So, it would seem that, in the MFMP’s experiment trying to replicate Rossi’s “Dog Bone” reactor, the importance of the (right) pression inside the ceramic vessel has been largely underestimated.
The Swedish document also mentions, even if with not so many details, an interesting experimental result: “According to an e-mail conversation with Hanno Essén and Rossi, Rossi has received measured spectra of electron-positron annihilation at 511 keV”.
This is another “news”, because such annihilation, predicted in the Focardi and Rossi’s paper as a consequence of a possible reaction transforming a nickel atom plus a proton into a copper atom – later decaying back into nickel again with the release of a positron and a neutrino – was not detected in the public test performed on January 14, 2011.
The detector for gamma rays at 511 keV used on the E-Cat tested on January 14, 2011 (original photo taken by Daniele Passerini, slightly modified).
The failure to detect the phenomenon is in accordance with the recent Rossi’s answer given in an interview: “After these years of experimentation, testing, measuring and analysis, we noticed that the main source of energy in our reactor is not so much a fusion, but a shift of the isotopic composition of the atoms contained in the fuel charge”.
Finally, another important information given by Andrea Rossi is cited in the Swedish document at page 15: “As we have been told by Rossi, the powder had to be cycled several times to get “active” and as the power from a possible reaction would also come in ‘bursts’ (the length of these ‘bursts’ were however largely unknown to us)”.
For a description of what “to be cycled” means in practice, you can read the Sergio Focardi’s papers on his early experiments performed (on nickel rods and at pressures of the order of 1 bar) with Francesco Piantelli in Siena. One important difference: using high pressures, you do not need to use a vacuum pump, instead at 1 bar it was a “must”.
R. Ventola – Electrical engineer