Iwill continue to call this branch of empirical physics ‘cold fusion’ notbecause it is necessarily an accurate description of any of the associatedeffects but because it is understood by the public in the proper context. We are somehow releasing nuclear energy rather than chemical energy.
As the referenced report makesclear, we are not likely observing actual fusion of neutrons, but some otherform of endothermic reaction that is still nuclear in some fashion. Yet I cannot help but wonder if we are simplyseeing too few reactions to be properly detected. Gamma rays are been reported but observed sporadically.
If the emissions are simply missingthe detectors or been even reabsorbed or controlled by the crystalline structure,it makes measurement chancy.
It is all definitely new physicsand what we have here is a practical application that quells any remainingdoubts that such processes are real or not.
The output is close to twentytimes unity! Suddenly we have a heatengine able to produce copious heat that may be turned off and on as needed andcan also be plugged into our entire installed grid energy base.
The nickel complex used stilllooks partially like a consumable in that it appears to become saturated intime and loses effectiveness. Yet I alsosuspect that it is no trick at all to reprocess it all and reuse. It may be as simple as roasting the powder orat worst remaning it.
Most important is that it is obviouslydeliverable technology today and they are in fact moving directly to that. There is no better way to shake out a tech.
Just as obviously we certainlyneed a working theory for all this, if only because there must exist multipleprotocols achieving the same thing and perhaps doing it better. I find it difficult to believe we got itright the first time.
JANUARY 18, 2011
The New Energy Timeshas been covering low energy nuclear reactions (LENR - what was called coldfusion) from the beginning. There is an article which discuses the Rossi 10 KW demonstration.
* The original nickel-hydrogenLENR research was developed by Francesco Piantelli, of
The experiment started at about 15:30 and ended at about 16:45.
The measurement of energy emission was based on a modified flow calorimetermethod (peristaltic pump, small size, about 10-20W of power). They warmed upthe water to 102°C, pressurized vapor condition. I estimate that the experimentconsumed 12-14 liters of water.
A researcher and technicians from the
The amount of the reactant wasn’t clear, but it could be a few grams. Accordingto Rossi, it is a complex mixture of nickel and one or two secret additives,which are the key for the energy emission. All the material is in the state ofnano-particles or colloid.
In the pressurized (about 2 atm) chamber, the volume is 1-2 liters; also insideare the cooling pipe and the reactants. Hydrogen gas wasadded continuously, at a low flow rate.
According to the authors, the trigger is only heat (at quite high temperatures:T>T_Curie of Nickel???). Other people speculated about ultrasound. The inputpower was 500-700W maximum.
My approximate calculation, assuming no thermal dissipation from the reactor,gives:
- Output Energy to increase the water temperature of 90°C: 4.2*(102°C-12°C)=378 J/g
- Vaporization enthalpy, about 40.6kJ/mole water= 2633J/g
- Total energy (with 13 liter of water vaporized)= 378+2633=3011J/g ofwater=>39.14MJ
The energy gain is a factor of 15-20, which is really large!
They also had a twin gamma ray detectorassembled in order to detect e+e- annihilation. In this run, almost no suchresults were detected.
Focardi was confident that they were going to get large amounts of such signal,as in previous experiments. This time, the counts were close to background forcoincidences, and only some uncorrelated signal was over background.
I brought my own gamma detector, a battery-operated 1.25″ NaI(Tl) with anenergy range=25keV-2000keV. I measured some increase of counts near the reactor(about 50-100%) during operation, in an erratic (unstable) way, with respect tobackground.
I decided to change the gamma detector from “counts” to “spectra” mode. After afew minutes, Rossi realized that I was trying to identify something secretinside the reactor. I was forced to stop the measurements.
Outline
This is the outline for the New Energy Times Special Report:Cold Fusion is Neither, published electronically on July 30, 2010. The fullreport is available to browse on the Web, starting with this page, or as a148-page PDF download (7MB).This outline is also available as a 4-page standalone PDF download.
The articles in this specialreport are sequentially structured and interconnected; they build on andreference one other. Readers will benefit by reading them in sequence. This outline highlights the major points of each article.
The greatest skepticism aboutlow-energy nuclear reactions in the last decade has come not from mainstreamscience but from within the field itself, from a "cold fusion"subgroup. The subgroup worked strategically to discredit and suppress thegrowing experimental and theoretical evidence that disproved "coldfusion" but proved the reality of a new nonfusion, nuclear phenomenon.
- Suggests how LENR may lead to a revolution in energy production and storage.
- Provides additional references for deeper technical and scientific information about LENR.
- Explains why some people initially thought LENR was predominately a "cold fusion" process.
- Discusses how the "cold fusion" concept went from hypothesis to assumed fact by members of the "cold fusion" subgroup.
- Reviews how the evidence accumulated to show that LENR was not predominately a fusion process.
- Shows the numerous and substantial distinctions between LENR and the hypothetical "cold fusion."
- Summarizes the full investigation, as shown in the corresponding 101-page slide presentation.
- Reviews investigation of a dozen unsubstantiated changes, additions and deletions to an experiment reported by Michael McKubre (SRI International) during a 10-year period.
- Reports how groundbreaking research from
- Reviews attempts by the Naval Research Laboratory to discredit transmutation reports from Arata-Zhang heavy-water LENR experiments.
- Reviews evidence in support of transmutation reports from Arata-Zhang heavy-water LENR experiments.
- Reviews attempts by the Naval Research Laboratory to discredit transmutation claims from Iwamura/Mitsubishi Heavy Industries.
- Presents a step-by-step technical explanation of the Iwamura/Mitsubishi transmutation experiment.
- Explains how anomalous isotopic shifts reveal three key insights about LENR transmutations.
- Shows how anomalous isotopic shifts in LENR cast cold water on the D+D "cold fusion" hypothesis.
- Reviews efforts by LENR researcher Vittorio Violante, member of the "cold fusion" subgroup, to discredit LENR transmutations.
- Reviews efforts by members of the "cold fusion" subgroup to collapse distinction between neutron capture processes and fusion process after they realized that LENR was better explained by neutron processes than by fusion.
- Reviews efforts by members of the "cold fusion" subgroup to discard the nuclear physics definition of fusion once they realized that LENR was better explained by nonfusion processes.
- Shows how some LENR researchers attempted to suppress LENR transmutation results because the results disproved their D+D "cold fusion" hypothesis.
- Compares similar five-peak spectra of LENR transmutations in light and heavy water which indicate a similar underlying mechanism, suggestive of a nonfusion process.
- Discusses "cold fusion" co-discoverer Martin Fleischmann’s regrets about calling the discovery "fusion."
- Quotes Fleischmann’s affirmation that "fusion has a special meaning in the scientific literature."
- Reports Fleischmann’s concession that the LENR process must involve neutrons, that is, weak interaction nonfusion processes.
- Shows that D+D "cold fusion" theorist Peter Hagelstein was on the neutron theory track in the early 1990s but failed to envision a complete neutron-based model.
- Reviews the development of weak-interaction research and its potential for significant energy release.
- Presents simple four-step explanation of the Widom-Larsen theory of LENRs.
- Explains collective effects in LENR.
- Explains how the chemical realm interfaces with the nuclear realm to create low-energy nuclear reactions.
- Discusses Larsen's vision of the potential practical applications of LENR technology.
- Compares potential LENR energy to conventional nuclear fission energy.
- Tells Larsen's story of how he and Allan Widom developed their theory of LENRs.
- Provides a guide to help readers navigate Larsen's first six slide presentations.
- Explains how some LENR researchers failed to distinguish between low-energy nuclear reaction research and "cold fusion."
- Dispels the "cold fusion" myths about helium creation in LENR.
- Shows possible weak-interaction-based nucleosynthetic pathways in LENR.
- Shows how members of the "cold fusion" subgroup continued to support their D+D "cold fusion" paradigm despite the presence of experimental and theoretical evidence to the contrary.
- Explains why mainstream science was justifiably skeptical about "cold fusion."
- Sheds light on why mainstream scientists knew intuitively for two decades that "cold fusion" was problematic yet couldn't specifically identify the problems.
- Shows that some LENR researchers deliberately chose to associate their work with the speculative idea of D+D "cold fusion" instead of representing it as LENR.
- Provides perspective on the last decade of LENR research and history; ties all other articles together.
- Reviews attempts to suppress neutron results, which contradict hypothesis of D+D "cold fusion."
- Reviews attempts to manipulate media and government to promote D+D "cold fusion."
- Contemplates the future of LENR research and possible applications.
- Suggests insights that may be applicable to other cases of potentially revolutionary science.
Post a Comment