Categories

Peer Review

All the articles published on the Journal Of Nuclear Physics are Peer Reviewed. The Peer Review of every paper is made by at least one University Physics Professor.

Hydrogen/Nickel cold fusion probable mechanism

by
Prof. Ch. E. Stremmenos

.

Leaving aside for the moment any rigorous theoretical approach based on quantitative analyses, I would like to focus, qualitatively only, on the subject of shielding of dispersed protons in the electronic cloud within the crystal structure. The Focardi-Rossi approach considers this shielding a basic requirement for surpassing the Coulomb barrier between the hydrogen nuclei (protons) and the Nickel lattice nuclei, resulting into release of energy, which is a fact, through a series of exothermic nuclear processes leading to transmutations, decays, etc.

The reasoning presented in this note is based on elementary considerations of

·    The hydrogen atom (Bohr) in its fundamental energy state
·    The Heisenberg uncertainty principle
·    The high speed of nuclear reactions (10ˆ-20 sec)

The hydrogen atom (Bohr) in its fundamental state, in the absence of energy perturbations, remains indefinitely in its stationary state shown below. This is due to the in-phase wave (de Broglie), which follows the “circular” path of its single orbiting electron. The wave length and radius of the “circular” path are determined by the fundamental energy state of this atom.

When hydrogen atoms come in contact with the metal (Ni), they abandon their stationary state as they deposit their electrons in the conductivity band of the metal, and due to their greatly reduced volume, compared to that of their atom, the hydrogen nuclei (naked protons) readily diffuse into the defects of the nickel crystalline structure as well as in tetrahedral or octahedral void spaces of the crystal lattice.

It should be underlined that, in addition to the deposited hydrogen electrons, in the nickel mass included are also electrons of the chemical potential of the metal. Jointly these electrons constitute the conductivity electronic cloud, distributed in energy bands (Fermi), and quasi free to move throughout the metallic mass.

In this dynamic state of “non-localized” plasma, based on the uncertainty principle (Heisenberg),

it is conceivable that, for a very short time period (e.g.  10ˆ-18 sec), a series of neutral mini atoms of hydrogen could be formed, in an unstable state, of various size and energy level, distributed within the Fermi band, which is enlarged due to the very short time (Heisenberg).

The neutral mini-atoms of high energy and very short wave length – which is in phase with the “cyclic” orbit (de Broglie) – are statistically captured be the nickel nuclei of the crystal structure with the speed of nuclear reactions (10ˆ-20 sec).

For these mini-atoms to fuse with the nickel nuclei, apart from their neutral character for surpassing the Coulomb barrier, they must have dimensions smaller than 10ˆ-14 m, where nuclear cohesion forces, of high intensity but very short range, are predominant. It is assumed that only a percentage of such atoms satisfy this condition (de Broglie).

The above considerations are based only on an intuitive approach and I trust this phenomenon could be tackled in a systematic and integrated way through the “theory of time dependent perturbations” by employing the appropriate Hamiltonian, which includes time:

The mechanism proposed by Focardi – Rossi, verified by mass spectroscopy data, which predicts transmutation of a nickel nucleus to an unstable copper nucleus (isotope), remains in principle valid. The difference is that inside the unstable copper nucleus, produced from the fusion of a hydrogen mini-atom with a nickel nucleus, is trapped the mini-atom electron (β-), which in my opinion undergoes in-situ annihilation, with the predicted (Focardi-Rossi) decay β+ of the new copper nucleus.

The β+ and β- annihilation (interaction of matter and anti-matter) would lead to the emission of a high energy photon, γ, (Einstein) from the nucleus of the now stable copper isotope and a neutrin to conserve the lepton number. However, based on the principle of conservation of momentum, as a result of the backlash of this nucleus, the photon energy γ is divided into kinetic energy of this nucleus of large mass (heat) and a photon of low frequency.

Furthermore, it should be noted that the system does not exhibit the Mössbauer* phenomenon for two reasons:

1.  The copper nucleus is not part of the nickel crystal structure and behaves as an isolated atom in quasi gaseous state
2.  Copper, as a chemical element, does not exhibit the Mössbauer phenomenon.

In conclusion, it should be underlined that the copper nucleus thermal perturbation, as a result of its mechanical backlash(heat), is transferred to its encompassing nickel lattice and propagated, by in phase phonons (G. Preparata), through the entire nano-crystal. This could explain why in cold fusion the released energy is mainly in the form of heat and the produced (low) γ radiation can be easily shielded.

.

Prof. Ch. E. Stremmenos   (ATHENS,  DIC. 1910)

205 comments to Hydrogen/Nickel cold fusion probable mechanism

  • Dear Ing. Rossi,

    I have been reading a lot of documentation relevant to your recent involvement with Focardi, as well as the previous studies conducted on Ni-H by Focardi and Piantelli, which managed to produce a working cell with an output of 40 W (thermal). I have also thoroughly listened to all the recent interviews from you and Focardi. As far as I understand, the breakthrough acceleration you gave in the development of a usable device based on their original experiments can be summed up (at least) by the following:

    1) use of nickel powder instead of nickel rods, to increase available surface

    2) use of “enriched” nickel (62 Ni and 64 Ni) instead of “natural mix” nickel, to maximise reaction rate with H and fusion into stable 63 and 65 Cu

    3) use of high pressure H2 gas instead of low pressure (below 1 bar as in original experiments) to maximise interaction Ni-H

    4) use of undisclosed catalyst compounds to maximise rate and stability of the Ni-H reaction process

    Are the above points 1 to 4 correct?

    Thank you
    Ing. Carlo Ombello

  • [...] here and here are  explanation of the probable mechanism of the [...]

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Dr Gillis HRG:
    I do not know which one reacts fastest.
    Interesting the other suggestions.
    Warm Rgards,
    A.R.

  • HRG

    Dr. Rossi:
    Thank you for taking so much of your time to answer questions.
    Are you reasonably certain that both Ni62 and Ni64 are indeed reacting? If so; which one reacts fastest?
    I would also like to ask your opinion about a possible experiment to conclusively determine if the hydrogen is reacting as a “neutron-like” or “proton-like” species:
    There are a number of nuclei that have much higher neutron capture cross sections (for slow neutrons) than either Ni62 or Ni64. These include B10, Cd, and Hf. Other nuclei, such as B11, have a strong affinity for protons but not for neutrons. Reactions of these nuclei give off radiation that would clearly indicate the type of reaction. For example; B10 reacts with neutrons to form Li7 and an alpha, while B11 can react with a proton to form three alphas. Would it be reasonable to prepare a sample of the nickel fuel that is intimately mixed (ie. doped or alloyed into the Ni crystal structure) with minor amounts of these “indicator elements” and then look for their reaction products when the fuel sample is burned? I think it might be very useful if there are conditions under which the reactive intermediates generated by the nickel fuel particles can be “trapped”. It would be useful in order to learn about the nature of the reactive intermediate, and if they can be used to drive other nuclear reactions.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Mattias Carlsson:
    Yes, we do.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Dolci:
    I thank you for your enthusiasm: I convert the energy of your enthusiasm in work.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • A. Dolci

    I’m so enthusiast of this discovery that I find unbelivable that the newspapers don’t give to the cold fusion the due importance. Rossi and Focardi are already in the history of mankind and we are wasting time reading of libyan riots or japan nuclear problems. Mankind has found the way to obtain free power for thousands years and nobody cares, maybe because it ought to be a nobel prize or a big famous institute or university to discover it. But we have to remember Popper or Cristoforo Colombo to understand that facts are more than theory. I’m happy to live in this time to witness a such triumph of human mind. Dear Rossi and Focardi thankyou , and thankyou to the ALMA MATER STUDIORUM.
    Regards,
    A.D.

  • Mattias Carlsson

    Dear Rossi,

    As I understand from your answers you confirm or suspect that only Ni 62 and Ni 64 react to produce Cu 63 and Cu 65 respectively.

    The Swedish professor Kullander says in the magazine “Ny teknik” that in the ‘spent’ fuel there is 10% copper 63 and 65 (70:30) and 11% iron.

    Since nickel 62 and 64 is present in the proportions of 3.6% and 0.9% totaling 4.5% in normal natural nickel. Did you enrich for heavier nickel isotopes to make the nickel fuel?

    Best regards
    Mattias Uppsala Sweden

  • Dear Dr. Rossi,

    I greatly appreciate your approach of making it work and then finding the theory to explain it later. I am also very hands on. I have been working in Industry for a quarter of a century in energy and environmental engineering but I am not a Dr. I earned my B.S. degrees in Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering at U.C. Davis. I spend a lot of time looking for new technology to apply to real world issues.

    Keep up the good work and I will be looking to find applications for your technology as more is learned and revealed.

    Best Regards

    Phil Newell

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Dr Phillip Newell:
    I am not able to answer to your question, I never used argon as a coolant. I can make an experiment. I think anyway that this tech is not ready for a VASIMR application, due to the speed of reaction, which is too low. But maybe I am wrong, I have not experience in this field.
    As you know, my policy is not theorize and get convinced the theory is right, but work, make experience and when you get real results make a theory based upon the results. I lack of the experience to answer .
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Dear Dr. Rossi,

    Could you use argon as the heat transfer media in your reactor? If so it could greatly boost the efficiency of a Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket (VASIMR).

    Best Regards

    Phil Newell

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Ed Pell:
    I have experimented that we have 62 and 65 Ni reaction. H alone doesn’t react.
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear “HRG”:
    My process has nothing to do with Widom Larsen Theory. Nothing at all, as you will see when we will publish our theory together with the presentation of our 1 MW plant in Greece in October.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • HRG

    Dr. Rossi:
    Based on my limited understanding of Widom-Larsen theory (as described in US Pat. No. 7893414) it appears to me that the long term success of your endeavor may depend on the ability to reproducibly make nano-scale metal particulates (ie. nano-nickel powders). In that regard; consider, if you have not done so already, the “Rieke metals”. These are NOT to be confused with Raney nickel. Rieke metals are metal particulates made by chemical reduction of metal compounds. The resulting metal particles may be of nanometer size or lower. There is a company called RIEKE METALS INC. that may be useful. It is my understanding they make and use Rieke metals as intermediates for production of organo-metallic compounds. They might be able to produce custom “Rieke nickel” particulate for you. Otherwise; procedures for making these finely reduced metal particulates are known in the chemical literature.

  • Ed Pell

    Do we have a reason to believe that the nickel is being converted to Cu? Could the reaction be the hydrogen alone (though facilitated by the nickel lattice)?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Dr Joseph Fine:
    As usually, you pose an intriguing issue. Maybe you are right.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Joseph Fine

    This discussion has focused solely on mini-atoms of Hydrogen – also called neutroids (by Santilli) or Hypoles by Jacques Dufour. Could other elements form neutral miniatoms? That is, could lighter elements form miniatoms that would be metastable, appear relatively neutral and thereby overcome the Coulomb barrier?

    However briefly they might exist, mini-Lithium, mini-Carbon, mini-Nitrogen might last long enough to transmute elements lighter than Nickel to become Copper or Zinc.

    J.F.

  • Dear Dr. Rossi,

    In addition to Professor Braun’s work on self assembly of electrodes yesterdays 241st meeting of the American Chemical Society (ACS) in Anaheim, California reported some work done by Dr. Amy Prieto also working on 3-D electrodes.

    Best Regards

    Phil Newell

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Eng. Phillip Newell:
    Good insight. We are working on those issues. We are studying.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Dear Dr. Rossi,

    First I would like to say congratulations on your achievement. I have been waiting for 22 years for someone to find a way to consistently repeat LENR reactions.

    I would also like to ask the Following:

    1.) Have you considered using isotopic pure Ni-62 or Ni-64 powder in your design, and if you did would you have to use less than 10 grams of powder to avoid potential overheating or runaway reactions?

    2.) Also have you considered using Professor Paul Braun’s (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign)technique of nanoscopic self assembly in maximizing your 3-d surface of your reactant?

    Thanks and Best Regards

    Phil Newell

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr “HRG”:
    Correct.
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

  • HRG

    Dr. Saggese:
    If neutron capture is the correct explanation, as you suggest, then the slow neutron capture cross section for Ni62 and/or Ni64 would have to be much higher than that of Ni58 and Ni60, or else there would be conflict with other observations noted by Dr. Rossi. Does anyone know how those cross section values compare??

  • Paolo Saggese

    I was wondering: couldn’t it be that rather than a direct Ni+p -> Cu nuclear fusion (which appear rather unlikely due to the potential barrier) this is rather an “indirect” process?

    Let say an electron capture on the interstitial hydrogen proton. The produced neutron then can be captured by the Ni nuclei, starting a decay chain.

    (if this can be the case, I guess that the “secret additive” may be a neutron moderator or some other mean to ease the neutron capture by Ni nuclei, thus increasing the efficiency of the reaction).

  • Joseph Fine

    This appears to be the working link for “Energy Plans that add up.” (contributed by Brian Josephson).

    http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/wiki/sustainable/en/index.php/Energy_Plans_that_Add_Up

    Joseph Fine

  • Joseph Fine

    This is the Wikipedia link (as of now) to the Energy Catalyzer.

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

    J.F.

  • P.G.Sharrow

    Andrea Rossi; I find the composition of your fuel material most interesting, very good sir. Now I will think about the fuel element construction. A friend. pg

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Prof. Gillis HRG,
    I think that it is caused from the major number of nuclear links on the surface of the 62 and 64 isotopes, which also could be the reason why 63 and 65 Cu isotopes are stable.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • HRG

    Dr. Rossi
    What do you think is unique about Ni62 and/or Ni64 which makes it (them) more highly reactive with protons than the other (major) natural isotopes?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Prof. Kowalski:
    I agree.
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

  • Dear Andrea,

    (1) You wrote: “After the experience we made at the beginning, we worked on the powders, so that only Ni 62 and 64 react. As a matter of fact, after a couple of hours we do not find radioactivity inside the powders; of course, for safety reasons, in the manuals we demand that the powders are discharged the day after, but during our experiments that’s what we found. Nevertheless, Ni + p is not the sole source of energy, in this you are perfectly right. When we will present our 1MW plant in October we will also disclose the theory that at this point we have understood.”

    (2) Disagreements about interpretations should not distract you from what is the most important at this time–convincing others that excess heat is indeed produced, at very high rate, when your reactor is operating. Nothing is more convincing than independently confirmed experimental facts.

    (3) Your statement in (1) is not totally clear to me. Are you saying that other isotopes of nickel, such as the most common Ni-58 and Ni-60, do not fuse with protons? That would mean that your catalysts do not affect other isotopes. Do you agree?

    Ludwik

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Prof. Kowalski:
    After the experience we made at the beginning, we worked on the powders, so that only Ni 62 and 64 react. As a matter of fact, after a couple of hours we do not find radioactivity inside the powders; of course, for safety reasons, in the manuals we demand that the powders are discharged the day after, but during our experiments that’s what we found. Nevertheless, Ni + p is not the sole source of energy, in this you are perfectly right. When we will present our 1MW plant in October we will also disclose the theory that at this point we have understood.
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

  • Dear Andrea,

    Your spent fuel, after producing heat at the rate of 12 KW (in a prolonged steady state operation) was removed from the container, one hour after the reactor was shot down. You reported that the fuel was not at all radioactive.

    That puzzles me. This experimental fact is not consistent with what I would expect from the p+Ni fusion. Here is my reasoning:

    The dominant isotopes in your fuel are Ni-58 (68%) and Ni-60 (23%). By absorbing protons they produce radioactive Cu-59 and Cu-61, as you explained clearly in one of the articles. I can understand why radioactivity from Cu-59 is negligible after one hour of waiting–its half life is only 1.3 min. But the half life of Cu-61 is 3.3 hours; it should still be very radioactive, after only one hour of waiting. Doesn’t this indicate that the p+Ni fusion is not a mechanism by which thermal energy is produced in your reactor?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Prof. Kowalski:
    I agree,
    Warm regsrds,
    A.R.

  • Ludwik wrote “Thank you for information about the mass of the powder. Your power density 120 W/gram is probably higher (?) than in a fission reactor.”

    Andrea wrote: ” I do not know the power density of a fission reactor, I am not able to answer.”
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    According to a table at:

    http://www-pub.iaea.org/mtcd/publications/pdf/te_1544_web.pdf

    the fuel weight of the reactor can be as large as 350 tons (mass=3.5*10^8 grams).

    A very large reactor generates electric energy at the rate of 1000 MW (~3000 MW for thermal energy).

    Dividing the 3000 MW by 350 tons one finds the power density of ~10 W/g. The power density in Rossi’s reactor is about ten times higher.

    But we need a nuclear engineer to confirm this.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Prof. Kowalski:
    1: I do not know the power density of a fission reactor, I am not able to answer
    2- a: a slight higher percentage of 63-Cu, but numbers are not constant
    2-b: Sorry, this datum is confidential.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Thank you, Prof. Fine.
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Alan Silverman:
    Tha radiations are not detected OUTSIDE the apparatus. Inside the apparatus we have the radiations which are thermalized.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Alan Silverman

    Not a physicist, but very curious about this result. Do the isotope-ratio mass spectrometric results of input Ni and product Ni+Cu agree with the calorimetry? Would be nice to see that reported. The rifle-shot accuracy of fusing only 62Ni and 64Ni, representing under 5% of total Ni, to make 63Cu and 65Cu, all of which are stable, when so many other isotopes of each are unstable, is amazing. No radiation whatever is detected during the fusion reaction?

  • Joseph Fine

    Sherlock Holmes said “It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

    If you want an Energy ‘Cat’ to purr, and you have an insufficient quantity of the right Nickel isotopes (e.g. Ni-62 and Ni-64), it is ‘Elementary” that you have to create them out of something else.

    Congratulations on starting work with your second customer. Good Luck and good skill!

    My thanks, also, for reminding us that today is the anniversary of the initial announcement by Fleischmann and Pons.

    J.F.

  • Dear Andrea Rossi,

    1) Thank you for information about the mass of the powder. Your power density 120 W/gram is probably higher (?) than in a fission reactor element.

    2) Ludwik wrote: ” HRG asked for the data on the isotopic composition of Ni and Cu in spent fuel. I am also waiting for the answer.”

    Andrea responded Cu is 63 and 65. Ni is…( he,he,he…)”

    a) Are you saying, in the first half of the answer, that you had 69% of Cu-63 and 31% of Cu-65, as in natural copper?

    b) What were the isotopic percentages of nickel in spent fuel?

    Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
    Professor Emeritus
    Montclair State University, USA

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Prof. Ludwik Kowalski:
    1- Very good question, Professor: from my side, I cannot give information about the treatment we make with the Ni powders, but from your side, if you analyze carefully your question, it contains the answer.
    2- Cu is 63 and 65. Ni is…( he,he,he…)
    3- The average charge is around 100 g
    Thank you very much, Prof. Kowalski, for the great job you made in your life as a professor and as a fighter for freedom. And thank you for your very kind attention,
    Warm Regards,
    Andrea Rossi

  • Andrea Rossi wrote (see above, that “the isotopes which are turned into copper are the 62 and 64 Ni.”

    1) Yes, the 63Cu and 65Cu, if produced from fusion of protons with 62Ni and 64Ni, would be stable. But natural abundancies of these isotopes of nickel, 3.7% and 1.8%, respectively, are too low to be consistent with the claimed accumulation of 30% of copper. Do you agree, Andrea Rossi?

    2) HRG asked for the data on the isotopic composition of Ni and Cu in spent fuel. I am also waiting for the answer.

    3) I also would like to know the approximate mass of nickel powder in the 12 kW reactor demonstrated in January.

    Thank you in advance. And good luck. The world is waiting for clean, and less expensive, nuclear energy.

    Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
    Professor Emeritus
    Montclair State University, USA

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Gillis:
    Thank you for your very good question.
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

  • HRG

    Dr. Rossi;
    Then it looks to me like you are concentrating one or more of the relatively heavy (and rare) Ni isotopes? That would explain a lot of questions I have been having, and also would explain the long time frame (October) for the 1 MW commercial plant. Thanks for your response.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Gillis:
    As a matter of fact we never found radioactive waste left after the operation, when we take out the used powders. This is due to the fact that the isotopes which are turned into copper are the 62 and 64 Ni. In thousands of tests we never found radioactive residuals. We take off the powders the day after the turn off.
    Good question.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • HRG

    It seems to me that if Ni58 is reacting, whether by way of proton capture or “pseudo neutron” capture, you ultimately end up with Ni59. Ni59 is radioactive and has a long half life. This does not seem to be consistent with the observation of no residual radioactivity (one day after shutdown). Ni58 is the bulk of ordinary Ni. Do you have any observational data (such as mass spec on the residues of the reaction) that would indicate Ni58 is NOT reacting?

  • Joseph Fine

    A. Di Stefano,

    Thank you very much for sending me the link to Prof. Cardone’s paper.

    World events may call for a shift from Nuc-le-ar to “Nick-le-ar” energy.

    How ironic if Low Energy or Weak Nuclear Reactions (LENR) are the source of the heat which is the driving force of plate tectonics, volcanoes and earthquakes. (Also, the Earth’s magnetic field.)

    J.F.

  • A. Di Stefano

    Dear Dr Fine,
    your considerations about possible LENR reactions in the Earth’s core or even in the mantle/crust may find some confirmation in these papers from prof. Cardone et al. about piezonuclear reactions:
    http://arxiv.org/find/grp_physics/1/au:+cardone_f/0/1/0/all/0/1
    It seems that just crushing a marble block containing iron impurities could produce free neutrons. These suggests that low energy transmutation could be a very common and widespread geological phenomenon!

    Regards,
    A.D.

Leave a Reply

 

 

 

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>