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.

JANUARY 15th FOCARDI AND ROSSI PRESS CONFERENCE

Energy Catalyzer first test videos – January 14th 2011 – Bologna-Italy

Energy Catalyzer Bologna University Test 1/3

Energy Catalyzer Bologna University Test 2/3

Energy Catalyzer Bologna University Test 3/3

Today, Saturday january 15th, at 10:00 AM Sergio Focardi and Andrea Rossi will be on-line for the press conference with Journal’s readers.

The press conference will start at 10 a.m. Italian Time.
To put questions, you will have to send your inquiry as a comment of this post, you will receive the answer in real time online.

Warm Regards,

The Board Of Advisers of the Journal Of Nuclear Physics

1,200 comments to JANUARY 15th FOCARDI AND ROSSI PRESS CONFERENCE

  • [...] en sesión pública en la Universidad de Bolonia, donde todos los asistentes quedaron atónitos. El Test ha sido un éxito y de hecho, la revista Journal of Nuclear Physics ha publicado los Tests y… Todo ello rodeado de un sospechoso escepticismo que rozaba la incredulidad [...]

  • [...] fusion reactor capable of producing a few kilowatts of thermal energy.  At its peak, it is capable of generating 15,000 watts with just 400 watts input required.  On Saturday, a forum was opened [...]

  • DailyPaul

    Patent application

    Re: METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CARRYING OUT NICKEL AND HYDROGEN EXOTHERMAL REACTIONS Quote

    WO 2009125444 20091015
    METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CARRYING OUT NICKEL AND HYDROGEN EXOTHERMAL REACTIONS
    BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
    The present invention relates to a method and apparatus for carrying out nickel and hydrogen exothermal reactions, and has been stimulated by the well known requirement of finding energy sources alternative to fossil sources, to prevent atmospheric carbon dioxi.de contents from being unnecessarily increased.
    For meeting the above need non polluting energy sources should be found which do not involve health risks, are economically competitive with respect to oil sources susceptible to be easily discovered and exploited and naturally abundant.
    Many of the above alternative energy sources have already been explored and operatively tested even on an industrial scale, and comprise biomasses, solar energy used both for heating and photovoltaic electric generation purposes, aeolian energy, fuel materials of vegetable or agricultural nature, geothermal and sea wave energy and so on. A possible alternative to natural oil, is the uranium-fission nuclear energy. However, yet unresolved problems affect nuclear energy such as great safety and waste material processing problems, since, as is well known, radioactive waste materials remain dangerously active for thousands or millions of years, with consequent great risks for persons living near radioactive waste disposal-off places.
    To the above the fact should also be added that, at present, a, nuclear fusion based on a laser actuated inertial confining method does not allow to make efficient power systems. The above drawbacks are also true for deuterium- tritium fusion processes, as shown by the operating times estimated for the ITER project, which should within the year 2025 should allow to construct power systems according to the so-called DEMO project to make, within the year 2035, the first fusion power station.
    In fact, up to now, the so-called “cold” fusion, after an early announcement by Fleischmann and Pons in 1989 (M. Fleischmann, M. Hawkins, S. Pons: Journal Electroanal. Chem. , 261,301-1989), notwithstanding several exploiting attempts on a world-wise scale, has not provided useful and reliable systems capable of generating energy for normal, industrial or domestic applications . The most intelligent work performed in the fusion field, which work has been accurately studied by the present inventor for practicing his invention, is a study of Prof. Sergio Focardi, (Dipartimento di Fisica dell’ Univerita di Bologna), and Prof. Francesco Piantelli, (Dipartimento di Fisica dell’ Universita di Siena) as disclosed in the following bibliographic documents :
    S. Focardi, F. Piantelli: Produzione di energia e reazioni nucleari in sistemi Ni-H a 4000C, Atti della Conferenza Nazionale sulla politica energetica in Italia, Universita di Bologna, 18-19 aprile 2005.
    - S. Focardi, R. Habel, F. Piantelli: Anomalous heat production in Ni-H systems, Nuovo Cimento Vol. 107, pp 163-167, 1994
    - S. Focardi, V. Gabbiani, V. Montalbano, F. Piantelli, S. Veronesi: Large excess in heat production in Ni-H systems, Nuovo Cimento Vol. Ill A pp. 1233- 1241, 1998
    A. Battaglia, L. Daddi, S. Focardi, V. Gabbiani, V. Montalbano, F. Piantelli, P. G. Sona, S. Veronesi: Neutron emission in Ni-H systems, Nuovo Cimento Vol. 112 A pp 921-931, 1999
    - S. Focardi, V. Gabbiani, V. Montalbano. F. Piantelli, S. Veronesi: On the Ni-H systems, Asti Workshop in Hydrogeldeuterium loaded metals, pp 35-47, 1997
    E.G. Campari, S. Focardi, V. Gabbiani, V. Montalbano. F. Piantelli, E. Porcu, E. Tosti, S. Veronesi: Ni-H systems, Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Cold Fusion, pp 69-74, 2000. The present inventor, moreover, has also accurately studies the following related patents: US- 6,236,225, US-5, 122, 054, US-H466, US-4, 014 , 168 , US-’ 5,552,155, US-5, 195, 157, US-4 , 782, 303, US-4, 341, 730, US-A-20010024789. An analysis of the above mentioned references shows that :
    1- all experiments performed based on cold fusion have not permitted to generate power in such an amount to be reliably and constantly exploited in industrial applications;
    2- all the uranium based methods and systems have not up to now solved the problem of safely
    disposing of nuclear waste materials;
    3- all the nuclear fusion based methods and systems have not been shown as capable of generating significative amounts of energy while allowing the fusion process to be safely monitored;
    4- all the magnetic and inertial confining based methods and systems, such as the plasma fusion method, cannot be properly economically managed; and
    5- the catalyzed fusion of negative muons based methods and systems cannot be used because of the muon short life.
    SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
    Accordingly, the aim of the present invention is to provide a method allowing to produce energy in an economic, convenient, reliable and repetitive manner, without generating radiations and radioactive waste materials . Within the scope of the above mentioned aim, a main object of the invention is to provide such a method which can be carried out in small size systems, adapted to be easily controlled and allowing to heat individual places at an operating cost less than that of commercially available heating systems.
    According to one aspect of the present invention, the above mentioned aim and objects, as well as yet other objects, which will become more apparent hereinafter, are achieved by a method and apparatus for carrying out a highly efficient exothermal reaction between nickel atoms and hydrogen atoms, in a tube, preferably, though not exclusively made of a metal,
    filled by a nickel powder and heated to a high temperature preferably, though not necessarily, from 150 to 5000C, by injecting hydrogen into said metal tube said nickel powder being pressurized, preferably, though not necessarily, to a pressure from 2 to 20 bars .
    In applicant exothermal reaction the hydrogen nuclei, due to a high absorbing capability of nickel therefor, are compressed about the metal atom nuclei, while said high temperature generates internuclear percussions w,hich are made stronger by the catalytic action of optional elements, thereby triggering a capture of a proton by the nickel powder, with a conseguent transformation of nickel to copper and a beta+ decay of the latter to a nickel nucleus having a mass which is by an unit larger than that of the starting nickel.
    The present inventor believes that in this reaction is possibly involved a capture of a proton by a nickel nucleus which is transformed into a copper nucleus with a consequent beta decay of the formed unstable copper (Cu 59 – 64) since the produced thermal energy is larger, as it will be thereinafter demonstrated, than the energy introduced by the electric resistance.
    It is believed that the nickel nuclei are transformed to copper since the mass (energy) of the final status (copper isotope) is less than the overall mass (energy) of the starting status (nickel isotope + proton) .
    The exothermal reaction thereon Applicant’s invention is based differs from those adopted by prior
    searchers since the inventor has not tried to demonstrate .an emission of elementary particles supporting a validity of a theory, but he has exclusively tried to provide an amount of energy larger than the consumed energy amount, to just achieve a practical method and apparatus for generating an energy amount larger than the consumed energy, and this by exploiting nuclear energy generating processes starting from electrochemical energy. Thus, the inventive apparatus has been specifically designed for producing the above mentioned energy in a reliable, easily controllable, safe, repeatable manner, for any desired applications.
    In particular, the inventive apparatus is coated by boron layers and lead plates both for restraining noxious radiations and transforming them into energy, without generating residue radiations and radioactive materials .
    In this connection it is pointed out that all prior attempts to generate like types of energy, have brought to small energy amounts generating prototypes not suitable for a safe industrial use, because of the theoretical nature of the performed searches.
    SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
    Thus, the aim of the present invention is to provide an energy generating apparatus adapted to operate in a reliable and repeatable manner and including a plurality of series and parallel connectable apparatus modules, thereby generating an impressively high energy amount by so bombarding a
    nickel atom by a hydrogen atom, to provide a large atomic mass loss copper atom to be transformed into energy, based on the Einstein’ s equation, plus a beta decay energy of the radioactive copper atoms. The following discussion may be considered as valid for some (radioactive) Cu isotopes, but not for the two stable copper isotopes (Λ63Cu and Λ65Cu) which do not decay.
    As the copper atom decays, an energy emitting positive beta decay occurs, according to the following equations:
    P = N+ e+ + v, where
    P = proton N = neutron
    E+ = positron v = neutrino
    The positron forms the electron antiparticle, and hence, as positrons impact against the nickel electrons, the electron-positron pairs are annihilated, thereby generating a huge amount of energy.
    In fact, few grams of Ni and H would produce an energy amount equivalent to that of thousands oil tons, as it will become more apparent hereinafter, without pollutions, greenhouse effects, or carbon dioxide increases, nuclear and other waste materials, since the radioactive copper isotopes produced in the process will decay to stable nickel isotopes by beta + processes, in a very short time. For clearly understanding the following detailed discussion of the apparatus, it is necessary to at first consider that for allowing nickel to be
    transformed into stable copper, it is necessary to respect the. quantic laws. Accordingly, it is indispensable to use, for the above mentioned exothermal reactions, a nickel isotope having a mass number of 62, to allow it to transform into a stable copper isotope 62. All the other Ni isotopes, on the other hand, will generate unstable Cu, and, accordingly, a beta decay.
    Considering that about 106 tons nickel for year are produced through the world and since, as it will be disclosed hereinafter in Table 1, 1 g nickel would generate an energy amount equivalent to that produced by 517 tons oil, thus the yearly produced nickel amount, assuming that only 1/10,000 generates nuclear processes, will provide
    1,000,000,000,000*517/10000 = 51,700,000,000 (oil equivalent) ton per year.
    And this without considering the fact that the yearly nickel production could be easily increased, depending on demand, and that, like mineral oil, nickel can be recovered and remelted from nickel scraps of steelwork and electronic applications.
    Actually, nickel is one of the most abundant metals of the Earth crust.
    BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
    Further characteristics and advantages of the present invention will become more apparent hereinafter from the following detailed disclosure of a preferred, though not exclusive, embodiment of the invention, which is illustrated, by way of an indicative, but not
    limitative, example, in the accompanying drawings, where:
    Figure 1 is a constructional diagram of the apparatus according to the present invention; Figure 2 is a picture, taken by a 1.400 x electronic microscope, showing the nickel powder (on a 1.400 x scale), withdrawn by the apparatus;
    Figures 3 and 4 are electronic microscope diagrams related to the powder atomic composition, at the two points shown by the arrows in figure 2.
    DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT
    With reference to the number references of the above mentioned figures, the apparatus according to the present invention comprises an electric resistance 1, enclosed in a metal tube 2, further including therein a nickel powder 3.
    A solenoid valve 4 adjusts the pressure under which hydrogen 5 is introduced into the metal tube.
    Both the temperature generated by the electric resistance or resistor and the hydrogen injection pressure can be easily adjusted either to constant or pulsating values. More specifically, the electric resistance, or other heat source, is switched off as the exothermal reaction generating energizing status is triggered. A thermostat will hold said heat source operating, depending on the temperature in the circuit. The assembly comprising said electric resistance and nickel holding copper tube is shielded from the outer environment by using, respectively from the
    inside to the outside: a) a jacket 7 including water and boron, or only boron b) a further lead jacket 8, which, optionally, though not necessarily, may be coated by a steel layer
    9.
    The above mentioned coatings are so designed as to restrain all radiations emitted by the exothermal reaction and transform said radiation into thermal energy.
    The heat generated by the particle decay and nuclear transformations will heat the primary fluid, comprising borated water, thereby said primary fluid, in turn, will exchange heat with the secondary circuit, in turn heated by said primary fluid and conveying the produced thermal energy to desired applications, such as electric power, heating, mechanical energy, and so on.
    In the absence of a primary fluid, the fluid to be heated will exchange heat directly with the lead and steel jacket.
    According to a further embodiment of the invention, the apparatus further comprises the following features. Nickel is coated in a copper tube 100, including a heating electric resistance 101, adjusted and controlled by a controlling thermostat (not shown) adapted to switch off said resistance 101 as nickel is activated by hydrogen contained in a bottle 107. A first steel-boron armored construction 102, coated by a second lead armored construction 103, protect both the copper tube, the hydrogen bottle
    connection assembly 106, and the hydrogen bottle or cylinder 107 , thereby restraining radiations through the overall radiation life, allowing said radiations to be transformed into thermal energy. On the outside of the lead armored construction, the copper reactor cooling water, circulates through a steel outer pipe assembly 105, and this conveyed to thermal energy using devices.
    The above disclosed prototype can also be used as a heating module which, in a series and/or parallel coupling relationship with other like modules, will provide a basic core desired size and power heating systems .
    A practical embodiment of the inventive apparatus, installed on October 16, 2007, is at present perfectly operating 24 hours per day, and provides an amount of heat sufficient to heat the factory of the
    Company EON of via Carlo Ragazzi 18, at Bondeno
    (Province of Ferrara) . For better understanding the invention, the main components of the above mentioned apparatus have been schematically shown in Table 2.
    The above mentioned apparatus, which has not been yet publicly disclosed, has demonstrated that, for a proper operation, the hydrogen injection must be carried out under a variable pressure.
    The electric resistance temperature controlling thermostat has been designed to switch off said electric resistance after 3-4 hours of operation, thereby providing self-supplied system, continuously emitting thermal energy in an amount larger than that initially generated by said electric resistance, which
    mode of operation is actually achieved by an exothermal reaction.
    As it will be shown in a detailed manner in the following Table 1, it is possible to calculate that, supposing a full transformation, a mole, that is 58 g nickel, generate the same amount of energy obtained by burning about 30,000 tons of oil.
    Figures 2-5 show data measured on January 30, 2008 which basically demonstrate that the invention actually provides a true nuclear cold fusion.
    The photo of figure 2 , ( obtained by a 1.400 x electronic microscope) shows the nickel powder on a 1.400 x scale, as withdrawn from the apparatus: in particular said photo clearly shows the flake granules, greatly promoting an absorption of the hydrogen atoms by the nickel nuclei.
    The two arrows in the figure show the two positions of the powder sample thereon the electronic microscope tests for detecting the powder atomic composition have been carried out.
    The two graphs of figures 3 and 4 have been made by the electronic microscope of Dipartimento di Fisica dell’ Universita di Bologna, under the supervision of Prof. Sergio Focardi, on January 30, 2008, and are related to the powder atomic composition at the two above points of figure 2.
    In particular, said graphs clearly show that zinc is formed, whereas zinc was not present in the nickel powder originally loaded into the apparatus said zinc being actually generated by a fusion of a nickel atom and two hydrogen atoms .
    This demonstrates that, in addition to fusion,
    the inventive reaction also provides a nickel nucleus fission phenomenon generating lighter stable atoms.
    Moreover, it has been found that, after having generated energy the used powders contained both copper and lighter than nickel atoms (such as sulphur, chlorine, potassium, calcium) .
    This demonstrate that, in addition to fusion, also a nickel nucleus fission phenomenon generating lighter stable atoms occurs. It has been found that the invention fully achieves the intended aim and objects.
    TABLE 1
    Determining the energy produced by a nickel mol.
    1 nickel mol = 58 g
    Avogadro number 6.022 x 1023 mol”1 = number of nickel atoms in 58 g nickel.
    The energy generated in each hydrogen capture process has been evaluated (for each nickel isotope) from the difference between the initial mass (nickel + hydrogen) and the reaction end product mass.
    A reasonable estimate, considering the different values for the different isotopes, is 10 MeV electron (a MeV corresponds to a million electron-volts and is the energy measuring unit, as conventionally used in nuclear physics) .
    Since 1 Mev is equivalent to a variation of mass of 1.78 x 10″30 kg, the mass variation corresponding to an energy emission of 10 Mev is 1.78 x 10″29 kg.
    The mass loss corresponding to a transformation of an entire Ni mol can be calculated by multiplying
    the Avogadro number (6.022 x 1023) time the mass variation of the single reaction.
    Thus is obtained (for 58 g Ni)
    M= (6.022 x 1023) x 1.78 x 10~29 kg=1.07 x 10″5 kg From the Einstein equation we have
    E = me2 where c is the light speed c = 3 x 108 m/s .
    Thus, by replacing:
    J=I.07 x 10″5 x (3 x 108)2 = 9.63 x 1011 J which can be approximated to 0.3 x 109 kcal (which can be approximated by defect to reserve) .
    This is an energy equivalent to about 30,000 ton oil considering a pci of 10,000 kcal/kg for mineral oil; thus, 58 g nickel will generate the same energy as that provided by 30,000 ton oil, that is 517 tons/gram.
    TABLE 2
    List of materials used for making prototypes for experimentally testing the inventive apparatus Electric resistance: Frei, Brescia Thermoadjuster: Pic 16- cod. 1705- Frei Lead shields: Picchi Srl-Brugherio (Milan) Hydrogen: Linde Gas Italia, Arluno (Milan) Pressure reducer: Linde Gas Italia
    Powder nickel: Gerli Metalli – Milan Boron: Danilo Dell’Amore SrI- Bologna Copper tube: Italchimici- Antezzate (Brescia) Laser beam temperature measuring device: Raytheon, USA
    Pressure gauge: Elaborazione – Dipartimento di Fisica – Universita degli Studi di Bologna
    Neutron measuring device: Elaborazione Dipartimento di Fisica – Universita degli Studi di Bologna
    Chemical-physical analyses: – Dipartimento di Fisica – Universita degli Studi Bologna.

  • curbina

    Dear Dr. Rossi, did Dr. Levi’s report got delayed?

    I assume we are all waiting for it.

    Best Regards.

  • E. L. Flanagan

    This responds to the e-mails by A. D. Klein on January 23 asserting that the current work in this field, “remains experiential based, not analytical, so the likelyhood of an invention / patent is very small.”

    I recently retired after 35 years practicing as a patent attorney. Klein’s assertion is utterly baseless. There is no requirement that a process be “analytical” in order to be patentable.

    One fact of life I have observed time and again: many who evidently have no expertise whatsoever are quite ready to express their opinions regarding the patentability of others’ work.

  • [...] last Saturday, the day after the demonstration, the scientists answered questions in an online forum, which has generated a few blog [...]

  • preliminary radiation and heat findings on two recent tests Dec 16 and Jan 14 on the same HNi fusion Rossi reactor by U. Bologna scientists, D Bianchini, G Levi: Rich Murray 2011.01.23

    http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/01/report-ufficiale-esperimento-della.html

    [ Rich Murray: minor typos and confusing language corrected -- see photos on the report ]

    Sunday, January 23, 2011
    Report official experiment in “cold fusion” reactor (Ni-H Rossi Focardi) – Bologna, 14/01/11 [ 2011.01.14 ]
    Eng. Andrea Rossi sent me today two reports of scientific experiments carried out on
    [ December 16 last year ] and January 14 this year,
    by researchers at the University of Bologna (Department of Physics – INFN).
    We explain below in the original version the time to translate it
    and then insert the text (also in Italian) the report of Dr. Joseph Levi.

    From this link you can download the report of Dr David Bianchini:

    http://www.22passi.it/downloads/TEST%20BO%20BIANCHINI%20RELAZ.pdf

    [ 6 page January 21, 2011 ]

    Experimental evaluation, for radiation protection purposes,
    of photon and neutron radiation fields
    during the public presentation of the prototype
    named “Energy Amplifier”

    ” CONCLUSIONS

    From the measures, it is shown that there is no evidence, within the bounds of the
    instruments presented herein, of meaningful differences in the measured values, compared to the background environmental radiation.

    Further:

    * The absence of a neutron field observable from the measured background does not allow a dosimetric analysis for comparison with the calibration values associated with the instrument.

    * The measured results are not dissimilar from the environmental background, both as average and as maximum values. ”

    Report on heat production during preliminary tests on the Rossi “Ni-H” reactor.

    Dr. Giuseppe Levi January 23, 2011

    This first and preliminary document reports the heat production measures during two short tests on
    December 16 2010 [Test 1] and
    January 14 2011 [Test 2].

    On December, 16 2010, I had the opportunity to test, for the first time, a prototype of the Rossi “Ni-H” reactor.
    A photograph of the apparatus used in both tests is shown in Fig .1, and a schematic is shown in Fig. 2.

    Fig. 1

    Fig. 2

    The Rossi Reactor prototype has a main horizontal cylindrical body ending with a vertical pipe.
    The H2 inlet was connected to a hydrogen bottle through no-return valves.
    There was no H2 outlet, aside from a small purge valve that was closed.
    Cables were connected to a control box, with 5 digital displays, that were, “controlling the power sent to the resistors inside the reactor”.
    Prudentially, I lifted the control box to search for any other possibly hidden cables, and found none.
    The weight of the control box was a few Kg.
    Two water pipes were connected to the system.
    Temperature was measured and logged by two NTC sensors.
    Another sensor, in the logger, measured the ambient temperature.
    Power from the 220V line was monitored and logged by a “WATTUP?” Pro Es power meter.

    Before igniting the reactor, the water flux was set and measured by collecting, and then weighing, an amount of water in a container in a given time.
    The measured flux was of 168 +/- 2 g in 45 +/- 0.1 s. [ about 3 cc/sec ]

    Then the power was turned on, and temperatures started to rise.
    In Fig. 3, there is a plot of the temperatures that appeared on the monitor during the test, taken from the start to just after the end of the test.

    Fig. 3

    The three lines refer to:
    (B) blue line: T1 water input temperature
    (Y) yellow line: T2 water (steam) output temperature
    (R) red line : ambient temperature

    As it can be seen the system was turned on just around 16.55.
    After about 30 minutes, a kink can be observed in the (Y cordinate).
    Because input power ( 1,120 W, also checked via a clamp amperometer ) was not modified (see Fig. 5 later), this change of slope testifies that the reactor had ignited.

    After a startup period about 20 minutes long, a period where the reactor power was almost constant, taking the water to ≈75 deg C, a second kink is found when the reactor fully ignites, raising the measured temperature to 101.6 +/-0.1 deg C and transforming the water into steam.

    At this point, we can try a simple calculation in order to evaluate the power produced.
    In order to raise the temperature of 168 g of water by 1 deg C, ≈ 168 * 4.185 = 703 J is needed.
    The water inlet temperature was 15 deg C, so the ΔT was 85 deg C.
    We have 703 * 85 = 59,755 J.
    At this energy, one must add the evaporation heat
    ≈2,272 J/g * 168 = 381,696 J.
    Total energy in 45 sec is 59,755 + 381,696 = 441,451 J, and so
    power is 441,451 / 45 = 9,810 W.

    Statistical experimental errors in power estimation, due mainly to flux measurements, can be conservatively estimated to within about 1.5%.
    In this case we have +/- 150 W.

    This result is only a lower limit of the energy produced. because the system was not completely isolated, and we have not taken into account any heat loss.
    From the calculation of the “produced power” when the water was at 75 deg C, which gives a result that is less than the electrical input power,
    it is easy to understand that this systematic under-estimation surely exceeds the statistical errors .

    Before ending [Test1], all the power was reduced and then switched off from the resistors, and also the hydrogen supply was closed.
    No pressure decrease was noted in the H2 bottle.

    Even in this condition, the system kept running self-sustaining for about 15 minutes, until it was decided to manually stop the reaction by cooling the reactor, by using a large water flux (note the decrease of the water input temperature).

    The main origin of possible errors in [Test1] measurement was that the steam was not checked to be completely dry.

    During [Test2 ], this measure was done by Dr. Galantini, a senior chemist who has used an “air quality monitor” instrument HD37AB1347 from Delta Ohm with a HP474AC probe.

    Also in [Test2], a high precision scale (0.1g) was used to weight the hydrogen bottle (13 Kg),
    before, 13,666.7 +/- 0.1 g and,
    after, 13,668.3 +/- 0.1 g, for this experiment.
    The cause of this unexpected rise in weight was traced to be a remnant piece of adhesive tape used to fasten the bottle during the experiment.
    After careful examination of the tape, the weight loss was evaluated to be <1g.

    This is far less than the expected weight loss due to chemical burning.
    In fact, 1g of H can produce (max) 285 KJ.

    In [Test2], the power measured was 12,686 +/- 211 W for about 40 min with a water flux 146.4g +/- 0.1 per 30 +/- 0.5 s.

    This means that 12,686 * 40 * 60 = 30,446 KJ was produced.
    Dividing this number by 285 KJ, a weight of 107 g is obtained, two orders of magnitude larger than the H consumption observed.

    As a prudential check, the reactor was lifted up to seek any possibly hidden power cord. None was found.

    During the test, the main resistor, used to ignite the reaction, failed due to defective welding.
    Even in that condition, the reactor successfully started operating, using the other resistors, but the duration of the experiment in full power (≈40 min) was “too short” to observe a self sustaining reaction.

    Fig. 4

    The temperatures recorded in [Test 2] are shown in Fig 4.
    Unfortunately, the original data has been lost, but the different evolution is evident.

    Fig. 5

    Fig. 5 Power absorbed during both tests, in Watts.
    The time abscissa has 15 min tics.
    [ small ] Spikes in [Test 1] are due to line voltage spikes.
    The anomalous behavior in [Test 2] is clear.
    The average power absorbed during [Test 2] is ≈1,022 W.

    Conclusions

    The amount of power and energy produced during both tests is indeed impressive, and, together with the self sustaining state reached during [Test 1], could be an indication that the system is working as a new type of energy source.
    The short duration of the tests suggests that it is important to try longer and more complete experiments.
    An appropriate scientific program will be planned.

  • Frank

    Worth keeping an eye on. Thanks for the reports

  • William

    In the final report there is no data on the energy output of the second test. This needs to be included.

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_nucleus

    Halo nucleus
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    In nuclear physics, an atomic nucleus is called a halo nucleus or is said to have a nuclear halo if its radius is appreciably larger than that predicted by the liquid drop model, wherein the nucleus is assumed to be a sphere of constant density.
    For a nucleus of mass number A, the radius r is (approximately)

    where is 1.2 fm.

    Typically, an atomic nucleus is a tightly bound group of protons and neutrons.
    However, in some isotopes there is an overabundance of one species of nucleon.
    In some of these cases, a nuclear core and a halo will form.

    Often, this property may be detected in scattering experiments which show the nucleus to be much larger than the otherwise expected value.
    Normally the cross section (corresponding to the classical radius) of the nucleus is proportional to the cube root of its mass.
    (This is the same relation as would be seen with a solid sphere.)

    One example of a halo nucleus is 11Li which has a half life of 8.6 ms.
    It decays into 11Be by the emission of an antineutrino and an electron. [1]
    Its cross-section of 3.16 fm is close to that of 32S, or even more impressively that of 208Pb, both much heavier nuclei.[2]
    It contains a core of 3 protons and 6 neutrons, and a halo of two independent and loosely bound neutrons.

    Nuclei which have a neutron halo include 11Be and 19C.

    A two-neutron halo is exhibited by 6He, 11Li, 17B, 19B and 22C.

    Two-neutron halo nuclei break into three fragments and are called Borromean because of this behavior.

    8He and 14Be both exhibit a four-neutron halo.

    Nuclei which have a proton halo include 8B and 26P.
    A two-proton halo is exhibited by 17Ne and 27S.
    Proton halos are expected to be more rare and unstable than the neutron examples, because of the repulsive forces of the excess proton(s).

    Halo nuclei form at the extreme edges of the chart of the nuclides — the neutron drip line and proton drip line — and have short half-lives, measured in milliseconds.
    These nuclei are studied shortly after their formation in an ion beam.
    Experimental confirmation of nuclear halos is recent and ongoing.
    Additional candidates are suspected.
    Several nuclides have a halo in the excited state but not in the ground state.

    [edit]List of known isotopes with nuclear halo

    Atomic
    number Name # of known isotopes
    with nuclear halo Nuclear halo
    isotopes
    2 helium 2 helium-6, helium-8
    3 lithium 1 lithium-11
    4 beryllium 2 beryllium-11, beryllium-14
    5 boron 3 boron-8, boron-17, boron-19
    6 carbon 2 carbon-19, carbon-22
    15 Phosphorus 1 phosphorus-26
    16 Sulfur 1 sulfur-27

    [edit]References

    ^ http://education.jlab.org/itselemental/iso003.html

    ^ http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/29077

    [edit]External links

    http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.2607

    http://www.uni-mainz.de/eng/13031.php

    http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-ex/0111001v2

    Categories: Nuclear physics

    This page was last modified on 16 January 2011 at 05:41.

  • from Jones Beene
    reply-to vortex-l@eskimo.com
    to vortex-l@eskimo.com
    date Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 7:50 AM
    subject [Vo]:Efimov – was: Chain Reaction and/or Self Sustain Mode
    7:50 AM (9 hours ago)

    The Efimov State, or Effect, goes back to1970 and has recently been in the News. The Efimov effect refers to a scenario in which three bosons interact as a unit – as a Borromean ring, and for that reason it may have strong relevance to LENR if it also turns out that there exists a Quasi-BEC aspect to the Rossi reaction. There is a cross-connection of Efimov to spillover, which will be included later. I’m introducing the general Efimov effect now in a revised formative hypothesis – which awaits confirmation of anomalous isotopes of copper being found in the reactor ash.

    A QBEC (quasi-BEC) has a short transitory lifetime at elevated temperature in the condensed state; but it is a useful lifetime as a boson, since it does not have to travel far in order interact. The probability of formation could be enhanced by Qubits, but that is another facet of the statistics, and is a work-in-process: having similar names is a start. As with all QM reactions, the problem is to enhance the probability to a useful level.

    In truth, a version of the P-e-P reaction as the main energy source is easier to imagine (resulting in deuterium), but since there is substantial copper, as Rossi indicates, then we must tailor the explanation to follow the experimental findings. That copper is not yet confirmed as being of nuclear origin, but this does not prevent us from assuming that it will be, instead of hoping that there is something else which is easier to explain.

    Importantly, a similar QM phenomena to Efimov is observed in halo-nuclei. (Halo nuclei could be seen as special Efimov states). In fact, if nickel is ever shown to have a halo nucleus, then the decay to copper “fits like a glove” and would be the one piece of needed evidence which will instantly convert all of this wild speculation into a viable if not strong hypothesis (‘halo-nuclei’ is a new field, so there is hope that nickel will be included):

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

    Efimov predicts a series of excited three-body energy levels when two-body states are exactly at the dissociation threshold.
    For this to fit the Rossi experiment, we need many cavities or interstitial spaces which are filled with three unbound hydrogen atoms, which is the composite boson.
    These three bound atoms are always at a dissociation threshold because they “want” to form H2 molecules instead, but the confinement conditions do not allow it.

    Single H is arguably the only boson in nature which can be stable at elevated temperature, since the statistics of having only two fermions (to match) make the statistics remotely possible, in the sense of fermions being able to condense, after going bosonic “on occasion”.

    In a previous post, it was suggest that randomly selected protons could be accelerated from moderately cold to very hot without most of the rest getting appreciably hotter. An Efimov state will dispense with the need for hot hydrogen entirely.
    But as before, “pycno” clusters of dense hydrogen are needed, and each cluster consists of three bound hydrogen atoms, created by the spillover effect, which oscillate between the fermionic and bosonic identities in a transitory fashion inside a cavity.
    The pycno probably requires confinement, and its formation could be related to the Casimir effect.

    Most of the time, 99.999+ percent of the time, the identity of the hydrogen trio is fermionic, but every once in a while everything aligns as a transitory composite boson and they condenses momentarily.
    This condensation process can be described as deflation – so there is another aspect to it. While still condensed, the boson occasionally migrates to a nickel nucleus and forms a halo. The Borromean boson is neutral and only need to move angstrom distance to do this.
    The lifetime of the halo is also short.
    On decay, the nickel will occasionally go to copper and the other two hydrogen atoms go to molecular H2, and carry away most of the heat with some secondary radioactivity based on the acceleration gradient.

    To be continued … (hopefully with clearer wording) after the Monday announcement.

    Jones

    Is an emergent new “copper age” the same as “Back to the Future” ?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Cagliani:
    We will inform all our readers about this some day before.
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Jed Rothwell:
    Thermal.
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Moho,
    Thermal power,
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

  • Ivan Moho

    I think another user asked this before, but I have been unable to find an answer here.
    Will the powerplants be 1 MW of thermal power or electric power?

  • You wrote: “In any case, soon we will have operative reactors of 1 MW at work 24 hours per day.”

    Do you mean 1 MW electric power generator? Or a 1 MW steam generator, for factory process heat?

    I asked this before. Perhaps you answered but I do not see the answer.

    A 1 MW electric power generator needs ~3 MW of heat.

  • Aurelio Cagliani

    Dear Mr Andrea Rossi:
    I would like to know where and when will the next demo with reactors of 1 MW operative?
    Could you inform me?

    Warm regards,
    Aurelio Cagliani.

  • As a young government engineer working in laser and semiconductor R&D I was aware of the original Pons experiment. I recently retired as CTO of a large multibillion $ Aerospace company. They (Pons et al.) “DISCOVERED BUT DID NOT INVENT” the reaction. Their generation of excess energy, radioactivity and large energy spikes was an experimental accident. Now we are starting to see controlled experiments which generate radioactive materials and fusion like results BUT it remains experiential based, not analytical, so the likelyhood of an invention / patent is very small.
    This is very similar to the amazing natural cures for many diseases which we see in alternative medicine which are rejected by the medical establishment with $B or $T to lose.
    I have not seen the data BUT if the #s presented are true and reproducible, the physics is clear; hugh energy densities at microscopic (nano) geometries / levels. We saw this type of phenomena in the first cold cathode lasers and investigated the dynamics of the emmission process using only low voltage batteries to power a cathode which drove the blue green laser. There are probably similarities which should be explored.

  • I was aware of the original Pons experiment. They “DISCOVERED BUT DID NOT INVENT” the reaction. Their generation of excess energy, radioactivity and large energy spikes was an experimental accident. Now we are starting to see controlled experiments which generate radioactive materials and fusion like results BUT it remains experiential based, not analytical, so the likelyhood of an invention / patent is very small. This is very similar to the amazing natural cures we see in medicine which are rejected by the establishment with a lot to lose. The physics is clear; hugh energy densities at microscopic (nano) geometries / levels

  • Kim G. Patterson

    Andrea Rossi

    The world is waiting. Stand Strong
    When the oilmen come….

  • Giorgio R.

    Dear Ing. Rossi,

    I suggest you add the info regarding the empty volume of the reactor (and any other empty volume present inside the reactor) as info into the final report of Dr. Levi.
    Many will ask this question.

    Good luck for your 1 MW demo reactor.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Giorgio Roncolato:
    The volume of the reactor is 1 liter.
    If you read carefully the report you find all yuo are asking for.
    In any case, soon we will have operative reactors of 1 MW at work 24 hours per day.
    This will be our next public demo.
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

  • Giorgio R.

    Dear Ing. Rossi,

    I was expecting to find into the report some explanation on the system used to validate the data about water Input/ Steam Output. Unfortunately I do not see them into the report.

    How was the amount of water transformed to Steam controlled?
    Considering that the inflow rate of water for 1 hour of test would be less than 16 Lt, one might think that not all the water coming in was transformed into steam, but that it simply accumulated inside the reactor.

    A proper setup should have a way to directly determine the quantity of steam coming out of the apparatus. An easyer and cheaper setup might be a simple digital balance placed under the reactor itself so to check the weight of the apparatus in the start of the experiment and, most important, “during” the experiment.
    This simple data can make a huge difference in your next pubblic demostration.

    Do you have any data that was not disclosed that can clarify these points?

  • Alessandro Coppi

    Hi Mr. Rossi and Mr. Focardi, I’m proud as an italian for the evidence you shown to Bologna in the experiment, but I have a bug that runs in my head: you pay great attention to the weighting operations pre and post operating to the setup and reactor, but it would been easy to mantain the weight stable or increase it, as well as you need simply pumping air from the enviromental into a pressurized bottle, or much more simply using a part of the water used for the steam production, bypassing a part of it to an empty tank into the the reactor.
    Sorry for the doubt I had, it won’t be a criticism I am not a skeptical person, but the prudence of the official media system vs a such “atomic bomb” news, make me feel involved to eliminate all possible doubt over the truth of the facts.

    Onorato di essere presente al cospetto di uno storico momento per l’umanità
    Alessandro Coppi

  • Ivan Moho

    Mr. Rossi,

    You’re getting featured in science, technology and climate blog “Watts Up With That”:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/22/cold-fusion-going-commercial/

    As it’s a very popular site, I think you’re going to get much attention in the following days!

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Dotto Egrasso:
    Very interesting, thank you!
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Alex Passi:
    No radioactive material is in the reactor before.
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Brian Josephson,
    Thank you for your insight. By the way, your comments have been important. I am really interested to interact with your group to study on the theory. By the way: after the short test of Bologna, we decided that we will go ahead studying with the University of Bologna, through a Research Program, to indagate the reactions. We will make you acquainted with this research, for what concerns data which we can release, I mean data which we deem not confidential, at least until the patent is granted.
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Dr Fine:
    Lot of chocolate!
    You are right: first no harm, this is why we have to maintain the drive,
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

  • Joseph Fine

    Perhaps, the catalyst contains CHoCoLaTe! ( A bit of humor, sorry! )

    It could be a mixture of C, Ho (Holmium), Co, La (Lanthanum) and Te.

    If you run a catalyzer without its electrical input, you might be able to shut the plant down by injecting Deuterium. For some reason, Deuterium impedes the H-Ni reaction. Again, err on the side of caution. Or as the Medical Doctor’s say, “First do no harm!”

  • (sorry if this has come twice — there seems to be some problem with the system)

    Dear Mr. Rossi,

    First of all, I didn’t say the energy output would be the same for hot water or for steam, only that it would still be over unity (i.e. more than the input energy) in the former case.

    I should like to make it clear that the comments I forwarded were from people sympathetic to cold fusion, as I am (if you follow the link to my web site you’ll see that I have made your demonstration my ‘link of the day’), and who would hope that they can be addressed satisfactorily. I have visited an number of CF labs, including that of Prof. Celani at Frascati, and have been favourably impressed with much of the evidence. The point however is that even experts have been known to overlook things and it is important to try to catch any problems before the real sceptics get to work. I myself was surprised to learn how even small amounts of liquid water have drastic effects.

    No doubt your experts have taken this into account and I look forward to reading Dr. Levi’s account with the details. And if you can run the reactor in self-sustaining mode as you have described, that should settle people’s doubts.

    Incidentally, there are (believe it or not) some experimentalists at Cambridge University who are very interested in the subject, and may have an interest in doing some of the backup research that you have mentioned.

  • Dear Mr. Rossi,

    First of all, I didn’t say the energy output would be the same for hot water or for steam, only that it would still be over unity (i.e. more than the input energy) in the former case.

    I should like to make it clear that the comments I forwarded were from people sympathetic to cold fusion, as I am (if you follow the link to my web site you’ll see that I have made your demonstration my ‘link of the day’), and who would hope that they can be addressed satisfactorily. I have visited an number of CF labs, including that of Prof. Celani at Frascati, and have been favourably impressed with much of the evidence. The point however is that even experts have been known to overlook things and it is important to try to catch any problems before the real sceptics get to work. I myself was surprised to learn how even small amounts of liquid water have drastic effects.

    No doubt your experts have taken this into account and I look forward to reading Dr. Levi’s account with the details. And if you can run the reactor in self-sustaining mode as you have described, that should settle people’s doubts.

    Incidentally, there are (believe it or not) some experimentalists at Cambridge University who are very interested in the subject, and may have an interest in doing some of the backup research that you have mentioned.

  • alex passi

    Hello,
    I was just wondering … does the reactor contain any radioactive materials before the reaction begins, or is all the radioactivity produced by the functioning of the apparatus itself?
    Alex Passi

  • [...] last Saturday, the day after the demonstration, the scientists answered questions in an online forum, which has generated a few blog [...]

  • Andrea-

    When Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons made their original cold fusion announcement, I sent them a copy of the book “Midas World”. It is a collection of science-fiction short stories by Frederik Pohl on some of the socioeconomic implications of cheap fusion energy. It includes a funny satirical story called “The Midas Plague”, originally published in 1954. Wikipedia has a page on the book, which reads in part: “… in this new world of cheap energy, robots are overproducing the commodities enjoyed by mankind. So now the ‘poor’ are forced to spend their lives in frantic consumption, so that the ‘rich’ can live lives of simplicity.” In that imaginary world, only the “rich” get to have small homes, eat plain food, and work a lot both to help other people and in their small gardens; the “poor” are condemned to living in mansions, eating vast amounts of fancy food, being entertained endlessly, and are not allowed to do meaningful work for others or themselves — all to make an old-fashioned scarcity-based economic model still work out in an age of cheap energy. :-)

    In the last chapter of the book, there is a section quoted from the inventor’s diary on his bitter disappointment about how humankind used his invention. He had hoped cheap fusion power would liberate humanity for a life of contemplation, creativity, or even just loafing around (see also Bob Black’s essay “The Abolition of Work”). But instead that fictional world ended up with “a snowmobile in every driveway … and a dune buggy plowing up every patch of sand”.

    The inventor said he was shut out by large corporations etc. from advocating positive ideas about the social issues relating to his invention of cheap fusion energy, and his aspirations for humankind’s social uplift. While he got a lot of money from the patents, the cheap energy soon made everyone rich in material terms, and so being financially obese did not mean much anymore. Fortunately, even though the inventor was pessimistic, humanity did expand into space habitats eventually in that fictional world (given room in the solar system for quadrillion of people in habitats built from asteroidal ore), and one could hope such a human proliferation (or even better robotics and AI) would bring some wider social diversity along with time for reflection by some individuals on a healthier relationship between consciousness and the universe.

    I’d recommend reading that book just for some general insights into the social and economic side of cheap energy (and some laughs for stressful times). As it is a satirical novel, I’m not saying its predictions are going to be 100% true (I sure hope not), but it is a useful cautionary tale to read none-the-less. James P. Hogan’s hard sci-fi novel “Voyage From Yesteryear” is another good book on a similar topic, about the collision of a society rooted in scarcity assumptions with a society built around abundance assumptions and cheap energy.

    In reality, there are many non-paying activities most people would like to do more of, things that take a lot of time. These are essentially voluntary things, like to be a good friend, to be a good neighbor, to be a good parent, to be a good caretaker for sick relatives, or to be an informed citizen. I hope material abundance through cheaper energy and other innovations could make it more possible for people to have time to do those essential humane tasks as well as they want to do them and are otherwise prevented from by the need to work just to get a basic subsistence income (even as meaningful productive work itself can be a very good thing in our lives, see E.F. Schumacher’s essay on “Buddhist Economics”). So, I can hope that we see a better future than the picture painted in Frederik Pohl’s “Midas World” (or from other directions in “The Pleasure Trap” or “Supernormal Stimuli”). James P. Hogan’s “Voyage From Yesteryear” is more optimistic.

    Since the 1980s, I’ve continued to think about this issue of abundance. Albert Einstein said a long time ago: “The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking…the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker.”

    Today, where every digital watch (or certainly at least every cellphone used to check the time) probably has vastly more computing power than was needed to develop the first atomic weapons, even being a watchmaker cannot absolve anyone of the need to think about what we invent and its relationship to the wellness of our society and the rest of the natural world.

    Einstein’s comment does not apply just to nuclear energy; it also applies even to solar energy, as well as nanotech, biotech, robotics, the internet, or even just bureaucracy. All technology can be an amplifier, and technologies can then interact in synergistic ways to amplify things even more than one could by itself. So, cheap energy leads to even cheaper computing which leads to cheaper robotics which leads to even cheaper energy again from cheaper raw materials, and so on and so on. What vision and social aspirations do we have that we want amplified?

    I’ve generalized Einstein’s comment to: “The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those thinking in terms of scarcity.”

    So, we can choose whether to build our nickel into cold fusion power plants and robotic mining tools or we can choose to build our nickel into guns and bullets to fight over the ownership of nickel mines and who should be forced to do the mining, essentially at gunpoint with the implicit threat of starvation in a society where as Daniel Quinn and Frances Moore Lappé suggest the defining aspect of our current society is that all food and productive land is under lock and key.

    I’ve written further on that theme in an essay called “Recognizing irony is key to transcending militarism”.

    Still, we must accept that there is nothing wrong with wanting some security (or prosperity). The issue is how we go about it in a non-ironic way that works for everyone (including other creatures in the biosphere). Key here are ideas of “mutual security” (Morton Deutsch) and “intrinsic security” (Amory Lovins in Brittle Power, and many others). I’ve also written a knol called “Beyond a Jobless Recovery: A heterodox perspective on 21st century economics” that explores these issues further.

    In brief, a combination of robotics (and other automation, all made possible by cheaper computing), better design (whether from cold fusion devices or thin-film solar panels), and voluntary social networks (especially with volunteers cooperating through the internet on free and open source digital public works), are decreasing the value of most paid human labor by the law of supply and demand. Cheaper energy will only accelerate this trend, since often you can substitute energy for labor and thought.

    At the same time, demand for goods and services is limited for a variety of reasons. These reasons include some classical ones, like a cyclical credit crunch or a concentration of wealth (with that concentration aided by automation, intellectual monopolies, and the rich getting richer and buying up more and more resources like land for rent seeking). The reasons also including some heterodox alternative economics ones, like people moving up Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs as they get a lot of “stuff” and move on to other pursuits than materialism (including spiritual aspirations, self-actualization, and social connections in communities), and as people embrace a growing environmental consciousness of “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle” to protect the biosphere.

    In general, mainstream economists ignore these issues or have very unexamined beliefs about them. Imaginative innovation, like economist Julian Simon talks about in “The Ultimate Resource”, makes possible many wonderful potentialities if we think them through. Please don’t let your inventiveness or cold fusion get blamed for any issues caused by unimaginative scarcity-based economic models held onto with almost a religious fervor by so many (see “The Market as God” by theologian Harvey Cox in the Atlantic). Mainstream economist have long used such scarcity-based models to apologize for an overly hierarchical social order that we probably did not even need in the past — search on “The Mythology of Wealth”. Still, some degree of centralization can be a good thing; see Manuel De Landa on “meshworks and hierarchies”, and how they keep turning into each other and how all real systems are mixtures of both. So, we need to think and experiment regarding ways to allow our 21st century society to function in a healthy way given all the 21st century technology people like yourself are busy creating in all sorts of areas.

    A New York Times article called: “They Did Their Homework (800 Years of It)” talks about the inbredness in the mainstream economics profession and how it is based on endless mathematical extrapolation on extrapolation, in the absence of much connection to history or broader cultural issues. Of course, looking at history may only be a start, as economists also need to look to the future and what abundance and cheap (or even free) energy means in terms of producing divide-by-zero errors in all their elegant theoretical mathematical equations that assume demand for endless junk is infinite, and human labor will always be very valuable, and energy and material will always be very scarce.

    In order to move past this problem with mainstream scarcity-based socioeconomic models, something made only more urgent by cheaper energy, our society needs to continue to develop in at least four interwoven areas:
    * a gift economy (like Wikipedia, Debian GNU/Linux, or blogging on the internet, but also Freecycle and more volunteering of services),
    * a basic income (social security and health care for all regardless of age),
    * democratic resource-based planning (using taxes, subsidies, investments, and regulation to achieve mutually agreed-on social goals), and
    * stronger local subsistence-oriented communities that can produce more of their own stuff (using organic gardens, solar panels and/or cold fusion devices, 3D printers, personal robotics, and so on).

    There are some bad “make-work” alternatives also that could prop up the status quo for a time and are best avoided, like endless war, endless schooling, endless bureaucracy, endless sickness, and endless prisons. All of those just keep people busy in an addictive or destructive or mindless way to little good end and to little human happiness. Unfortunately, people turn all too quickly to those bad alternatives sometimes to deal with social problems related to abundance or uneven wealth distribution. I outline that in more depth in the knol.

    Especially if cheap energy leads to an vast increase in the production of consumer goods, we also need to think more about things like the USA/NIST’s “Sustainable and Lifecycle Information-based Manufacturing Program … to prepare for a future where manufacturing has a zero net impact on the environment…” We also need to rethink a compulsory schooling system designed for the needs of a heavily centralized monarchial 18th century Prussian empire (as John Taylor Gatto talks about); we need to rethink education from a 21st century global perspective involving spreading universal abundance.

    Simple attempts to prop scarcity-based economics up in the presence of cheap energy or cheap computing, like requiring higher wages to respond to declining demand for human labor and more wage-lowering competition for less jobs, will only accelerate the replacement process for workers. Higher wage requirements would just be more incentive to automate, redesign, use more energy in place of human effort, and/or to push more work to volunteer social networks. Even before cheap energy, we have been already seeing the “death spiral” of current mainstream economic models that were based primarily on a link between the right to consume and the need to have a paying job. There may still remain some needed linkage between access to resources and labor for higher-than-typical consumption rates in some situations, even with a basic income, a gift economy, cheap energy, etc.., but there would no longer be such a problematical situation where some few people are financially obese and billions of others are financially starving (and often literally starving, since without money a market will not hear their needs).

    But, while this issue of abundance is ignored by most mainstream economists, you can find all sorts of people writing similar things to what I have written, such as if you search on an essay “Robots, Jobs and our Assumptions” by Martin Ford, or if you search for a document from 1964 originally prepared for US President John Kennedy called “The Triple Revolution Memorandum”. Marshall Brain has also written about this in his novel “Manna” (about the consequences of cheap flexible robotics) and in his “Robotic Nation” essays. Charles Fourier wrote about these themes around 1800 (and was where Marx took his better ideas from. :-) There are many more people talking about these issues, like at the Basic Income Earth Network, the New Economics Institute, the Venus Project, economist Richard Wolff’s “Capitalism Hits the Fan” discussions, the Institute for New Economic Thinking that (the sadly late) Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa helped start, and so on.

    I’m not saying they all agree, or that I agree with all they say, just that there are alternative perspectives to the mainstream economic models about the implications on technology and society.

    Bucky Fuller’s writings are another source of potential understanding about building a society that works for everyone (see his book “Utopia or Oblivion”).

    So, when you think about the financial aspects of your innovation, please consider that fundamental things may change with cheap energy. Please consider how the scarcity-based economic model we all grew up with still govern so much about how innovations such as cold fusion are created, discussed, and distributed. Please consider that a scarcity-based economic model, and all the thinking and fiat-dollar-based financial conflict that relates to it, may be made obsolete very quickly by the rapid spread of a cold fusion innovation.

    Sure, some people may get rich in fiat dollars in the short term by speculating on nickel futures (until cheap energy and cheap robotics drives down the price of all commodities). But ultimately, the bigger issue is encouraging a broad social transformation in a healthy way that makes the world work for everyone. That is something that will ultimately be about a lot more than a few bits flipped in some computer memory representing a bank account somewhere, and which Frederick Pohl suggested in 1954 would ultimately be meaningless in an age of cheap energy and cheap robotics.

    Beyond the economics side, it is the military side of all this that is really problematical and ironic. People have long been using all these advanced technologies of abundance (robotics, biotech, advanced materials, advanced energy sources) from a scarcity perspective. This had led to engineers creating weapons using advanced technologies, with these weapons intended to be used to fight over the very scarcity that, ironically, these technologies could alleviate if used differently to address the underlying material scarcity issues. So, we ironically get, say, the spread of military robots (drones) whose primary role is essentially to enforce a social order based on forcing humans to act like robots in the workplace, rather than instead supporting the same engineers so they can just build robots to do the robot-like work, so people be more like people than robots during their working hours. The USA, where I live, ironically one of the most abundant places in the world materially, seems to have the greatest fear about scarcity, in part from lack of a good social safety net perhaps, and has been driving a lot of this misuse of such technologies of abundance.

    The same is true for the misuse of nuclear energy, nanotech, rockets, and biotech — which can all be used from a scarcity paradigm to make terrible weapons. But, why not instead use such technologies to produce energy, to produce stuff, to produce space habitats, and to produce health, with the resulting prosperity shared by all? Ultimately, health and joy is a social thing, as much or more than an individual thing.

    For another example, collectively, we have created an abundant internet that could inform us all and help us design “Blue Zones” of health and abundance for everyone (like through informing people about the need for adequate vitamin D, eating more vegetables and fruits, getting enough iodine, having strong social networks, living in places where exercise like walking is built into daily life through better infrastructure, finding work to do which has personal meaning, and so on). But instead of emphasizing using the internet to bring about global prosperity, sadly, some people talk about using it for cyberattacks to destroy other countries’ infrastructure. And there are spammers who are working from an old economic paradigm who clog the internet up with financially-driven spam so the internet has more trouble functioning to bring abundance to all of us (even, ironically, the spammers).

    So, we need a paradigm shift to account for all the technologies of abundance that inventors like yourself are giving the world. In days to come, if people ask for your opinions about what the implications are of your invention, I hope you reflect on these words.

    For a local-to-you example about social paradigms and cultural effects, if you google on “RSA Animate – The Secret Powers of Time” you’ll find an animated version of Phlip Zimbardo’s “The Time Paradox” that discusses how our different cultural perspectives on time affect what we emphasize in life and how happy we are. It has an insightful discussion of that theme as it relates to life in Italy and the North/South cultural divide there. So, that is local example of how deep issues in our culture affect what we do with all the blessings in our lives, and how awareness of these alternative paradigm issues can help us get along better with each other.

    Here is a quote emerging from Lila Watson’s work as part of an Australian Aboriginal Group that may help put any efforts to help the world in perspective: “If you have come to help me, you are wasting your time. But if you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together.”

    I hope this invention proves to be all we together hope for it. All the best.

    –Paul Fernhout (Adirondack Park, New York, USA)

    (Please consider this post as being under a CC-BY-SA license for purposes of reposting, translation, or derived works. I am sorry I can not send this in Italian myself.)

  • Dotto Egrasso

    It may be interesting for you to get some account of the reactions on your presentation.
    I can tell you what has been written i news media in Sweden so far.

    If you go to the largest technology magazine you will find your presentation as the first news item on
    its first page: http://www.nyteknik.se/
    The title is “A device that can change the history of the world?”
    Another article in the same magazine is an interview with a theoretical physicist, Hanno Essén, who is also, interestingly, the leader of a society against pseudoscience. He is finds your work to be very interesting: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3075183.ece
    The information has been retold in daily media.

    This magazine is read by a large part of the community of civil engineers and researchers in Sweden.

  • I look forward to reading Prof. Levi’s report.

    You said you are building a 1 MW reactor. Will it be a heater only, or an electric generator?

    In other words: Do you mean a 1 MW heater? Or do you mean a 1 MW electric power generator, with ~3 MW of heat input?

    You wrote: “Sorry, I am very tired in these days.”

    Please do not work too hard!

  • William

    Mr. Rossi,

    Could you please describe exactly what you mean by injecting hydrogen?

    This has been a topic of discussion on other forums.

    Are you adding new hydrogen to the system or just changing the pressure inside of the cell?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr William:
    We used that extreme mode, closed doors, also for many hours, sometimes having troubles to stop the reactor.
    To stop the rreactor we cut the injection of hydrogen and increase the water flow to cool down the reactor.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Brian Josephson,
    Dear Dr Fine:
    Sorry, I wrote a wrong name, the correct name is Mr Brian Josephson.
    Sorry, I am very tired in these days.
    Warm Regards,
    Andrea Rossi

  • William

    Mr. Rossi,

    What is the longest time you have been able to let a cell run without an input (self sustain mode)? What made the cell stop?

    Have you taken any readings of the radioactive emissions inside of the cell?

    Thanks for answering all of our questions.

  • Joseph Fine

    Is that Brian Robertson or Brian Josephson? (Can’t keep track of who’s who.)

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Brian Robertson:
    I again want to return on your comment, because it is very important, and I forgot to say a thing that I deem important too.
    The same Professors of the University of Bologna who made the test of the 14th of January, had made a preliminar test, closed doors, on the 17th of December 2010.
    During that preliminar test, made to check the idoneity of their instrumentation, being closed doors we could make a mode of operation that, for safety issues, I cannot make in public, it is they made the reactor go also without the drive of the electric resistance. This preliminar test will also be described in the report that will be published on monday. In that case, we had a production of energy, with no energy at all at the input. The same thing happened in tests we made for our Customers, in the USA and in Europe.
    You know what happens if you put any number upside a line of fraction and zero below the same line.
    This is why this mode is dangerous: before use it we need to know perfectly the theory. Where I need real help is the formulation of a solid theory; books can help, but up to a certain point, here is a new chapter to write. Less than all help comments of imbeciles (from Latin “imbacula”, not an offense at all) who just say “it is impossible” , turn around, and go.
    Warm regards,
    A.R.
    Useless to say that if you make just warmed water instead of steam the output energy calculated is the same.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Bernard E Souw, Ph. D.:
    My method and technology is not at all related with the one you mentioned. If you read my patent (go to http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com and click on Patent) and the description of the method you mentioned, there is no relationship at all.
    This my statement is absolutely not a criticism agaist the other method, it is just a statement about the total difference between the two.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Dear Dr. Rossi,

    Is your novel invention somehow related to Dr. Randell Mills (Blacklight Power, Inc.) hydrogen reactor based on hydrino reaction?
    If not, do you see any possible relation with it?

    Regards,
    Bernard Souw, Ph.D.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Brian Robertson,
    When we run the reactor with water, not steam, the measured power is the same as when we produce steam and I deem this is the proof of the correct measurement made with steam. We made many tests with water and the operation with steam has just confirmed the same efficiency.
    Anyway:
    1- We will continue our R&D program with the University of Bologna and we will continue to put online the not confidential data, comparing efficiency with steam vs with steam production
    2- We are manufacturing in the USA a 1 MW plant and we will make a public presentation of it. As I always say, in this field we need production of facts and facts are working plants. We need WORKING PLANTS, RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, THEORY IMPROVEMENT.
    This is a lot of work, but we have just to do it.
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear William:
    I think that now is important to make plants which work regularly, so that chattering will vanish.
    When first cars appeared at the end of the 19th century nobody could believe horse’s era was over.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

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>