By prof. Christos Stremmenos
After several years of apparent inaction, the theme of cold fusion has been recently revitalized thanks to, among others, the work and the scientific publications of Focardi and Rossi, which has been conducted in silence, amidst ironical disinterest, without any funding or support. In fact, recently, practical and reliable results have been achieved based on a very promising apparatus invented by Andrea Rossi. Therefore I want to examine the possibility of further development of this technology, which I deem really important for our planet.
Introduction
I will start with patent no./2009/125444, registered by Dr. Ing. Andrea Rossi. This invention and its performance have been tested and verified in collaboration with Prof. Sergio Focardi, as reported in their paper, published in February 2010 in the Journal of Nuclear Physics [1]. In that scientific paper they have reported on the performance of an apparatus, which has produced for two years substantial amounts of energy in a reliable and repeatable mode and they have also offered a theoretical analysis for the interpretation of the underlying physical mechanism.
In the history of Science, it is not the first time that a practical and reliable apparatus is working before its theoretical foundation has been completely understood! The photoelectric effect is the classic example in which the application has anticipated its full theoretical interpretation, developed by Einstein. Afterwards Einstein, Plank, Heisenberg, De Broglie, Schrödinger and others formulated the principles of Quantum Mechanics. For the interactive Nickel/Hydrogen system it would be now opportune to compile, in a way easily understood by the non expert the relevant principles and concepts for the qualitative understanding of the phenomenon. Starting with the behavior of electrically charged particles in vacuum, it is known that particles with opposite electric charge attract themselves and “fuse” producing an electrically neutral particle, even though this does not always happen, as for instance in the case of a hydrogen atom, where a proton and a electron although attract each other they do not “fuse”, for reasons that will be explained later. On the contrary, particles charged with electric charge of the same sign always repel each other, and their repulsion tends to infinity when their distance tends to zero, which implies that in this case fusion is not possible (classical physics).
On the contrary, according to Quantum mechanics, for a system with a great number of particles of the same electric charge (polarity) it is possible that a few of them will fuse, as for instance, according to Focardi-Rossi, in the case of Nickel nuclei in crystal structure and hydrogen nuclei (protons) diffused within it, Although of the same polarity, a very small percentage of these nuclei manage to come so close to each other, at a distance of 10-14 m, where strong nuclear forces emerge and take over the Coulomb forces and thus form the nucleus of a new element, either stable or unstable.
This mechanism, which is possible only in the atomic microcosm, is predictable by a quantum-mechanics model of a particle put in a closed box. According to classical physics no one would expect to find a particle out of the box, but in quantum mechanics the probability of a particle to be found out of the box is not zero! This is the so called “tunneling effect”, which for systems with a very large number of particles, predicts that a small percentage of them lie outside the box, having penetrated the “impenetrable” walls and any other present barrier through the “tunnel”! In our case, the barrier is nothing else but the electrostatic repulsion, to which the couples of hydrogen and nickel nuclei (of the same polarity) are subjected and is called Coulomb barrier.
Diffusion mechanism of hydrogen in nickel: Nickel as a catalyst first decomposes the biatomic molecules of hydrogen to hydrogen atoms in contact with the nickel surface. Then these hydrogen atoms deposit their electrons to the conductivity band of the metal (Fermi band) and due to their greatly reduced volume, compared to that of their atom, the hydrogen nuclei readily diffuse into the crystalline structure of the nickel, including its defects. At this point, in order to understand the phenomenon it is necessary to briefly describe the structure both of the nickel atom and the nickel crystal lattice.
It is well known that the nickel atom is not so simple as the hydrogen atom, as its nucleus consists of dozens of protons and neutrons, thus it is much heavier and exerts a proportionally higher electrostatic repulsion than the nucleus of hydrogen, which consists of only one proton. In this case, the electrons, numerically equal to the protons, are ordered in various energy levels and cannot be easily removed from the atom to which they belong. Exception to this rule is the case of electrons of the chemical bonds, which along with the electrons of the hydrogen atoms form the metal conductivity band (electronic cloud), which moves quasi freely throughout the metal mass.
As in all transition metals, the nickel atoms in the solid state, and more specifically their nuclei, are located at the vertices and at the centre of the six faces of the cubic cell of the metal, leaving a free internal octahedral space within the cell, which, on account of the quasi negligible volume of the nuclei, is practically filled with electrons of the nickel atoms, as well as with conductivity electrons.
It would be really interesting to know the electrons’ specific density (number of electrons per unit volume) and its spatial distribution inside this octahedral space of the crystal lattice as a function of temperature.
Dynamics of the lattice vibration states
Another important aspect to take into consideration in this system is the dynamics of the lattice vibration states, in other words, the periodic three dimensional normal oscillations of the crystal lattice (phonons) of the nickel, which hosts hydrogen nuclei or nuclei of hydrogen isotopes (deuterium or tritium) that have entered into the above mentioned free space of the crystal cell.
It could be argued that the electrons’ specific density and its spatial distribution in the internal space of the crystal structure should be coherent with the natural frequencies of the lattice oscillations. This means that the periodicity of the electronic cloud within the octahedral space of the elementary crystal cell of Nickel generates an oscillating strengthening of shielding of the diffused nuclei of hydrogen or deuterium which also populate this space.
I believe that these considerations can form the basis for a qualitative analysis of this “NEW SOURCE OF ENERGY” and the phenomenology related to cold fusion, including energy production in much smaller quantities and various reaction products.
Shielding of protons by electrons
In the Focardi-Rossi paper the shielding of protons provided by electrons is suspected to be one of the main reasons of the effect, helping the capture of protons by the Ni nucleus, therefore generating energy by fusion of protons in Nickel and a series of exothermic nuclear reactions, leaving as by-product isotopes different from the original Ni (transmutations). Such shielding is one of the elements contributing to the energetic efficiency of the system. From this derives the opportunity, I think, to focus upon this shielding, both to increase its efficiency and to verify the hypothesis contained in the paper of Focardi-Rossi. Of course, what we are talking of here is a theoretical verification, because the practical verification is made by monitoring the performance of the apparatus invented and patented by Andrea Rossi, presently under rigorous verification by many independent university researchers.
In my opinion, the characteristics of the shielding of the proton from the electrons should be defined, as well as the “radiometric” behavior of the system.
In other words, the following two questions should be answered:
- Which is the supposed mechanism that overcomes the powerful electrostatic repulse (Coulomb barrier) between the “shielded proton” and the Nickel nucleus?
- For what reason there is almost no radiation of any kind (experimental observation), while according to the Focardi and Rossi’s hypothesis there should have been some γ radiation (511 KeV) produced by the predicted annihilation of the β+ and β- particles that are being created during the Fusion?
I believe that some thoughts based on general and elementary structures, data and principles of universal scientific acceptance, might shed some light to this exciting phenomenon. More specific, I refer to Bohr’s hydrogen atom, the speed of nuclear reactions (10-20 sec) and the Uncertainty Principle of Heisenberg.
I will take Bohr’s hydrogen atom as a starting point (figure 1a), which stays at its fundamental state forever in the absence of external perturbations, due to De Broglie’s wave, accompanying the sole electron.
As stated before, in contact with the metal, these atoms lose their fundamental state, as their electrons are being transmitted to the conductivity band. These electrons, together with the “naked nuclei” of hydrogen (protons), form a freely moving cloud of charges (plasma at a degenerate state) inside the crystalline lattice. That cloud is being defused through the surface to the polycrystallic mass of the metal, covering empty spaces of the non-canonical structure of the crystalline lattice, as well as the tetrahedral and octahedral spaces between the molecules. As a consequence, the crystalline structure is covered by “delocalized plasma” (degenerate state), which is consisted by protons, electrons produced by the “absorbed atoms” of hydrogen, as well as by the electrons of the chemical valence of Nickel of the lattice, at different energy states (Fermi’s band). (Fig. 2)
Fig.1b
In this system, if one considers the probability of the creation inside the crystalline lattice of temporary (not at the fundamental state) “pseudo-atoms” of hydrogen with neutral charge, for example at a time of the order of 10ˆ-17 sec, then that possibility is not completely ill-founded. (Fig 1b)
Fig.2
According to the Uncertainty Principle of Heisenberg, the temporary atoms of hydrogen will cover during that small time interval Δt, a wide range of energies ΔΕ, which means also a wide range of atomic diameters of temporary atoms, satisfying the De Broglie’s condition. A percentage of them (at fist a very small one) might have diameters smaller than 10ˆ-14 m, which is the maximum active radius of nuclear reactions. In that case, the chargeless temporary atoms, or mini-atoms, of hydrogen together with high energy but short lived electrons, are being statistically trapped by the Nickel nuclei at a time of 10ˆ-20 sec. In other words, the high speed of nuclear reactions permits the fusion of short lived but neutral mini-atoms of hydrogen with the Nickel nuclei of the crystalline lattice, as during that short time interval the Coulomb barrier (of the specific hydrogen mini-atom) does not exist.
Afterwards, it follows a procedure similar to the one described by Focardi and Rossi, but instead of considering the capture of a shielded proton by the Ni58 nucleus, we adopt the hypothesis of trapping a neutral temporary atom, or a mini atom, of hydrogen (with a diameter less than 10ˆ-14 m) which transforms the Ni58 nucleus into Cu59 (copper/59, short lived isotope*).
It follows the predicted “β decay” of the nuclei of the short lived isotope of copper, accompanied by the emission of β+ (positrons) and β- (perhaps the electrons of the mini atoms trapped inside that nucleus during the fusion). These particles are being annihilated with an emission of γ radiation (two photons of γ of energy 511 KeV each, for every couple of β+ and β-).
In other words, whoever has experimented with this system should have suffered the not-so-harmless influence of those radiations, but that never happened. The radioactivity measured at the experiments is almost zero and easily shielded.
In any case, a rigorous, in my opinion, theoretical approach for the interpretation of that phenomenon with quantum mechanical terms, would give clear quantitative answers to the above stated models. With my Colleges of theoretical chemistry, we are already planning to face the problem using the time-depended quantum mechanical perturbation theory, bearing in mind the following:
- The total wave function (of the nucleus and the electrons) of temporarily, non-stable states.
- The total time-depended Hamiltonian, for temporarily states.
- Searching for the resonance conditions at that system.
Such an approach had a successful outcome at a similar problem of theoretical chemistry and we hope that it will be valid in this case as well.
Let’s go back to the intuitive, with ideal models, approach, in order to give a qualitative explanation for the (almost) absent radiations of the system, by using:
- First of all the Boltzmann’s distribution (especially at the asymptotic area of high energies).
- The photoelectric effect
- The Compton effect
- The Mössbauer effect
We have already mentioned that from the temporary mini atoms of hydrogen, the ones with diameter less than 10ˆ-14 m, have a larger probability of fusion. But, in order for them to be created, high energy bond electrons should exist at the “delocalized plasma” of the crystalline lattice.
1. Boltzmann’s statistics:
There are reasons to believe that the H/Ni system, at first at temperatures of about 400-500oC, contains a very small percentage of electrons in the “delocalized plasma” with enough energy to create (together with the diffused protons), according to the wave-particle duality principle, the first temporary mini atoms of hydrogen, that will trigger the fusion with the nickel nuclei and the production of high energy γ photons (511 KeV).
2. Photoelectric Effect:
It is not possible, the HUGE amount of energy (in kW/h), that the Rossi/Focardi reactor produces, as measured by unrelated scientists in repeated demonstrations (at one of them by the writer and his colleagues, Fig 3), to be created due to the thermalization of the insignificant number of γ photons at the beginning of the reaction.
Fig.3
I believe that, as stated above, these photons are the trigger of fusion at a multiplicative series, based on the photoelectric effect inside the crystalline structure.
The two γ photons can export symmetrically (180°) two electrons from the nearest Nickel atoms. The stimulation, due to the high energy of γ, concerns electrons of internal bands of two different atoms of the lattice and has as a prerequisite the absorption of all the energy of the photon. A small part of that energy is being consumed for the export of the electron from the atom and the rest is being transformed into kinetic energy of the electron (thermal energy).
The result of that procedure is to enrich the “delocalized plasma” with high energy electrons that will contribute multiplicatively (by a factor of two) at the progress of the cold fusion nuclear reactions of hydrogen and nickel and at the same time transform the hazardous γ radiation into useful thermal energy.
3. The Compton Scattering:
It gives the additional possibility of multiplication, this time due to secondary photons γ, in a wide range of frequencies, as a function of the angular deviation from the direction of the initial photon of 511 keV. That has as a result the increase of the export of electrons, due to the photoelectric phenomenon at the crystalline mass, in many energy/kinetic levels, which gives an additional possibility of converting the γ radiation into useful thermal energy.
4. The Mössbauer effect:
It gives another possible way of absorbing the γ radiation and transforming it into thermal energy. It is based on the principle of conservation of momentum at the regression of the new Cu59 nucleus/ from the emission of a γ photon. Relative calculations (Dufour) showed that this mechanism has an insignificant (1%) contribution.
It follows that, according to given data, the Photoelectric phenomenon and the Compton Effect, could explain the absence of radiations in the Focardi-Rossi system, which, from the amount of producing energy versus the consumption of Ni and H2, as well as from the experimental observation of element transformations, lead undoubtedly to the acceptance of hydrogen cold fusion.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: The author wishes to acknowledge Aris Chatzichristos for the contribution in formulating this paper in English
References:
(1)www. journal-of-nuclear-physics.com /Focardi Rossi/ (A new energy source from nuclear fusion)
* I believe that the phasmatometric tracing of copper is the most definitive sign of nuclear fusion: From the relative bibliography (HANDBOOK OF CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS, 66TH edition), it follows that the stable non radioactive isotopes of nickel are the following five:
58, 60, 61, 62 and 64. These, when fused with a hydrogen nucleus, are being transmuted relatively to Cu-59, Cu-61, Cu-62, Cu-63 and Cu-65. From these isotopes of copper only the last two (Cu-63 and Cu-65) are not radioactive, i.e. they are stable. The other three Cu-59, Cu-61, Cu-62, are being transmuted again to Nickel, with an average life expectancy of some hours and the most unstable Cu-59 in 18 seconds.
By prof. Christos Stremmenos
Dear Mr. Rossi if things do not work out as you hope and a delay is beginning to occur that would effect the well being of say children in villages of the world that cannot at present obtain clean water because of energy costs etc. would you decide that further delay is unacceptable for financial motives and release the secrets for everybody to use, or continue to try to protect your very sensible investors.
A difficult decision I am sure but one that must have occurred to you.
Dear Maryyugo:
1- I already got the Italian Patent granted; the international patent is still pending.
2- How the E-Cat performs will be said from the market, not from the scientists. In October our first Customer will start up our first plant of 1 MW.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Lukle Mortensen:
1- Patent pending
2- No perticular obstacle, usualy these kind of patents can take up to 6 years to be granted
3- I do not know, It doesn’t depend from me
4- We are preparing more patents
Warm regards,
A.R.
AR,
1. What is your international patent status?
2. What has been the biggest obstacle to getting a patent for the ecat?
3. How long until you will know if the patent is granted or rejected?
4. Are you preparing to refile the patent with different claims if you run into difficulties?
~Luke
Dear Mr. Rossi,
1) You wrote that you are waiting for an international patent. I read in press reports that you had already achieved a patent. Was this an error?
2) I am sure you understand how anxious many scientists are to test an E-Cat and to verify independently how it performs. November isn’t that far but it does seem a long time to wait until universities can have their own E-Cats. I hope that a few E-Cats can be given to those universities which you trust sooner than that. Do you think this may be possible if other events happen favorably?
Best wishes, M.Y.
OK boys and girls; Time for a little deductive reasoning since we have just a little real information from the inventor of the device called E-cat.Rossi has invented a device which contains a heater consisting of as Carl Sagon would say billions and billions of tiny subheaters(nickel nanospheres).A heater is basically an imperfect conductor where a current is made to flow by providing electrons at one end of the conductor and positive holes at the other by use of an electric potential of some sort.The imperfections cause the electrons to collide within the conductor and release their energy in the form of thermal photons.E=IR.So the trick is to cause electron flow through the nickel nanosphere lattices and transforming the electron energy through the lattice defects into thermal phonons heating the nickel conglomerate.I asked Rossi if he ever put some type of window into his device to observe the interior while the device was opperating and if he did,what did he see.He replied “yes he did”,but would not tell me what he saw.I think what he saw was a glowing black body emitter consisting of the nickel/copper material and using an infrared spectrum detector he was able to determine the black body temperature.
The question now is how does he get electrons moving through the nanospheres and how does he do this by using less energy than is emitted? One clue is that he employs hydrogen in either an atomic form or as a positively or negatively charged particle.This particle is created from molecular hydrogen by the use of a catalyst and given a threshold amount of thermal energy by a preheater.The particles are formed isotropically and reflect continuosly throughout the device if they are not absorbed into some sort of reaction.Those particles having the right vector quantities(velocity.direction)v.d will enter a nickel atom and into the nucleus.What type of particle has the best chance of doing this? Not a positive proton or negatively charged proton/electron combination.But a simple hydrogen atom operating as a pseudo neutron.This particle can pass through the coulomb barrier and into the nucleus.It then creates a short life metastable state within the nucleus that decays into a proton a beta and a neutrino.Copper is formed and the beta energized with the mass coversion energy is ejected into the electron cloud of the nickel atom.The energy of the beta particle now an energized electron influences the movement of lattice electrons transfering its energy to them through its em characteristic and the electrons create thermal phonons by encountering lattice defects thus heating the nanospheres to a high temperature.We now have an internal heater that can boil water.
How about them apples? Some of these ideas were generated in discussions I had with Dr.Harold Urey(the heavy water discoverer) at the U of Chicago in 1954 and with Dr Bardeen(superconductivity)at the U of Illinois in 1968.Cant put all of the blame on me.
Dear Koen Vandevalle:
Until the international patent will not be granted, nothing will change.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Dear Jeff Smathers:
I do not give information regarding what happens inside the reactor.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Dear Bill Nichols:
1- yes
2- yes, but within the limits imposed by the necessity of industrial confidentiality, mainly without an international patent granted, so far.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Methylhydroxycarbene: Tunneling Control of a Chemical Reaction. Science, 10 June 2011: Vol. 332
Egr. Sig. A. Rossi , se è riuscito a ingannare i fisici di Bologna e
quelli che si sono sbilanciati pubblicamente Lei è molto più di : Cagliostro , Houdini, Berlusconi e il Pifferaio Magico .
Io scommetto i miei , pochi , soldi su una put sul petrolio .
Come spiega la supponenza dei media , scienziati qualificati , e tutto il resto ?
Siamo tutti istruiti ,ma andiamo avanti con i paraocchi giganti .
Looking forward to your proposed theory.
As a 35+ year scientist, observations and experience lead me to the view our understanding of nature is far from complete and very probably, unbalanced.
2 Questions…(based on proof of concept of your commercialized device).
1.) When you propose your theory, will it include proposed lingering questions, plus recommendations with suggested ways forward of this theory and the phenomena you’ve discovered?
2.) Will you frame these recommendations/questions in the form of a suggested road map forward for both yourself; and suggestions for the larger scientific and societal community in this nascent journey toward truth?
A proposed suggestion…
Please consider when you announce your proposed theory 2 versions: 1.) the in depth science; 2.) a layer person explanation that grasps the basic concept(s).
Offer the second (layperson version) in the short and medium term may be more important (to communicate with key decision makers).
BTW…found Einstein was correct…we should be able to explain the essence of the scientific concept to the average person.
Thanks for the opportunity to provide comments and questions to you!
Good luck!
Best Regards,
Bill Nichols
Mr. Rossi,
I am looking forward to engaging in a new paradigm of science and energy for our childrens sake.
I was wondering if studied, and there is a localized strong magnetic field introduced during the reaction does it modify the reaction rate? And have you measured at the micro gram level, any variation in its weight during reaction — excluding its linear transmutation increase of mass?
Hoping to work with the you and your groups in its distribution.
Jeff Smathers
Julian Brown wrote:
If a single hydrino a la Blacklight power were ever observed, it would indeed destroy the whole basis of quantum mechanics and QFT and QED.
The problem is, when you test Mill’s theory against known physical measurements, it falls at the first hurdle.
Dear Julian
you did not get the point.
The hydrino hydrides exist, and this is what is important. They are obtained in BlackLight Power Inc.
The fact that Mill’s theory fails cannot be taking in consideration.
Your argumentation is similar to this:
1- We know that Rossi-Focardi experiment is an incontestable fact.
2- Suppose that Rossi’s theory fails to explain his experiment (or even suppose that he should not have any theory).
3- Conclusion- Rossi-Focardi experiment is wrong, because his theory is wrong.
And I would like to tell you something, Dear Julian.
Mills is wrong because his theory considers a corpuscular model of hydrogen atom (similar to Bohr corpuscular model).
A corpuscular model of atom, as considered by Mills, requires the following improvement:
– There is need to consider a corpuscular model of hydrogen atom in which the electron moves with helical trajectory about the proton.
The helical trajectory (zitterbewegung) conciliates the Bohr corpuscular model with the Schrodinger Equation.
Actually, Schrodinger Equation is the solution for such new hydrogen helical atom.
So, the new hydrogen helical atom explains at the samet time:
a) all the phenomena that require a corpuscular-model (as proposed by Mills)
b) and all the phenomena that require a wave-model (as considered in Quantum Mechanics).
Such new hydrogen helical model of atom is one ot the new foundations for a New Physics.
In my opinion, the community of physicists will never find a satisfactory solution for cold fusion by considering the old foundations of Quantum Mechanics.
And I reinforce my opinion by showing that Quantum Mechanics fails in explaning many phenomena, because some of its fundamentals must be replaced. The hydrogen atom is one of them.
Davd Roberson
Attempting to diagnose the Rossi reaction using slow neutrons from an external source sounds like a really good idea. However I don’t know a lot about nuclear physics (a million miles from atomic physics and QED) so can’t answer your questions. I have an idea that the ultra low energy cross-sections and channel probabilities for Ni(N,Z) + n are all known and tabulated somewhere. I suggest you contact a real nuclear physicist about this (without mentioning Rossi, of course !).
If Rossi is using Ni 62 and/or 64 rather than the natural mix, – because he found that these are the only isotopes that work- then he knows much more about this process than anyone else and he should definitely have disclosed this in a patent. The monopoly rights would have been incredibly valuable. The range of tenable theories would also be greatly narrowed down if there were indeed an isotopic dependence.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
Dear Andrea,
Is it right that you changed your mind concerning the keeping of the secrets ?
Kind regards,
Koen Vandewalle
Dear John M.:
In Novenber, after the start up of the 1 MW plant, I will explain my theory, which is substantially different from the very respectful hypothesis made so far.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
[…] Stremmenos, "A detailed Qualitative Approach to the Cold Fusion Nuclear Reactions of H/Ni", 2011 Journal of Nuclear Physics Nuclear experiments blog Wikio Wikio Sur le même […]
Unless the eCat is somehow producing positrons, it’s hard to understand how such a large amount of energy is being released without leaving behind any residual radioactive material.
I’m very much looking forward to understanding the physics behind this invention Mr Rossi 🙂
Dear Jorgen Troncoso:
Thank you very much for your enthusiasm, and a hug to Sweden.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Luca M:
I do not give information regarding what happens inside the reactor.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Bill Conley:
Exactly.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Mr. Rossi,
Please forgive me if you have answered this question before.
You reportedly furnished the Swedish Profs. two E-Cat fuel samples, one spent and one which they said represented the raw (unspent) fuel used in the E-Cat.
Their mass spect. analysis showed the “raw” fuel to be very nearly pure Ni. I assume then that the raw fuel sample you furnished them was not a sample of the fuel ready for actual use in the reactor, but only the base Ni powder prior to your preprocessing of it including any catalytic additives you introduce.
I wish you all best in this exciting journey.
Bill Conley
Mr. Rossi,
Here is a news article about a device that could possibly work in conjunction with the E-Cat.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-prototype-success-advanced-energy-technology.html
Prototype demonstrates success of advanced new energy technology
With the completion of a successful prototype, engineers at Oregon State University have made a major step toward addressing one of the leading problems in energy use around the world today – the waste of half or more of the energy produced by cars, factories and power plants.
New technology is being developed at OSU to capture and use the low-to-medium grade waste heat that’s now going out the exhaust pipe of millions of automobiles, diesel generators, or being wasted by factories and electrical utilities.
[article continues on website]
Dear J. Brown,
You are our local quantum theory expert and I appreciate your contributions. I have a question for you if I may. How difficult would it be to build a very low momentum neurtron source that could then be used to radiate ni that is more or less free of hydrogen protons? It might take some kind of moderator to make the neutrons low enough in energy. At that point we would be able to measure the spectrum generated by a known neutron – Ni interaction occuring without many unknown complications.
Is there any merit in such an experiment? Thank you.
D.R.
Vladimir,
If a single hydrino a la Blacklight power were ever observed, it would indeed destroy the whole basis of quantum mechanics and QFT and QED.
I have read a paper by Mills and it was difficult to see any mistake in it because he is indeed a very clever fellow – much more so than most University Professors, and I admire both his courage to stand up for a radical new idea and his skill in defending it.
The problem is, when you test Mill’s theory against known physical measurements, it falls at the first hurdle.
In particular:
When calculating the energy levels of the hydrogen atom using quantum mechanics, you get pretty good agreement with the observed visible and UV spectra just solving the simple and approximate schroedinger equation , which is non-relativistic and neglects corrections due to virtual quantum processes (the so called radiative corrections).
The hydrino theory agrees with the results of the Schroedinger equation for the normal 1s,2s,…ns Rydberg states.
To get more accurate agreement with experiment, you must use the Dirac equation and include quantum electrodynamic corrections. These are difficult calculations, but they give fantastic agreement with experiment. The shift in energies is only about 1 part in 100000, but this is exactly the error between the Mill’s theory and experiment.
To summarize: extremely intricate QM calculations give extremely good agreement with observations and measurements.
Extremely Simple Mills calculations give only approximate agreement with observations and measurements.
Moreover, the extra mini-atom hydrino states with expected lines in the far UV region have been looked for using spectrography but never seen.
Have I convinced you yet ?
Aldo Soleri,
Thanks. It is good to know we are not completely alone on this.
A good paper for understand the quantum states of protons and deuterons in Pd is
They calculate the shape of the effective potential well for the interstitial p/d. If you solve the Schroedinger equation for this, you get a gaussian amplitude width of about 0.25 Angstrom for a proton and about 0.18 Angstrom for a deuteron. This compares with 4.0 Angstrom for the Pd-Pd fcc lattice parameter.
So the p/d are really quite big and fuzzy.
At the 111 axis surface of Ni (bulk NiH does not exist), the situation is even more dramatic.
In
Phys. Rev. Lett. 51, 1081–1084 (1983)
Quantum Motion of Chemisorbed Hydrogen on Ni Surfaces
Puska and Nieminen report that the protons are delocalized to such an extent that their quantum amplitude spreads across many lattice cells, almost like band electrons. This delocalisation has been observed using special surface probes.
Since the delocalization makes no difference whatsoever to the huge Coulomb barrier between protons and the metal core nucleii, I do not think this plays any direct role in the Rossi/Fleischmann effect. There are other consequences however….
Dear Mr. Rossi, just a question about the technology, hoping it would not be a confidential subject.
Does the e-cat exploit the thermionic effect ?
Best wishes
Vladimir,
You wrote
in the link ahead there is a discussion between the nuclear chemists Mitch Andre Garcia and Grejak, a member named LewisLarsen, and the journalist Steven Krivit.
http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=17140.0
Mitch shows that cold fusion is theoreticaly impossible to occur, while Krivit and LewisLarsen defends Larsen theory.
I reply:
This Mitch person seems very sure of his ground, but he is basically repeating what nearly every mainstream physicist says, including all my friends and colleagues, and consequently repeats all the usual errors of superficial thinking.
1. He estimates the Coulomb barrier between two protons and shows that this is way too high for room temperature fusion under any circumstances. This is a simplified repeat of the argument of Antony Leggett in his paper
Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 191–194 (1989)
Exact upper bound on barrier penetration probabilities in many-body systems: Application to ‘‘cold fusion’’
This paper effectively killed Fleischmann’s reputation, because Leggett is a Nobel Prize winner and presumably never makes mistakes.
Well in this case he did make a VERY elementary mistake. The paper includes a gigantic a priori assumption, to the effect that you can treat the proton in a metal as a classical point particle (as in the Popovic paper I cited yesterday). This is OK if you are just considering interactions of the proton with the Fermi Gas electrons, because the electons respond essentially instantaneously to any movement of the proton (they are 2000 times lighter). His assumption breaks done completely for the case of proton-proton interactions however A) because they are equally heavy and B) because the spatial extent of the protonic wavefunction is, in some metals like Ni and Pd, comparable with the lattice cell parameter. Two protons therefore look like fuzzy clouds to one another, even if they look like points to the electrons. If you then consider on-site transitions of these protons (the well known vibrational spectra), you find there are unexpected interactions that completely change the state energies.
I pointed out this oversight to him in 2006, but he didn’t respond.
What I hope I have shown is, yes, mainstream physicists have been very arrogant in their treatment of cold fusion and they overestimate their abilities to do good calculations. It does no mean that their tools are completely useless, just that they are being used unskillfully.
2. Mitch discounts Widom’s theory in a manner that shows he has either not read or not understood the Widom-Larsen papers. They explain clearly that the energy that makes the electron “heavy” enough to cause a proton to become a neutron comes from a high intensity electric field that they allege is present at the surface of transition metal hydrides. Such a field has never been observed, and I don’t believe it exists myself, but apart from this, the W-L theory is expressed in good mathematics and conforms fully to the principles of quantum mechanics, so Widom deserves some respect for what is a very clever idea.
Ciao Andrea Rossi!
Io sono un ammiratore della gente come lei. La innovazione e la genialità e’ sempre fattore di attenzione, ma solo per gente con la mente aperta.
Le auguro tanta fortuna!
Un saluto da Stoccolma.
Jörgen Troncoso
Julian Brown wrote:
I am not aware of any experiment that must necessarily contradict quantum mechanics
Dear Julian,
please show us how quantum mechanics explains the magnetic eletrolysis, made by Felix Ehrenhaft:
http://www.electricitybook.com/magnetism/
Julian Brown wrote:
1. Ignore everything that has carefully gained from careful study of Ni-H and PdH over the past 50 years
2. Replace quantum mechanics with a new theory of reality, without explaining how this new theory could possibly still successfully predict the hyperfine spectrum of hydrogen to 16 decimal figures of accuracy following pages and pages of intricate calculations that even take account of electroweak field effects (W and Z particles).
Ok, Julian
there is no need a new physics.]
So, please explain to us how the current physics explains the existence of the compressed hydrogen atom (the hydrine hydrides produced in BlackLight Power Inc)
If Rossi’s device is normal physics then there need to be very many red faces and apologies .
If Rossi’s device is beyond normal physics then there needs to be very many red faces and apologies.
Dear Julian Brown,
Your explanation with the paddles is very understandable for me.
Could the difference be that in classical nuclear reactions, the coulomb-barrier is passed with a too high velocity of the p+, causing spherical vibration of the nucleus after the reaction. (as the wobbling of a bubble, with multiple harmonics), and with cold fusion there is less or no overshoot once the coulomb barrier slowed down the incoming p+, so the nuclei are fused smoother.
After all, the rossi-reaction is not a chain-reaction but a catalysed reaction. Just enough to touch and fuse.
I have no knowledge of quantum mechanics, but the “wobbling” nucleus causing wobbling of the electrons is my way of understanding radiation the way a traditional mechanical engineer does. The intensity and duration of the wobbling (half-life) depends on the structure and the mass of the nucleus.
The clapper hits the bell at zero speed, so no noise is heard, but they stay together. The heat then just comes from the rearrangement of the electrons on their new levels.
I may be ignorant and wrong, but at least, I tried.
Respectfully yours,
Koen Vandewalle
Dear Mr. J. Brown,
you have developped in depth my comment to Prof Stremmenos dated June 1st; so in yr. debate with Prof. Stremmenos and Mr. W. Guglinski I stand on yr. side.
I was looking for (trying to calculate) the gaussian width of the interstial p in a Ni cell, but you handed me over as 0,02 nm.(can you please cite the source?).
This data anyway is confirming me that, so far, an important phenomenon happening in solid state physics has been neglected i.e. the 2nd type crystalline transition.
Referring to the L. Landau theory of it, 2 contemporary crystalline structures coexist, having both a probability <1 but summing up necessarily to 1.
If we overlap them adding the gaussian width of the p you pointed out (and the smaller of the metal nucleus), here it is a possible significative coexistence of Ni nucleus and interstitial p in the same place at the same time.
As a reference of 2 overlapped structures, see the cell parameters of Austenite and Martensite in NiTi intermetallic compound.
Should we use their overlapped structure the distance among Ni nucleus and an interstitial proton in their cell should be 0.05 nm without taking into account their gaussian wdth.
Best regards
Aldo Soleri
Rossi (and Fleischmann before him) see orders of magnitude less radiation than you would expect from nuclear processes like p+p–>D or Ni+p–>Cu. So, assuming it IS a nuclear process, any theory that claims to solve the puzzle MUST be able to explain what has happened to the radiation.
The only conceivable explanation I can see is that the reaction volume dimensions are much larger than the wavelength of gamma rays. In fact, you do not need to be an expert to see this: if a frequency (e.g. water wave) emanates from a very large number of small emitters (e.g. vibrating paddles) that are much closer together than the wavelength of what they are generating, the individual contributions all even out to zero at all points that are at least a few wavelengths outside the source of the waves. So you don’t detect any wave, and the energy is trapped within the source (water would just get warm).
If any one can think of an alternative explanation consistent with ALL of what we know about the physical world, please answer !
So, the low level of radiation vis a vis the exothermy tells us that the nuclear process does not appear to be a collision between the two classical point-like nucleii, as in the Sun or a nuclear reactor.
Now, a nickel lattice cell has a length of about 0.35 nm.
A 0.5 MeV gamma ray has wavelength of roughly 0.002 nm.
Interstitial protons and deuterons are well-known to have delocalised states on both Nickel surfaces (especially along the 111 axis) and in bulk palladium.
The delocalisation is greater on nickel surfaces than in Palladium.
In both cases, the gaussian half-width (about 0.03nm) is very much longer than the wavelength of a gamma ray….
I still can’t understand why NOBODY commenting in this Journal seems to think these basic, completely uncontroversial, facts are not relevant to the Rossi phenomenon.
Instead, the approach seems to be:
1. Ignore everything that has carefully gained from careful study of Ni-H and PdH over the past 50 years
2. Replace quantum mechanics with a new theory of reality, without explaining how this new theory could possibly still successfully predict the hyperfine spectrum of hydrogen to 16 decimal figures of accuracy following pages and pages of intricate calculations that even take account of electroweak field effects (W and Z particles).
In fact, ANY new field of particle or breakdown in quantum mechanics would spoil these calculations and yield the WRONG answers, vis a vis observed reality. UNLESS this new field were INCREDIBLY subtle in its effect.
But the Rossi effect is anything but subtle. It is mega mega gross and powerful.
Julian Brown wrote:
[i]I am not aware of any experiment that must necessarily contradict quantum mechanics
[/i]
Dear Julian,
then please shows us how quantum mechanics explains the existence of hydrino hydrides.
A hydrino hydride is a compressed hydrogen atom (just the mini-hydrogen atom considered by Prof. Stremmenos in his paper).
Hydrino hydrides have been produced in BlackLight Power Inc. along more than 10 years.
Julian Brown wrote:
I should have mentioned that the Widom-Larsen share my view that there is no fundamentally new physics involved.
To summarize: There is no need to give up on quantum mechanics just yet ! There is absolutely no reason to give up on mathematics either !
Dear Julian,
in the link ahead there is a discussion between the nuclear chemists Mitch Andre Garcia and Grejak, a member named LewisLarsen, and the journalist Steven Krivit.
http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=17140.0
Mitch shows that cold fusion is theoreticaly impossible to occur, while Krivit and LewisLarsen defends Larsen theory.
Mitch:
In conclusion, giving coverage to this fringe science only helps perpetuate the false belief that there exists any viability in cold fusion.
Krivit:
3. There is a theory (published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal) by Widom and Larsen, that claims to be able to explain most of the “cold fusion” phenomena without requiring one to invoke magic spells. Take a look at http://www.newenergytimes.com/wltheory.
Let me know what you think.
Best regards,
Steve Krivit
Editor, New Energy Times
Mitch:
A negative Q-value means that this will not happen spontaneously. This makes sense, since neutrons are heavier (contain more mass) than protons. The question then is, where will this additional mass come from? From the references cited in your post, I see no explanation accounting for the excess mass of the neutron. In the end, the mass-energy or the products need to equal the mass-energy of the reactants; No one can escape the conservation of mass-energy.
LewisLarsen:
Using the Widom-Larsen theory, we can now answer three important questions about anomalous LENR experimental results that previous “cold fusion” researchers have been unable to answer to the satisfaction of the mainstream physics community for the past 18 years. These questions and our answers to them are:
Grejak:
Hi lewisglarsen,
The explanations listed above, and in the papers sound quite unreasonable to me. Luckily, there are several very simple tests that could be performed in order to show the validity of the explanations provided. Strangely enough, over the last decade, no attempt has been made to actually try to test the crackpot theories and explanations put forth by the cold fusion enthusiasts.
Krivit and LewisLarsen did not show how Widom and Larsen theory can surpass the restrictions pointed out by Mitch and Grejak.
Can you, Julian Brown, give us the answers?
Dear Bruno Padovani:
Interesting, why don’t you send a proposal?
info@leonardocorp1996.com
Warm Regards,
A.R.
[…] http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=497cpage=3#comment-43618 Lande June 4th, 2011 at 2:00 PM OK, I understand that you can not discuss the details surrounding […]
[…] […]
Alessandro Arcaro: If you’re interested in Thorium as an energy source please go to http://www.energyfromthorium.com. All the information you want can be found there.
Dear Dr. Rossi, regarding technologies for converting E-CAT heat to usable electric power, have you considered the use of a Johnson Thermal Eneregy Converter (Jtec)? I think that your and Lonnie Johnson’s technologies are very complementary. Mating the two might be a practical way to deploy residential sized E-CATs capable of providing both heat and electricity. I’m pretty sure that the Jtec produces a DC current, so such a residential module would need to include a DC-to-AC motor generator set.
I agree with my friend Marcin Nowak.
Hope that you, your family and friends are safe.
If you are not sure, please invest in bodyguard and report it to police.
Warm regards
T.R
Dr Mr Rossi
Be persistent in your work.
Don’t bother of non-constructive criticism.
Someone recomended you a movie “Home” about our planet and harms made by mankind to mother nature. I think it could be a good motivation for you.
be careful and crafty in marketing your technology.
World needs people like you
Warm Regards and God bless You!
Dear Brian Kean,
Please contact us in November for commercial issues,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear John:
You will find many photos if you go to Nyteknik, searching Mats Lewan E-Cat reports, an to the
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com
and choose all the stuff regarding thetest reports.
You will also find many photod in the many blogs who dealt with this issue.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Dear Julian Brown:
Actually, the theory at thebase of my tech is quite different. Of course this meand not a lack of respect for the serious scientists involved in your comment.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Dear Cesarino Artioli:
I would add Enrico Fermi, on the spot, and many others, but over all I would add the “Unknown Scientist”: the thousands of scientists from all the World who achieved extremely important results, used by others, without reaching the stage of notoriety.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Alessandro Arcaro:
Yes, the work of Prof. Rubbia on Th fission is very interesting. I have only a superficial knowledge of it, from the specialized magazines, but I studied what I found with interest.
As I always said, the world’s energy problems are so differentiated and vast, that it is necessary the integration of all the potentialities.
Warm regards,
A.R.