HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Environment & Energy » Environment & Energy (Group) » Indication of anomalous h...

Tue May 28, 2013, 09:40 AM

Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nicke…

Andrea Rossi and his E-Cat HT. (Could it be real?)

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1305/1305.3913.pdf
[font face=Serif][font size=5]Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder.[/font]

Giuseppe Levi
Bologna University, Bologna, Italy
Evelyn Foschi Bologna, Italy
Torbjörn Hartman, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson and Lars Tegnér Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
Hanno Essén
Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

[font size=4]ABSTRACT[/font]

[font size=3]An experimental investigation of possible anomalous heat production in a special type of reactor tube named E-Cat HT is carried out. The reactor tube is charged with a small amount of hydrogen loaded nickel powder plus some additives. The reaction is primarily initiated by heat from resistor coils inside the reactor tube. Measurement of the produced heat was performed with high-resolution thermal imaging cameras, recording data every second from the hot reactor tube. The measurements of electrical power input were performed with a large bandwidth three- phase power analyzer. Data were collected in two experimental runs lasting 96 and 116 hours, respectively. An anomalous heat production was indicated in both experiments.

The 116-hour experiment also included a calibration of the experimental set-up without the active charge present in the E-Cat HT. In this case, no extra heat was generated beyond the expected heat from the electric input.

Computed volumetric and gravimetric energy densities were found to be far above those of any known chemical source. Even by the most conservative assumptions as to the errors in the measurements, the result is still one order of magnitude greater than conventional energy sources.



[font size=4]Conclusions[/font]



Lastly, it must be remarked that both tests were terminated by a deliberate shutdown of the reactor, not by fuel exhaustion; thus, the energy densities that were measured should be considered as lower limits of real values.

…[/font][/font]

38 replies, 4986 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 38 replies Author Time Post
Reply Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nicke… (Original post)
OKIsItJustMe May 2013 OP
Progressive dog May 2013 #1
OKIsItJustMe May 2013 #2
Progressive dog May 2013 #3
phantom power May 2013 #4
Progressive dog May 2013 #5
OKIsItJustMe May 2013 #6
FogerRox May 2013 #8
OKIsItJustMe May 2013 #11
FogerRox May 2013 #26
Progressive dog May 2013 #9
OKIsItJustMe May 2013 #12
Progressive dog May 2013 #14
OKIsItJustMe May 2013 #15
Progressive dog May 2013 #17
OKIsItJustMe May 2013 #18
Progressive dog May 2013 #23
FogerRox May 2013 #27
OKIsItJustMe May 2013 #13
Progressive dog May 2013 #16
OKIsItJustMe May 2013 #19
Progressive dog May 2013 #21
OKIsItJustMe May 2013 #29
Progressive dog May 2013 #32
Progressive dog May 2013 #24
OKIsItJustMe May 2013 #20
Progressive dog May 2013 #22
Progressive dog May 2013 #34
OKIsItJustMe May 2013 #36
Progressive dog May 2013 #37
FogerRox May 2013 #7
OKIsItJustMe May 2013 #10
FogerRox May 2013 #25
OKIsItJustMe May 2013 #28
OKIsItJustMe May 2013 #30
OKIsItJustMe May 2013 #31
Progressive dog May 2013 #33
wtmusic May 2013 #35
bluedeathray Jun 2013 #38

Response to OKIsItJustMe (Original post)

Tue May 28, 2013, 10:32 AM

1. cold fusion again

If it were real, there would be reaction products.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #1)

Tue May 28, 2013, 12:22 PM

2. Actually, there may be something to “Cold Fusion” as well…

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20130011698
[font face=Serif]

NASA/TM–2013-217981

[font size=5]Advanced-to-Revolutionary Space Technology Options – The Responsibly Imaginable[/font]

[font size=4]Dennis M. Bushnell
Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia



April 2013[/font]



[font size=4]Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, the Realism and the Outlook[/font]

[font size=3]LENR could, by itself, COMPLETELY Revolutionize Space access and utilization. Although there is a quite long history of “anomalous” observations including transmutations the “recent” consideration of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions begins with the Pons/ Fleishman late 80’s observations and assertions regarding what they termed “Cold Fusion”. Subsequent difficulties with experimental replication and an utter lack of convincing theoretical explication forced research in this arena “underground” with minimal financial support. The current situation is that we now have over two decades of hundreds of experiments indicating heat and transmutations with minimal radiation and low energy input. By any rational measure this evidence indicates something real is occurring. So, is LENR “Real”? Evidently, from the now long standing and diverse experimental evidence – yes - With effects occurring using diverse materials, methods of energy addition etc. This is FAR from a “Narrow Band”/episodic set of physical phenomena.

The next consideration is “WHAT IS REAL? WHAT IS Happening? For NASA Langley the epiphany moment on LENR was the publication of the Widom-Larsen weak interaction LENR Theory. This theory is currently under study and experimental verification [ or not] at NASA LaRC. The theory appears to explain nearly all the various and often variegated experimental observations and shifted the LENR Theoretical focus from some way of “fooling” Particle Nuclear Physics/The Strong Force to Condensed Matter Nuclear Physics, Collective Effects, The Weak Force and “Heavy Electrons”. The Strong Force Particle Physicists have of course evidently been correct all along, “Cold Fusion” is not possible. HOWEVER, via collective effects/condensed matter quantum nuclear physics LENR is allowable without any “Miracles”. The theory states that once load surfaces with hydrogen/protons and add some energy IF the surface morphology enables high localized voltage gradients then “heavy electrons leading to ultra low energy neutrons will form, neutrons that never leave the surface. The neutrons set up isotope cascades that results in beta decay and heat and transmutations with the heavy electrons converting the gamma from the beta decay into heat.

The theory indicates several key issues/circumstances are required to enable-to-optimize LENR and explains the various experimental observations, including the often long initiation times required in some experiments. If the theory is experimentally validated in detail it provides the understanding to shift LENR research from discovery into engineering development. The theory indicates energy densities some million times chemical, the current experiments are in the 10’s to hundreds range. However, several labs have blown up studying LENR and windows have melted, indicating when the conditions are “right” prodigious amounts of energy can be released/produced. There are some 6 or so groups claiming device outputs in the 100 watt range and 3 others claiming kilowatts. Efforts are ongoing within NASA and other organizations to validate, or not, these claims. It should be noted that these devices are essentially “Edisonian,” the result of attempts at experimental “discovery” vice ab-initio design from the weak interaction theories per se.

The LENR situation and outlook is therefore the following: Something real is happening, the weak interaction theories suggest what the physics might be, there are efforts ongoing to explore the validity of the theories, there are continuing Edisonian efforts to produce “devices,” mainly for heat or in some cases Transmutations. There are efforts to “certify” such devices. We are still FAR from the theoretical limits of the weak interaction physics and are in fact inventing in real time the requisite Engineering, along with verifying the physics. When we concentrated upon Nuclear Engineering beginning in the 1940’s we went, “jumped” to the strong force/particle physics and leapt over the weak force, condensed matter nuclear physics. We are going “back” now to study and hopefully develop this arena.

…[/font][/font]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKIsItJustMe (Reply #2)

Tue May 28, 2013, 01:19 PM

3. beta decay huh to gamma and then heat

There is no physics to verify. That is what someone else on DU has described as a word salad.
Transmutations-- didn't this used to be called alchemy?
There have been no scientifically verifiable results to cold fusion, period. At some point real scientists give up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #3)

Tue May 28, 2013, 01:31 PM

4. Transmutation is what fusion does

two smaller nuclei fuse into a larger nucleus -- a different, heavier, element.

Note, that is not a statement about the validity of "cold fusion", just noting that there's nothing incorrect about discussing "transmutation" per se. All the fusion in stars, and any that humans engineer, involves transmutation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phantom power (Reply #4)

Tue May 28, 2013, 01:41 PM

5. Yes it does and it's what fission does too

That is not what that "NASA scientist" was talking about. He was talking about alchemy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #5)

Tue May 28, 2013, 04:33 PM

6. Strange… my reaction is different than yours

Since you don’t understand it, you mock it.

NASA’s reaction seems to have been, we can verify through experimentation that something we don’t understand is happening. Let’s try to figure out how it is happening, so we can do something useful with it.


(Please note, text taken from a NASA blog. — Copyright concerns are nil.)

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/864
[font face=Serif]2/22/2013 @ 2:18PM

[font size=5]The nuclear reactor in your basement[/font]

February 13, 2013

By Bob Silberg,
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

[font size=3]How would you like to replace your water heater with a nuclear reactor? That’s what Joseph Zawodny, a senior scientist at NASA’s Langley Research Center, hopes to help bring about. It would tap the enormous power of the atom to provide hot water for your bath, warm air for your furnace system, and more than enough electricity to run your house and, of course, your electric car.

If your thoughts have raced to Fukushima or Three Mile Island or Chernobyl, let me reassure you. Zawodny is not suggesting that you put that kind of reactor in your house. What he has in mind is a generator that employs a process called Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions. (The same process is sometimes called Lattice Energy Nuclear Reactions. We’ll just call it LENR.)

So what is LENR and how might it one day fill all your energy needs without risk of blowing up, melting down, or irradiating the neighbors?



The theoretical underpinnings of LENR are complex, but the basics are pretty easy to understand. Instead of splitting an atomic nucleus apart or ramming two mutually repelling nuclei together, Widom-Larsen’s LENR simply offers a very slow-moving neutron to a nucleus. According to Zawodny, nuclei presented with sluggish neutrons slurp them up like a hungry Texan with a bowl of firehouse chili. But like many a chili consumer, the nuclei can find that their indulgence makes them, shall we say, unstable. And while I am too polite to continue the chili metaphor past this point, the nuclei do find that emissions relieve their distress.

With rare exception, Zawodny said, a nucleus which has lapped up one too many neutrons spits out an electron, which it gets by breaking up one of its neutrons into an electron and proton (and an anti-neutrino, but we can ignore that). So where it once had an extra neutron, making it an unstable isotope of whatever element it was, it now has an extra proton instead, which makes it a more stable isotope of a different element. This process releases energy which, hypothetically, can be used to generate electricity.

According to Zawodny, the challenge in making this work lies at the beginning of the process, generating those ultra-slow neutrons without expending more energy than the process yields. There are several hypothetical versions of the procedure, but here’s a good example:

We start by processing nickel so that it can hold hydrogen the way a sponge holds water. The hydrogen is ionized, meaning that each hydrogen atom has its electron stripped away, leaving only a proton.

Electrons in the metal are made to oscillate together in such a way that the electromagnetic energy stored in tens of thousands of them is transferred to a relative few, giving them enough energy to merge with nearby protons (the hydrogen ions) and form slow-moving neutrons. Those neutrons, as we noted, are immediately captured by nuclei of the metal atoms, setting in motion a chain of events which turns the nickel into copper and releases useful energy.



But solving that problem can wait until the theory is better understood. “From my perspective, this is still a physics experiment,” Zawodny said. “I'm interested in understanding whether the phenomenon is real, what it's all about. Then the next step is to develop the rules for engineering. Once you have that, I'm going to let the engineers have all the fun.”

And he is sure that if the Widom-Larsen theory is shown to be correct, resources to support the necessary technological breakthroughs will come flooding in. “All we really need is that one bit of irrefutable, reproducible proof that we have a system that works,” Zawodny said. “As soon as you have that, everybody is going to throw their assets at it. And then I want to buy one of these things and put it in my house.”[/font][/font]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKIsItJustMe (Reply #6)

Tue May 28, 2013, 05:09 PM

8. Maybe Rossi could cooperate with this guy?

“All we really need is that one bit of irrefutable, reproducible proof that we have a system that works,”

But its been 2 years and Rossi wont work with his biggest fan at NASA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FogerRox (Reply #8)

Tue May 28, 2013, 05:45 PM

11. Not just one person at NASA

In this thread, you’ll notice there are at least 2 people at NASA who are interested in LENR.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKIsItJustMe (Reply #11)

Tue May 28, 2013, 08:20 PM

26. Whoa.

break out the check books

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKIsItJustMe (Reply #6)

Tue May 28, 2013, 05:17 PM

9. 50,000,000 degrees to add energy necessary for 2 protons to fuse

The number is approximate, but the heat achievable with electric heating elements is no where near this.

This energy is required to overcome the EMF due to the charge of the protons. Now you may believe that 100+ years of physics should fall to magical thinking, but I don't.

There is no Widom-Larsen theory. Scientific theories require evidence and are generally accepted science. Elevating this bad hypothesis to the level of theory is proof of the complete lack of credibility from the author.

Why didn't Einstein think of this?
"Electrons in the metal are made to oscillate together in such a way that the electromagnetic energy stored in tens of thousands of them is transferred to a relative few, giving them enough energy to merge with nearby protons (the hydrogen ions) and form slow-moving neutrons."
Those damn fools who think that think the sun works on fusion when there's such a simple mechanism for nuclear energy.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #9)

Tue May 28, 2013, 05:48 PM

12. Did you actually read what you replied to?

The theoretical underpinnings of LENR are complex, but the basics are pretty easy to understand. Instead of splitting an atomic nucleus apart or ramming two mutually repelling nuclei together, Widom-Larsen’s LENR simply offers a very slow-moving neutron to a nucleus. …

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKIsItJustMe (Reply #12)

Tue May 28, 2013, 06:04 PM

14. Neutron stars are about the only place this happens

Of course I read it and I know what a scientific theory is and LENR has no theoretical underpinnings. I thought it was oscillations of the electrons in a metal (kind of like electromagnetics but magic), cause you know it happens all the time in nature
Of course it does, because lightening isn't electricity, volcanoes aren't hot, metals are the only conductor that works, hydrogen that starts in water doesn't count. Yup, just a few hundred years of existing science to ignore.
It would be extremely generous to call the basics of LENR bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #14)

Tue May 28, 2013, 06:14 PM

15. Then, some other explanation (other than LENR) must be found for the results

Because it’s not just crackpots who are claiming to produce results at this point.

http://portal.acs.org/portal/PublicWebSite/pressroom/newsreleases/WPCP_012362
[font face=Serif]FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
[font size=5]“Cold fusion” rebirth? New evidence for existence of controversial energy source[/font]

[font size=3]SALT LAKE CITY, March 23, 2009 — Researchers are reporting compelling new scientific evidence for the existence of low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR), the process once called “cold fusion” that may promise a new source of energy. One group of scientists, for instance, describes what it terms the first clear visual evidence that LENR devices can produce neutrons, subatomic particles that scientists view as tell-tale signs that nuclear reactions are occurring.

Low-energy nuclear reactions could potentially provide 21st Century society a limitless and environmentally-clean energy source for generating electricity, researchers say. The report, which injects new life into this controversial field, will be presented here today at the American Chemical Society’s 237th National Meeting. It is among 30 papers on the topic that will be presented during a four-day symposium, “New Energy Technology,” March 22-25, in conjunction with the 20th anniversary of the first description of cold fusion.

“Our finding is very significant,” says study co-author and analytical chemist Pamela Mosier-Boss, Ph.D., of the U.S. Navy’s Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR) in San Diego, Calif. “To our knowledge, this is the first scientific report of the production of highly energetic neutrons from an LENR device.”



In the new study, Mosier-Boss and colleagues inserted an electrode composed of nickel or gold wire into a solution of palladium chloride mixed with deuterium or “heavy water” in a process called co-deposition. A single atom of deuterium contains one neutron and one proton in its nucleus.

…[/font][/font]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKIsItJustMe (Reply #15)

Tue May 28, 2013, 06:29 PM

17. One experiment does not a theory make

I didn't believe in cold fusion, and this has less credibility. This is cold fusion revisited, under a new name. I notice they detected highly energetic neutrons and the LENR bull claims low energy neutrons. Now we're back to using water instead of hydrogen, just like cold fusion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #17)

Tue May 28, 2013, 06:46 PM

18. Right, however, it’s not just one experiment

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/at-the-edge/2012/08/08/new-burst-of-energy-could-bring-cold-fusion-to-front-burner
[font face=Serif][font size=5]New Burst of Energy Could Bring Cold Fusion to Front Burner[/font]

By Jeff Nesbit
August 8, 2012

[font size=3]…

The notion that some big players are showing interest in LENR has set the small community of researchers who have continued to investigate cold fusion buzzing. LENR is real, these researchers claim, even if cold fusion research is almost never published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In short, they've been asking places like DOE or others to jump in the water with them and see if more than 100 largely unsubstantiated (and non-peer-reviewed) reports of observed excess heat effects by some unexplained interaction of hydrogen or deuterium with metals like nickel, platinum, or palladium mean something.

This small community of researchers working with tiny budgets claims that to have made substantial progress in the past few years. But it can't explain the observed effects within the current standard model. And no one can explain how transmuting one material into another at the nuclear level--e.g., nickel nano-powder and hydrogen into copper at low temperatures (freeing up excess energy at the atomic level with no harmful nuclear byproducts or radiation)--is feasible or even possible. But that hasn't stopped the patenting process, and there are a few now that explore LENR systems that use this process in concert with electromagnetic stimulation.

But what has inspired hope within this small community are several recent developments: LENR demonstration projects recently initiated at respected places like MIT, the University of Missouri, and the University of Bologna; public presentations by executives at one of the world's largest instrument companies, National Instruments, apparently designed to attract the top LENR researchers into a project to test and quantify observed LENR effects; and a July report from the European Commission's research and development center that LENR at least has sustainable future energy technology potential.

But near the top of the cold fusion research community's hit parade are musings from NASA, like the fact that the agency apparently filed two LENR-related patents last year and that a leading NASA scientist has indicated that LENR is real enough to pay attention to and study. Boeing and NASA may even be testing aircraft using LENR or other similar concepts.

…[/font][/font]



Check out the papers on this page:
http://www.rle.mit.edu/bio-hagelstein/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKIsItJustMe (Reply #18)

Tue May 28, 2013, 07:37 PM

23. LENR the new explanation for bad science

From Wickipedia on LENR ". It has been rejected by the mainstream scientific community because the original experimental results could not be replicated consistently and reliably, and because there is no accepted theoretical model of cold fusion."
20 years, no proof except in the heads of a handful of so-called scientists who continue to profit from their "research".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #14)

Tue May 28, 2013, 09:23 PM

27. Yup. Things like iron are the end of the cycle

Things like Deuterium and helium are lighter and easier to fuse, as "Stuff" gets heavier it gets harder. And the harder it gets, the only place it occurs is in a star.

Refusing to measure waveforms of the input electricity, with an oscilloscope is well, silly, when using 2 phases of a 3 phase input. According to people who know way more than I do.

Not using a caloric calc, WTF?

ITs snake oil.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #9)

Tue May 28, 2013, 05:56 PM

13. This may help you

http://futureinnovation.larc.nasa.gov/view/articles/futurism/bushnell/low-energy-nuclear-reactions.html


The Strong Force Particle physicists have evidently been correct all along. "Cold Fusion" is not possible. However, via collective effects/ condensed matter quantum nuclear physics, LENR is allowable without any "miracles." The theory states that once some energy is added to surfaces loaded with hydrogen/protons, if the surface morphology enables high localized voltage gradients, then heavy electrons leading to ultra low energy neutrons will form-- neutrons that never leave the surface. The neutrons set up isotope cascades which result in beta decay, heat and transmutations with the heavy electrons converting the beta decay gamma into heat.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKIsItJustMe (Reply #13)

Tue May 28, 2013, 06:18 PM

16. IT is not a theory

It is an extraordinary claim that overturns existing science. Experiments have not been duplicated by real scientists and in fact most of the energy claimers will not release their experimental design.
This is the latest perpetual motion machine scam.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #16)

Tue May 28, 2013, 06:49 PM

19. And, of course, experiments never overturn existing science

There have been a number of successful experiments by “Real™ Scientists” at this point.

Something appears to be happening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKIsItJustMe (Reply #19)

Tue May 28, 2013, 07:10 PM

21. Real scientists publish methods, unlike these

Real scientists don't claim to have a theory when they don't even have a hypothesis.
A number of "successful experiments" don't overturn thousands upon thousands of experiments and observations. Especially experiments whose only claim is to generate energy out of thin air.
First we have the article in the OP claiming energy by a mechanism other than cold fusion, because he says cold fusion has been soundly disproved. Then in defense of the new "theory", you post a paper that claims cold fusion works.
So I agree, this is cold fusion under another name. Like cold fusion, it is either a scam or a big mistake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #21)

Tue May 28, 2013, 11:30 PM

29. Look, I'm not going to try to convince you of anything

I remain skeptical myself, However... I'm becoming less skeptical. Perhaps you should re-examine the evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKIsItJustMe (Reply #29)

Wed May 29, 2013, 08:33 AM

32. I hate it when "scientists" make up stuff so

I am trying to convince you.
This is pseudo science, and just like Creationism has morphed to Intelligent Design, Cold Fusion has morphed to LENR. We also have the climate change due to CO2 deniers, some of whom have moved on from it's not happening to, the missing sun spots are gonna freeze us so CO2 is good.
The real scientists have better things to do than counter every ridiculous experiment and claim. They are trying to advance knowledge, not deny it.
There is a lot of pseudo science out there, and I don't like any one believing any of it.
The data overwhelmingly supports the real science in every case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKIsItJustMe (Reply #19)

Tue May 28, 2013, 07:47 PM

24. Thousands say no but a handful are "successful"

Nothing is happening. This, hopefully, is the last gasp of the cold fusion true believers. LENR is an explanation waiting for something to explain. Like plastic water and perpetual motion, there will always be true believers in cold fusion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #16)

Tue May 28, 2013, 07:06 PM

20. I guess we will need to define “theory” in order to decide whether it is one or not

http://discovermagazine.com/2012/nov/27-big-idea-bring-back-the-cold-fusion-dream
[font face=Serif][font size=5]Big Idea: Bring Back the "Cold Fusion" Dream[/font]
[font size=4]A new theory may explain the notorious cold fusion experiment from two decades ago, reigniting hopes of a clean-energy breakthrough.[/font]

By Mark Anderson|Tuesday, October 23, 2012

[font size=3]…

The man most responsible for the change of thinking is a technology and energy consultant with a background in physics named Lewis Larsen. In 1989 he was paying attention when Pons and Fleischmann described how a set of palladium rods, connected to an electric current and immersed in lithium-enriched water, churned out more energy in the form of heat than it received in electricity. He followed along as subsequent experiments achieved mixed results. Some seemed to produce a lot of heat, others little or none. Yet a nagging question persisted: If the contraptions really were putting out more energy than they took in, what could be responsible?

Pons and Fleischmann’s infamous explanation was that hydrogen nuclei were fusing inside the metal rods. Larsen, along with virtually every physicist on the planet, knew that was implausible: Fusion requires enormous temperatures and pressures, which is why it occurs only in stars and bombs. But the heat seemed real, at least in some cases. So in 1997, when hedge fund executives asked Larsen to explore wild-card ideas for energy production, he decided to investigate the cold fusion mystery using only established physics.

[font size=4]Cold, Yes, But Not Fusion[/font]
Sifting through physics literature, Larsen considered other nuclear reactions that could subtly produce energy. One candidate was radioactive decay, which occurs when unstable atomic nuclei release energy in the form of radiation. Some elements found in nature, like radium, undergo this decay. Could something in the cold fusion apparatus be doing much the same? Larsen formulated a theory showing how that could happen, and in 2004 he recruited Northeastern University theoretical physicist Allan Widom to hone his ideas.

Their theory showed how a film of negatively charged electrons covering the palladium could combine with positively charged protons from the water’s hydrogen atoms to form neutrons. Those neutrons could then be gobbled up by nearby lithium nuclei, disturbing the delicate balance of protons and neutrons that keep the nuclei stable. The lithium nuclei would rapidly decay, first into beryllium and then into helium, and emit radiation. Finally, the film of electrons would absorb the radiation and reemit it as heat. Widom and Larsen called this chain of events a low-energy nuclear reaction, or LENR—a more accurate and palatable term than cold fusion. The European Physical Journal C published their theory in 2006.

…[/font][/font]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKIsItJustMe (Reply #20)

Tue May 28, 2013, 07:31 PM

22. There is a scientific definition and a lay definition of theory

So we have a new scientific theory to explain the net gain in energy from running electricity through water, using palladium as an electrode. A net energy gain that most experimenters haven't been able to duplicate. A net gain that the original claimants have touted for 20 years with fewer and fewer scientists believing them.
Twenty years and no results, but a new a theory to explain the results of experiments that only work for a handful of experimenters.
That's not a theory by any definition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKIsItJustMe (Reply #13)

Wed May 29, 2013, 09:47 AM

34. I just read, rather than skimmed the supposed NASA crap

What they are saying, in very simple terms is that if we heat the right kind of something, then electrons within that something will be absorbed by protons which become neutrons which then decay to protons and electrons. So we are left with exactly what we started with, but miraculously have gained energy.
First law of thermodynamics bye-bye, perpetual motion here we come.
I'll bet these guys are a shoo in for the Nobel prize in physics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #34)

Wed May 29, 2013, 06:49 PM

36. "So we are left with exactly what we started with, but miraculously have gained energy."

May want to re-read...

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/864
...

With rare exception, Zawodny said, a nucleus which has lapped up one too many neutrons spits out an electron, which it gets by breaking up one of its neutrons into an electron and proton (and an anti-neutrino, but we can ignore that). So where it once had an extra neutron, making it an unstable isotope of whatever element it was, it now has an extra proton instead, which makes it a more stable isotope of a different element. This process releases energy which, hypothetically, can be used to generate electricity.

...

Electrons in the metal are made to oscillate together in such a way that the electromagnetic energy stored in tens of thousands of them is transferred to a relative few, giving them enough energy to merge with nearby protons (the hydrogen ions) and form slow-moving neutrons. Those neutrons, as we noted, are immediately captured by nuclei of the metal atoms, setting in motion a chain of events which turns the nickel into copper and releases useful energy.

...


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKIsItJustMe (Reply #36)

Thu May 30, 2013, 08:10 AM

37. Nah, I think it's pretty simple and I mean simple nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKIsItJustMe (Original post)

Tue May 28, 2013, 05:07 PM

7. Rossi has been pushing this for a few years now

Rossi has a working prototype, and should have changed the world, if it was legit. IT hasnt. I just cant take this seriously until more is known.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FogerRox (Reply #7)

Tue May 28, 2013, 05:43 PM

10. But, at this point, it is not just Rossi

When it was just him, I confess, I thought “crackpot.”

So, now, we have outside investigators looking at his work. (Read the paper.)

I admit, I’m still skeptical… but I try to keep an open mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKIsItJustMe (Reply #10)

Tue May 28, 2013, 08:18 PM

25. Someone else is making E-cats?

Outside investigators? Levi again?

Try this thread

http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3200&start=5760

Its simple to test an E-cat, take water and heat it up, measure power in, do the BTU/Calorie calc. But Rossi went elsewhere. Apparently Rossi used 2 phases of 3 phase power (according to people who know way more than I do) without an oscilloscope. SO that test is useless.

The Navy did peer review with WB-7.

If the Rossi E-cat is legit patent it and peer review it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FogerRox (Reply #25)

Tue May 28, 2013, 11:25 PM

28. Did you read the paper?

Just wondering...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to OKIsItJustMe (Original post)

Wed May 29, 2013, 01:40 AM

31. The E-Cat Testing Team, Real or Ringers?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/24/the-e-cat-testing-team-real-or-ringers/
[font face=Serif]
5/24/2013 @ 5:48PM
[font size=5]The E-Cat Testing Team, Real or Ringers?[/font]

[font size=3]The comments to my recent post concerning the “independent tests” of Andrea Rossi’s low energy nuclear reaction (LENR) system called the E-Cat make for interesting reading and both here and in other forums the report has been sliced and diced.

Amongst the main criticisms of the report are the claims that the testers were not as independent and qualified as many critics would have liked. A lot of confusion has been generated in analyzing who they are and why they were involved most of which was due to people overlooking or not checking the tester’s qualifications and backgrounds.

...

An interesting member of the roster is Hanno Essen who, at one time, was deeply skeptical of Rossi’s invention as might be expected considering he was Chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society for three years (from 19 April 2008 to 2 April 2011). Another interesting member is Giuseppe Levi, whose academic credentials are impressive and has been friends with Rossi for some time.

It’s in keeping with Rossi’s eccentric way of going about things that a post about the report on his own blog does little to actually “sell” the team and their credentials. At the end of this post I have the roster of the testers as far as I’ve been able to research them. Check out their publications, I find their pedigrees pretty impressive. While there are some oddities (Foschi and Tegnér seem to have little public presence) the rest appear to be more than qualified and to have much to lose (I got that right this time) if they were to be involved in a scam of some kind.

...[/font][/font]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKIsItJustMe (Reply #31)

Wed May 29, 2013, 08:57 AM

33. Great endorsements of Rossi's team

How many scientists extraordinary claims get endorsed by other scientists that we say this about." While there are some oddities (Foschi and Tegnér seem to have little public presence) the rest appear to be more than qualified and to have much to lose (I got that right this time) if they were to be involved in a scam of some kind."
Endorsed by a handful of scientists that have too much to lose to be involved in a scam!!!!!!
Wow, I'm on the bandwagon now, the scientists that have too much to lose have endorsed Rossi's miracle.
He's even got an endorsement from some one with "academic credentials."




.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #33)

Wed May 29, 2013, 10:24 AM

35. I'm on board too - a skeptic would have too much to lose

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKIsItJustMe (Original post)

Sat Jun 1, 2013, 10:53 AM

38. We should be finding out some results soon.

If these shipments are actual events.

http://coldfusion3.com/category/lenr

by: Jennifer

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread