Cold fusion experimentally confirmed

[vector7]

Cold fusion experimentally confirmed

R. Colin Johnson
EE Times
(03/23/2009 8:43 PM EDT)

PORTLAND, Ore. — U.S. Navy researchers claimed to have experimentally confirmed cold fusion in a presentation at the American Chemical Society's annual meeting.

"We have compelling evidence that fusion reactions are occurring" at room temperature, said Pamela Mosier-Boss, a scientist with the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (San Diego). The results are "the first scientific report of highly energetic neutrons from low-energy nuclear reactions," she added.

Cold fusion was first reported in 1989 by researchers Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, then with the University of Utah, prompting a global effort to develop the technology. Normal fusion reactions, where hydrogen is fused into helium, occur at millions of degrees inside the Sun. If room temperature fusion reactions could be realized commercially, as Fleishchmann and Pons claimed to have achieved inside an electrolytic cell, it promised to produce abundant nuclear energy from deuterium--heavy hydrogen--extracted from seawater.

Other scientists were unable to duplicate the 1989 results, thereby discrediting the work.

The theoretical underpinnings of cold fusion have yet to be adequately explained. The hypothesis is that when electrolysis is performed on deuteron, molecules are fused into helium, releasing a high-energy neutron.

While excess heat has been detected by researchers, no group had yet been able to detect the missing neutrons.

Now, the Naval researchers claim that the problem was instrumentation, which was not up to the task of detecting such small numbers of neutrons.
To sense such small quantities, Mosier-Boss used a special plastic detector called CR-39.

Using co-deposition with nickel and gold wire electrodes, which were inserted into a mixture of palladium chloride and deutrium, the detector was able to capture and track the high-energy neutrons.

Silvered Dewar calorimeter used by Navy researchers to detect neutron emissions from a cold fusion process.

The plastic detector captured a pattern of tiny clusters of adjacent pits, called triple tracks, which the researchers claim is evidence of the telltale neutrons.

Other presenters at the conference also presented evidence supporting cold fusion, including Antonella De Ninno, a scientist with New Technologies Energy and Environment (Rome), who reported both excess heat and helium gas.

"We now have very convincing experimental evidence," De Ninno claimed.
Tadahiko Mizuno of Japan's Hokkaido University also reported excess heat generation and gamma-ray emissions.

All three research groups are currently exploring both experimental and theoretical studies in hopes of better understanding the cold fusion process well enough to commercialize it.

Research funding was provided by the Department of the Navy and JWK International Corp. (Annandale, Va.).

[Malsua]

There have been unexplainable experiments all along that showed unreproducible results indicating cold fusion. My opinion is/was that it's just a matter if getting all the variables right.

It seems someone has.

[American Patriot]

My opinion is that it's a load of nonsense.

FUSION can occur under extreme conditions - that is hydrogen atoms becoming helium under the extreme pressure that occurs in a star.

There are some idea that it can occur with the right conditions such as "light pressure" (which is why the NIF was built at Livermore - a place I've visited before).

In essence a lot of laser light aimed at a spot of material (deuterium) and hit in force could cause the process to occur, but sustaining the process isn't going to be possible without pumping a lot more energy into the process.

I think that the laser idea has the best chance - but it won't happen on the planet rather in space. Even the scientists I spoke to several years ago about this agreed that gravity might have a detrimental effect on the process. The head of the program told me he'd make sure I got 'credit' for the gravity theory

However... "cold fusion" is probably nothing more than a myth at this point.

By the way these tracks they are talking about could be caused by chemical reactions rather than a nuclear reaction.

[American Patriot]

The theoretical underpinnings of cold fusion have yet to be adequately explained. The hypothesis is that when electrolysis is performed on deuteron, molecules are fused into helium, releasing a high-energy neutron.

Let me help....

Electrolysis is a CHEMICAL reaction.

Fusion is a NUCLEAR reaction.

They are completely, totally separate things, related only on a cursory level.

A chemical reaction releases energy too, most of the time and occurs during the combination of elements at the valence electron shell level. Electrons can EASILY be pulled off of certain atoms giving you static charges for instance. in chemical reactions these outer valence electrons are shared by two more more atoms of two or more elements thus making compounds.

(For our discussion here, a compound is simply two or more elements combines to form this compound from a characteristic electrical charge. An element is the simplest form of a basic material and contains only one or a few atoms that are identical. Hydrogen has 1 electron and 1 proton. Normally hydrogen is 'stable' with two cnnected atoms, and is called H2).

Deuterium is a hydrogen atom of 1e, 1P and 1N and is called an isotope.

Here's where things get a little... 'sticky' if you pardon the pun.

Chemical reactions are ALWAYS concerned with ELECTRONS.

When you start trying to separate the nucleus of atoms you are attempting to cause fission, of the division of the nucleus. In physics we have something called "The Weak Force" and the "Strong Force".

(There are two other forces as well, one is gravitational and the other electromagnetic)

Essentially "strong force" is what holds together the atomic structure of the nucleus. This force is based on distance. It is VERY strong at close range and gets much weaker as distances go further. So if you CAN separate a neutron from an atom it won't be attracted back to that atom most likely ever. But separating it in the FIRST PLACE is nearly impossible.

It it even more difficult to get two atoms of one element to combine to form a complete new type of element. This is called FUSION.

Forcing two deuterium atoms together - each containing 1e, 1P and 1N into Helium (helium contains 2e, 2P and 2N) requires a method to force - and I do mean FORCE the two nuclei together.

What most people fail to grasp is the 'size' and 'distance' scale of atoms. Also the other forces like electrostatic repulsion effects are something not taken into account.

Basically the REASON that the sun shines and there is a massive thermonuclear (fusion) reaction going on is due mainly to gravity.

LOTS of mass, causing lots of gravity which in turn FORCES the atoms to compress and compact until a point of no-return is reached and the friction, heat and energy given off from this massive gravity cause the ignition of the star.

In this case the heat, and pressure FORCE the atoms to compress and recombine, giving off heat, light and other forms of energy - which then becomes a self-sustaining fusion reaction.

For this to occur on a SMALL scale would simple require a vast amount of energy to get it going (which is why I believe the laser idea is the best one).

Chemical reactions simply can not, and will not create, or sustain a nuclear reaction.

It is simply madness to believe it will with what we know.

[Toad]

Electrolysis is a CHEMICAL reaction.

Fusion is a NUCLEAR reaction.....

That's exactly the issue I see. People getting heat, and failing to see it's simply chemical in nature, rather than nuclear. And I really question if fusion could ever happen at standard "room" temp in the first place. otherwise, why don't we see any evidence of it occuring spontaniously under rare circumstances in nature?

When I see a cold fusion that is consistantly repeatable by independent parties and verified as nuclear in nature, then I'll believe it. I just don't think "cold" is atomically possible. It's a modern day version of alchemy's lead to gold.

[American Patriot]

That's exactly the issue I see. People getting heat, and failing to see it's simply chemical in nature, rather than nuclear. And I really question if fusion could ever happen at standard "room" temp in the first place. otherwise, why don't we see any evidence of it occuring spontaniously under rare circumstances in nature?

When I see a cold fusion that is consistantly repeatable by independent parties and verified as nuclear in nature, then I'll believe it. I just don't think "cold" is atomically possible. It's a modern day version of alchemy's lead to gold.

I think what the article was trying to say was that since deuterium occurs in nature it is POSSIBLE that they can force fusion "naturally"... in a round about way of saying it anyway.

No matter what they say, fusion is NOT a chemical reaction, and no matter how many times they say it this won't be a true thing. Can't happen without something very, very drastic occurring to force two atomic structures together into one.

Compression is one way it can be done. Compression through the use of light energy is possible and highly probably the only way it CAN occur. However, this isn't "cold".

Cold fusion is by definition a hypothetical form of nuclear fusion occurring without the use of extreme temperature or pressure.

Unfortunately, if this occurs in nature it will not occur in any sort of great quantities (I mean, how DID deuterium come to exist? By a natural process of SOME sort, thus they are postulating it occurred without heat or pressure obviously) and secondly if it does occur in nature, then why isn't there a vast amount MORE deuterium available in water?

Obviously this is a point of view, and I'm not knocking the point of view. I'm knocking the theory because - simply put we know fusion CAN occur under the right circumstances. Changing those circumstances does NOT allow fusion to occur.

What makes anyone think it is possible to ignore the circumstances and rules under which physics works in the natural world and "guess" it MIGHT work?

Logic and reason are usually thrown out in science by laymen - because, simply put, they want to "believe".

This is one of the main reasons I became so interested in science as a child and have followed the UFO phenomenon over the years. There are two distinct variations on a theme when it comes to "pie in the sky" stuff.

Be it "Free Energy" or "UFOs" or "Faces on Mars" there are two sets of people who overshadow everyone else.

The Believers and the Debunkers. Neither group has their feet firmly grounded in science and each side will make outlandish claims and try to show "proofs" based on false premises, lies and discrediting of the other side. Neither will lay a foundation of factual science.

When it comes right down to a battle between the two sides both will thrown out phrases like "We don't really know enough about science" or "Science is just made up" or "Science is more like religion than religion itself".

And neither of the two sides understands they are using the same argument and poor deductive reasoning.

[American Patriot]

Here's a good article at answers.com that isn't too technical and over the wall for most people.

http://www.answers.com/topic/cold-fusion

cold fusion or low-temperature fusion, nuclear fusion of deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen, at or relatively near room temperature. Fusion, the reaction involved in the release of the destructive energy of a hydrogen bomb, requires extremely high temperatures, and investigations of fusion as a possible energy source have focused on the problems involved in designing an apparatus to contain and sustain such a reaction (see nuclear energy; nuclear reactor). In 1989 B. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, chemists at the Univ. of Utah, announced that an experiment conducted at room temperature using platinum and palladium electrodes immersed in heavy water (deuterium oxide) had produced excess heat and other byproducts that they ascribed to a fusion reaction. Attempts to replicate their experiment produced initially conflicting results, but several early announcements of experimental confirmation were later retracted. Pons and Fleischmann were also later criticized for having skewed data to show the emission of gamma rays at an energy level typical of fusion.

Bibliography
See F. David Peat, Cold Fusion: The Making of a Scientific Controversy (1989); F. E. Close, Too Hot to Handle: The Race for Cold Fusion (1991); J. R. Huizenga, Cold Fusion: The Scientific Fiasco of the Century (1993); G. Taubes, Bad Science: The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion (1993).

[Malsua]

Have you guys seen the presentation that Dr Robert Bussard gave a few years back on Fusion and his Polywell reactor?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...=bussard&hl=en

This is the Dr Bussard of the Bussard Ramjet that's been popularized in fiction, Star Trek, etc.

[vector7]

Rossi Cold Fusion Validated by Swedish Skeptic's Society

Yet another test of Andrea Rossi's Energy Catalyzer (E-Cat) has been performed on a 4.5 kW version near the University of Bologna. This time a new set of observers were present, one of which is the chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society, who confirmed that Copper is being formed from Hydrogen and Nickel -- cold fusion!

Andrea Rossi grasps one of his new E-Cat units that offer a more compact size and higher power density.

by Hank Mills
Pure Energy Systems News


The evidence in support of Andrea Rossi's "cold fusion" or "LENR" (low energy nuclear reaction) based Energy Catalyzer continues to grow. For those who are not aware, his system combines nickel powder, hydrogen gas, and an input of pressure and heat to produce a large output of thermal energy. On March 29th, 2011 yet another test of the technology was performed at the University of Bologna. Like previous tests, the outcome was a complete success. However, this time a smaller version of the E-Cat was tested and two new observers were present.

Some well known players were present during the test. These include Andrea Rossi (the inventor of the E-Cat), Professor Sergio Focardi, Dr. David Bianchini, and of course Dr. Giuseppe Levi. Two guest observers were also present. One of the guest observers was Hanno Essen, associate professor of theoretical physics at the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology. He is also the chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society. The other guest observer was Professor Sven Kullander of Uppsala University. He is also chairman of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences Energy Committee.


Smaller System with Great Results

The test was performed on a much smaller version of the E-Cat. The previous version of the E-Cat had a reactor volume of about one liter. This system has a reactor volume of only one twentieth of a liter. Four E-Cat systems were present, but only one was tested. The remaining units had their shielding and insulation removed. This allowed for their construction to be seen.

This new model of E-Cat consists of a stainless steel reactor vessel which is placed inside of a copper pipe. Water flows between the copper pipe and the steel reactor vessel. There are inlets for both water and hydrogen gas. The reactor is activated by current flowing through a resistor which is wrapped around the outside of the copper pipe. When a certain temperature is reached the reaction begins. The setup is truly simple. It reminds me of old pipework from many years ago.

Kullander and Essen were given permission to examine the setup, check for hidden power supplies, fill the reactor with hydrogen, calibrate the volume of water flow, monitor the temperature of the water flow in and out of the system, and observe the entire experiment. The reactor contained 50 grams of nickel powder and .11 grams of hydrogen. In their report (pdf) they state, "We had free access to the heater electric supply, to the inlet water hose, to the outlet steam valve and water hose, and to the hydrogen gas feed pipe. The total weight of the device was estimated to be around 4 kg."

The result of the experiment was a constant average production of 4.69 kW of power for almost six hours. Additionally, the input was on average 330 watts (30 of which was used by the electronics controlling the setup). This is fifteen times less than the energy produced by the device (15x overunity).

This output was less than the 10 to 15 kW produced by the previous version of the E-Cat, but this is very impressive for a device 1/20th the volume!

Kullander and Essen also ruled out that the energy could be coming from a chemical source. They stated, "Any chemical process for producing 25 kWh from any fuel in a 50 cm3 container can be ruled out. The only alternative explanation is that there is some kind of a nuclear process that gives rise to the measured energy production." This statement is VERY significant coming from a report written not only by professional scientists, but also by the chairman of a skeptical society!

Yet again, it seems the existence of cold fusion or LENR in the form of Andrea Rossi's Energy Catalyzer has been vindicated. However, there is more news to report.


Transmutations

It is well known to those who have been following the saga of Andrea Rossi's technology that one byproduct of the system is copper. Apparently, it is the result of the fusion reaction between nickel and hydrogen. Until now, we had to take Andrea Rossi's word for that, but the results of additional testing has confirmed his claims.

A sample of fresh nickel powder and a sample of nickel powder that had been in an active E-Cat for two and a half months was given to Kullander and Essen. Elemental and isotopic analysis was performed on the samples utilizing both X-ray Fluorescence and Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry. The result was that the fresh nickel powder was almost totally pure nickel, but the nickel powder that had been in an E-Cat contained 10% copper and 11% iron. Two of the copper isotopes detected were Cu63 and Cu65. Kullander has stated this is proof of nuclear reactions taking place in the reactor.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Bob Park!

Mr. Park, are you ready to start apologizing for your many years of claiming cold fusion is simply pseudo-science, voodoo science, and snake oil? You better crawl back into the hole you came out of, because a lot of folks are going to be demanding apologies soon!

(Go ahead and continue faking your, "cold fusion amnesia." We realize you have been avoiding talking about the topic over the past few months!)


Dumbstream Media Still Not Paying Attention

After multiple successful tests of the E-Cat by third parties, and now proof of nuclear reactions, it is frustrating (but predictable) that the mainstream media is not paying hardly any attention to this technology. The E-Cat represents a way to eliminate our need for fossil fuels and an alternative to conventional nuclear power. However, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, and many other news networks act as if nothing is happening.

This is more proof that the mainstream media is dead, totally owned and controlled by the corrupt powers that be. If you want up to date news and information the alternative media is now the best source. At some point, awareness of this technology will reach a critical mass, and the so called mainstream media will be forced to cover it. Probably, there will be multi-hour long televised specials about the technology. The truth, of course, will be that they will not deserve the ratings they get. They ignored this technology for many months and it would serve them right if no one tuned in! I hope Andrea Rossi does not give a single major network in the United States an interview. My personal hope is that he chooses to give frequent interviews on Coast to Coast AM, and other media outlets that have frequently favorably discussed cold fusion over the years.


Energy Revolution Coming Soon

This is further evidence that an energy revolution is coming. As the year long research program on the E-Cat technology continues at the University of Bologna, more evidence is bound to be released. Perhaps soon after the one megawatt power plant and 300,000 unit a year manufacturing plant in Xanthi, Greece opens, a factory can start up in Japan. They could sure use a source of jobs and a new source of energy to replace their destroyed conventional nuclear power industry.

The only real mystery at this point is the catalyst(s) used in the reaction. This is the key to producing practical levels of output from nickel-hydrogen fusion systems.

# # #
This story is also published at BeforeItsNews.
Links:

• Experimental test of a mini-Rossi device at the Leonardocorp, Bologna 29 March 2011 - Participants: Giuseppe Levi, David Bianchini, Carlo Leonardi, Hanno Essén, Sven Kullander, Andrea Rossi, Sergio Focardi. Travel report by Hanno Essén and Sven Kullander, 3 April 2011.
• http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energ...cle3144827.ece - English version of announcement
• http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/04/swe...rossi-and.html

What You Can Do

1. Pass this on to your friends and favorite news sources.
2. Help us manage the PESWiki feature page on Rossi's technology.
3. Join the H-Ni_Fusion technical discussion group to explore the details of the technology.
4. Once available, purchase a unit and/or encourage others who are able, to do so.
5. We at PES Network are in a pinch right now. Donations would be greatly appreciated.
6. Subscribe to our newsletter to stay abreast of the latest, greatest developments in the free energy sector.
7. Let professionals in the renewable energy sector know about the promise of this technology.
8. Consider investing in Rossi's group.

Other PES Coverage

• Ampenergo Amps Up Rossi's Energy Catalyzer in America (PESN; May 17, 2011)
• Seven Reasons to Embrace Rossi's Energy Catalyzer (E-Cat)(PESN; May 7, 2011)
• NyTeknik Validates Rossi's Energy Catalyzer (PESN; May 2, 2011)
• Sterling Allan on Cash-Flow: "It's an act of revolution to support free energy."(PESN; April 28, 2011)
• Rossi Cold Fusion Validated by Swedish Skeptic's Society(PESN; April 7, 2011)
• Breakdown to Breakthrough is Possible Now(PESN; March 25, 2011)
• Andrea Rossi with Sterling Allan on Coast to Coast AM (PESN; March 24, 2011)
• Rossi's Cold Fusion Energy Catalyzer: Frequently Asked Questions (PESN; March 21, 2011)
• Sterling Allan Appearing on Coast to Coast AM March 23, 2011 (PESN; March 18, 2011)
• Welcome Worry-Free Nuclear Power: Rossi's Energy Catalyzer (PESN; March 17, 2011)
• Cold Fusion Steams Ahead at World's Oldest University (PESN; March 7, 2011)
• Future Impact of Rossi's Cold Fusion (PESN; February 28, 2011)
• Rossi's cold fusion reactor achieves 15 kW for 18 hours (PESN; February 22, 2011)
• BlackLight Power vs. Rossi's Cold Fusion - Related Technologies? (PESN; February 8, 2011)
• Fear Mongering: From Cannabis to Cold Fusion (PESN; January 23, 2011)
• Fighting the Infection of Cynical Skepticism with Cold Fusion (PESN; January 21, 2011)
• Hope Grows as Journals Weigh in on Italian Cold Fusion Breakthrough (PESN; January 19, 2011)
• Cold Fusion getting hot with 10kw heater prepping for market (PESN; January 17, 2011)
• Multi-kilowatt Ni-H cold fusion demo under way January 14 in Italy (PESN; January 14, 2011)

See also

Resources at PESWiki.com

• Directory:Andrea_A._Rossi_Cold_Fusion_Generator - feature page
• News:Rossi_Cold_Fusion
• Directory:Cold Fusion
• Directory:Nuclear
• Directory:Best_Exotic_Clean_Energy_Technologies
• More Stories by Hank Mills

• PESN (Pure Energy Systems News) - Feature stories on cutting-edge, clean energy technology.
• Free Energy News (.com) - Daily cutting-edge, clean energy technology news from around the world
• PESWiki Latest - Newest feature pages in the publicly-editable energy directory.
• This Week in Free Energy™ - Ten-minute recap each Sunday, 7:50 - 8:00 pm Mountain.
• Free Energy Now (.net) - in-depth interviews

[vector7]

Swedish Skeptics Confirm "Nuclear Process" in Tiny 4.7 kW Reactor

By Thomas Blakeslee
May 3, 2011 | 87 Comments



I spend much of my time debunking the free energy fantasies of my less technically competent friends. Wishful thinking makes many believe that cars can run on water after seeing a brief youtube video. Lately, however, I have been undergoing an exciting paradigm shift.

Remember the “cold fusion” fiasco of 1989? Well, I have come to realize that it wasn’t what it seemed at all. Denial, groupthink, dirty tricks and easily manipulated media combined to create an historical injustice. Two decades have been wasted virtually ignoring this game-changing discovery. Today’s environmental disasters, expensive energy and oil wars could possibly have been avoided. I’ll say more in a moment about what really happened in 1989, but first, let me tell you what got me started reexamining what I thought I knew about cold fusion.

You probably think that 4700 watts of clean, radiation-free power from a three cubic inch reactor sounds like yet another impossible hoax. But this was a third iteration demo, designed to satisfy skeptics of two previous demonstration at the prestigious University of Bologna. Attending the third demo were two Swedish scientists. One was chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society and the other was chairman of the Energy Committee of the Swedish Royal Academy of Science. They were both allowed to freely examine the entire setup except for the contents of the tiny, 50cc reactor chamber.

Their written report ended with: “Any chemical process for producing 25 kWh from any fuel in a 50 cm3 container can be ruled out. The only alternative explanation is that there is some kind of a nuclear process that gives rise to the measured energy production.” They also noted that you would have to burn 3 liters of oil to produce 25 kWh. There has since been another confirmation.

The inventor, Adrian Rossi, is very accessible on his blog and has said that more than one hundred of his 4.4 kW reactors are running in four countries.

He plans to ship a larger unit in October that produces one MW of hot water. It consists of hundreds of the small reactors in series/parallel mounted in one 2 X 3 X 3 meter box. It weighs two tons. The proprietary nanopowdered nickel fuel will be replenished every six months. Everything has been financed using Rossi’s own money and the customer will pay only when satisfied.

Rossi is an inventor and businessman who decades ago noticed excess heat effects while working with a nickel catalyst to synthesize fuel from hydrogen and carbon monoxide. Using Edison-like experimental techniques, he soon learned to control the heat production. He even kept his factory heated for two years with a prototype reactor. More than two thousand prototypes were built and destroyed in refining the design and learning how to control and scale up the reaction.

Researching the science literature, Rossi soon found Dr Sergio Focardi of the University of Bologna, who had regularly published work on nickel-hydrogen reactors since 1994. Using his own money, Rossi contracted with Dr. Focardi and the university to help him understand and develop the technology as a product. By January 14, 2011 they were ready for a public demonstration of a 10 kilowatt desktop reactor.

The press reaction was muted in Europe and nonexistent in the U.S. Skeptics accused him of hiding a battery inside the reactor so another, longer, demonstration was held, using calorimetry that heated but didn’t boil water to answer other critics. The 18 hour demonstration produced 18 kilowatts average over the entire 18 hours. The U.S. press was still silent and skeptics were still suspicious so two more demos were held.

Still, the silence from the U.S. media was deafening. Rossi announced that there will be no more demonstrations until October 2011, when the million watt heating plant will be shipped to a customer in Greece. If he succeeds, be prepared for a repeat of the Sputnik shock of 1957 when the US woke up to find that they had fallen way behind in science.

Nickel is plentiful and cheap and so is hydrogen in the tiny amounts used.

Nickel is so plentiful that energy becomes virtually free. Rossi’s reactor is very simple in principle. Powdered nickel and a catalyst are simply heated to about six hundred degrees centigrade in a stainless steel chamber filled with pressurized hydrogen. At a certain point, the gradual heating starts accelerating due to nuclear reactions in the metal lattice. The heating resistor is backed off to keep the reaction going at a steady state, with about 15 times more heat output than input. Much higher ratios are possible but can be unstable and dangerous. This is why the 1-MW plant will be built using hundreds of smaller modules.

The reactor is enclosed in a lead shield because some radiation is, unpredictably, produced during operation. However, the spent fuel is not radioactive but contains copper that has transmuted from nickel in the nuclear reaction. The lack of dangerous radiation drives hot fusion experts crazy, but clearly there are things happening that are not covered by the equations used in hot fusion. Obviously, quantum mechanics needs to be rethought to include these reactions.

There are many proposed theories. Biological processes have been found to produce transmuted isotopes without radiation. Also, tritium sometimes comes out of volcanic vents from unknown reactions inside the earth. Clearly, the physicists have more to explain if they will just open their ears. Here is an equation they should study carefully:

Groupthink + Denial = Environmental Disaster + Expensive Energy + Wars

Groupthink can make us totally irrational. The dot-com bubble and the housing bubble are examples of renowned experts becoming completely blind to facts that are now obvious in hindsight. Making a lot of money tends to blind us poor humans to clear evidence that we are living in a fantasy world. The consequences can be terrible.

Nuclear physicists in 1989 were riding a bonanza of tens of billions in government research money for the development of hot fusion reactors.

After several decades of hard work, they were still far from achieving break-even, where output energy exceeds input energy. Just as the next round of appropriations was assured, Fleischmann and Pons came along with the announcement that they had already achieved excess heat output without government support and on an inexpensive desktop setup.

Denial was immediate. MIT and Caltech, who had been leaders in hot fusion work, immediately went to work “trying” to replicate the experiment. In just five weeks Caltech announced negative results. At a May 1st 1989 APS meeting in Baltimore, two thousand physicists gave a standing ovation to the Caltech team’s presentation. A lynch mob mentality, combined with denial, turned the exciting discovery of cold fusion into an enemy.

MIT helped set the tone by arranging a front page story in the Boston Herald on the day of the meeting with the headline, “MIT bombshell knocks fusion “breakthrough” cold.” The story was an interview with leaders of the MIT fusion lab that accused Fleischmann and Pons of fraud. The charge was later denied but tapes of the actual interview confirm what was said.

MIT further disgraced itself by altering data in its failure to replicate study.

This was discovered two years later by MIT employee Eugene Mallove, who found copies of the July 10 and July 13 drafts of the paper. The July 10th version had a graph that clearly showed excess heat. In the July 13 version the graph was redrawn to show no excess heat. The atmosphere at MIT, as shown by a “Wake for Cold Fusion” party (before the data was analyzed) and t-shirts and mugs offered by the plasma fusion lab, was hardly impartial.

To this day, denial reigns among most of the guilty parties of this travesty. The Department of Energy, Nature magazine, Scientific American, the American Physical Society, the U.S. Patent Office and many of the world’s top physicists still cling irrationally to the belief that cold fusion is junk science. Of course, this is how denial works: We protect our belief system by quietly stepping around the “elephant under the rug.” As long as a majority of our group backs us up, our view of reality remains grossly distorted to preserve the group-think consensus. Global warming deniers do this every day.

The Fleischmann-Pons announcement should have been the start of a new era of cheap, clean energy that would have saved us from the financial and environmental disasters and wars caused by fossil fuel energy. Instead, denial and dirty tricks caused us to waste 23 years and tens of billions of dollars on failed nuclear projects as though nothing had happened. The Presidents 2012 budget includes $2.5 billion for such projects. The first DEMO hot fusion plant is currently scheduled for 2033.

A surprising natural process was discovered in 1989 that can provide us with clean, essentially free energy. It clearly conflicts with the current consensus understanding of quantum mechanics that works nicely for hot fusion reactions. It seems reasonable to try to improve the theory to accommodate this new reality, but denial has instead tricked many good scientists to try to “shoot the messenger.”

The time has come to admit the mistake and get busy trying to improve our understanding so that we can perfect this amazing new technology. We have spent $20 billion and 55 years trying to reach break-even with hot fusion. Time to give cold fusion a chance.

There have been many painful scientific battles in the past over paradigm changes, but truth has a way of prevailing eventually. Cold fusion work has continued under the radar using the more accurate term “Low Energy Nuclear Reactions” (LENR.) Shunned by the establishment, supporters of LENR have created their own journals and meetings. Much progress has been made.

The reasons for the initial difficulty in replication of excess heat have been identified and the amount of excess heat has increased. By 1995 there were 21 published replications showing excess heat of up to 205 watts.

Strangely, the press lost interest after the initial media circus. The media’s face-saving denial has left most people with the impression that cold fusion is still dead. In 2009, 60 Minutes broke the silence and did an excellent update. But the rest of the media simply ignored it and focused instead on less risky reports on newsworthy items like rising gasoline prices.

Annual conferences have continued. A weeklong working demo of LENR was included at the tenth ICCF conference, which was held in 2003 at MIT. The power output was 2.3 times the power in. The most recent meeting was held in San Francisco in 2011 under the auspices of the American Chemical Society. The number of presenters at this meeting have quadrupled since 2007. The results this year were so enthusiastic that the American Institute of Physics refused to publish the 370 page proceedings. The cancellation of the publication contract was a last minute decision, clearly ordered by someone at a high level. This attempted blackout of a new technology will backfire in the long run as results get stronger and stronger.

By using nickel and ordinary hydrogen, several researchers have significantly increased energy output and reduced costs. In 1992, Thermacore, a U.S. military contractor ran a cell for nearly a year with a 50 Watt output and 3X excess energy. In 1996 Dr. Sergio Focardi of the University of Bologna in Italy described an experiment using nickel & hydrogen that produced an average excess power output of 39 watts continuously for 278 days. There are a dozen competing theories to explain how nuclear reactions can produce so much energy without emitting dangerous radiation. Theories are helpful but not necessary. We still don’t really know how permanent magnets work, yet we use them every day.

Practical applications can be developed experimentally, just as Edison developed the light bulb.

Now that Rossi and Focardi have shown what can be done, expect to see a flurry of new announcements. New technologies tend to take forever to totally debug, so it won’t be surprising if the October delivery is delayed. There are several other companies such as Lattice Energy LLC, Blacklight Power, Brillouin Energy, and Energetics, who have announced product plans to the press and then gone silent.

Silence is not necessarily a bad sign, as the Bloom Box demonstrated. My bet is that we will have some amazing surprises within a year that will be a wake-up call, just as Russia’s Sputnik launch was in 1954. This moment could have come ten years ago if only we had listened to Fleishman and Pons in 1989.

Some excellent videos to watch: 60 Minutes, one hour movie.

[catfish]

Matteo, I'm curious about that whole turning waste into oil. I'm not sure what process he planned on using because there are people claiming they can basically do the same thing here in the states. They use a process called thermo-molecular-depolymerisation. They claim this method can turn anything, usually turkey guts for now, into oil and a few other products. I first read about this in Discover magazine, at least ten years ago. They have a plant down south and I think one out east(referring to the USA).

[catfish]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization

[Phil Fiord]

This is a video from the January press presentation of the Italian cold fusion thing. Maybe Peterle can provide some synopsis of it.

[catfish]

I was reading about cold fusion on Wikipedia trying to re-familiarize myself with it since it has been a while. I am pretty much with Rick on this one but always open to new possibilities. I found it interesting that the Patent Office no longer issues patents for cold fusion nor do they ever plan to. It appears that decision was reaffirmed in federal court, which doesn't happen very often apparently.

[Phil Fiord]

Thanks Peterle. I have to consider though the possibility that the output heat is higher than input materials combined as they state. Yes, Hydrogen will make a heat output, but copper? I am not believing this yet, but watching as if real, it might actually be a means to cheap energy.

[American Patriot]

I have held my thoughts on this until I could read it a little better.

I'm going to quote Peterle's paraphrasing:

Hydrogen , we leave the Proton only...Proton goes inside nickel and turn it into Copper...bla...bla...

And to this I say BULLSHIT.

Nope. Not happening.

A proton removal requires a LOT of energy from the nucleus of an atom. A LOT.

Much more than heat and electricity is going to cause.

Electrons can easily be stripped from out valence shells. However, neither protons or neutrons can be removed from the nucleus without slamming other neutrons into the atom.

So - it's BULLSHIT.

[Phil Fiord]

Seems like that was a balanced show. If true, I look forward to it.

[Malsua]

I really hope this isn't a hoax that drags on forever.

Whatever happened to Steorn?

[DarbyII]

I really hope this isn't a hoax that drags on forever.

Whatever happened to Steorn?

Mal,

Like many things that we discuss relative to physics it's not really as simple a situation as it sounds. Cold fusion, if one means fusion at something on the order of "room temperature", is actually a fact. Muon catalyzed fusion, fusion at very low temperatures, has been demonstrated for thirty+ years. And it is virtually a chemical action of sorts. Sakharov, I believe, first proposed this in the early 1950's.

In chemistry we have electrons binding two or more elements together into a compound. Muons are "electrons" - 1 unit of negative charge with the mass of 207 electrons. If you pound out enough muons into a deuterium-tritium (D-T) mass you will get muons into a configuration where they are between a D and a T, attract them just like an electron. But because of the muon's relatively huge mass it can pull the two isotopes very close together. Close enough that they can quantum tunnel through the Coulomb Barrier (proton-proton repulsion) such that the strong nuclear force takes over and binds the D-T pair into Helium 5. The muon's half-life is 2.2 ms so it quickly decays and the He-5 kicks out a 14 Mev neutron to become He-4 +energy - the "missing mass" when you fuse two nuclei (which is 2.5 Mev in thermonuclear fusion - I have no idea what it would be in rhis reaction).

The obvious problem is the muon's 2.2 ms half-life. You have to generate a whole lot of muons to have sufficient numbers to get the fusion reaction going before they decay. Equally obvious is that the input energy to generate them, at least today,is many times more than the output. The input energy is about 107 Mev to generate a muon which is over five times the output if we assume that 100% of the muons actually catalyze a D-T fusion event that liberates ~18 Mev.

No free energy - no free lunch.

[vector7]

Cold Fusion Experiment: Major Success or Complex Hoax?

By John Brandon
Published November 02, 2011
| FoxNews.com



Pamela Mosier-Boss, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR)

An experimental "cold fusion" device produced this pattern of "triple track" (shown at right), which scientists say is caused by high-energy nuclear particles resulting from a nuclear reaction.

A physicist in Italy claims to have demonstrated a new type of power plant that provides safe, cheap and virtually unlimited nuclear power to the world, without fossil fuels or radiation concerns.

The only hitch: Scientists say the method -- cold fusion -- is patently impossible. They say it defies the laws of physics.

Andrea Rossi doesn't seem to care. He told FoxNews.com that his new device takes in nickel and hydrogen and fuses them in a low-grade nuclear reaction that essentially spits out sheer power, validating the strange science.

Related Stories

Swedish Man Builds Nuclear Reactor in His Kitchen

Italian Scientists Claim (Dubious) Cold Fusion Breakthrough

“With low energy, it's possible to give a heater a certain amount of energy and to get from the same heater a superior amount of energy,” Rossi explained. He claims he demonstrated the device, called an E-Cat, at the University of Bologna in Italy on Oct. 28.

Rossi's claims have confounded the scientific community, many of whom have either dismissed the demonstration outright or have questioned whether the E-Cat really works. Several experts who spoke to FoxNews.com declined to comment or go on the record.

Nearly a century ago, in the 1920s, Austrian scientists Friedrich Paneth and Kurt Peters hypothesized a form of nuclear reaction that doesn’t produce radiation. And since then, the theory of cold fusion -- or "low-energy nuclear reaction," as its champions now call it -- has popped in and out the public's eyes, notably hitting the cover of Time magazine in 1989.

Jonathan Koomey, an energy consultant who has advised the EPA, said any extraordinary discovery requires extraordinary proof. He said the E-Cat must be verified by an independent study conducted by scientists who are allowed access to the machine’s inner-workings.

“[The E-Cat experiment] should be treated as a hoax until independent scientists are able to replicate these results,” Koomey told FoxNews.com -- as one would treat claims that someone had defied the laws of gravity or found a major flaw in the theory of relativity.

Koomey explained that cold fusion defies the laws of thermodynamics. Energy requires an initial, consumable power source that erodes and breaks down -- it simply isn't self-sustaining.

But Sterling Allan, CEO of the alternative energy news agency Pure Energy Systems, told FoxNews.com he attended Rossi’s demonstration and the E-Cat is self sustaining.

“What Rossi demonstrated was 470 kilowatts of continuous output in self-sustain mode -- meaning the output was enough to keep the thing running on its own,” he told FoxNews.com.

Allan hinted on his blog that an unnamed “customer” of Rossi's device is a military organization that starts with an N. Rossi said this customer measured and verified the test -- and told FoxNews.com that Paul Swanson with the U.S. Navy’s Space and Naval Warfare Systems unit (SPAWAR) can vouch for the demonstration.

FoxNews.com spoke with a man at SPAWAR who identified himself as Swanson, and who said only that he was "not in a position to talk to the press." Several other sources within the Navy and the Pentagoneither declined to comment or did not return messages.

The Navy has long been interested in cold fusion research. At a 2009 meeting of the American Chemical Society, chemist Pamela Mosier-Boss of SPAWAR revealed what she and colleagues claimed was the first clear visual evidence that low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR) devices work.

"To our knowledge, this is the first scientific report of the production of highly energetic neutrons from an LENR device," Mosier-Boss said at the time.

It's easy to see why the Navy could be interested. In a normal nuclear reaction, atoms collide to generate heat, but the resulting fission produces radiation that must be contained; exposure to even small amounts can be lethal. Rossi's reactor is different, containing about 100 of the small E-Cat machines.

“The heat is initiated by electrical resistance,” Rossi explained, a stage that takes about two hours. The reactors then produce another 479kWh of energy for another 3-4 hours without needing that initial electrical input -- the low-level nuclear reaction continues on its own.

“The test we made by the customer was to see if the process was working properly, and to control whether the energy was in an amount superior to the amount supplied to the system,” he said.

Rossi claims his company, Leonardo Corp., will produce the E-Cat machine, which he first demonstrated earlier this year at the University of Bologna. Proof of the experiment's success is that the customer will pay for the technology and start using it, he said.

As for the skeptics, Rossi said he needs to prove the experiment only to his customer.

“We have nothing to say, just to make plans that work properly and let those facts win against the skepticism,” he said.

Rossi says his company will soon start making the E-Cat in the U.S. Whether one will power your city soon is an open question.