By Francesco Celani
[New Energy Times received the following first-person report from Francesco Celani, a physicist with the Instituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, INFN (National Institute of Nuclear Physics). His report has been edited for clarity.]
On Jan. 14, I attended the demonstration of Andrea Rossi and Sergio Focardi’s experiment.
It took place in an industrial building, 10 kilometers from the city of Bologna.
Only people who received a personal invitation were able to attend it. Several security people were stationed around the hall and outside the building. About 40-50 people attended.
Several people were from the physics department of the University of Bologna, including the director. The director of the Bologna section of the National Institute of Nuclear Physics also attended, in a semi-official capacity.
The experiment started at about 15:30 and ended at about 16:45.
The measurement of energy emission was based on a modified flow calorimeter method (peristaltic pump, small size, about 10-20W of power). They warmed up the water to 102°C, pressurized vapor condition. I estimate that the experiment consumed 12-14 liters of water.
A researcher and technicians from the University of Bologna made all the measurements independently. Rossi only supervised key safety aspects.
The amount of the reactant wasn’t clear, but it could be a few grams. According to Rossi, it is a complex mixture of nickel and one or two secret additives, which are the key for the energy emission. All the material is in the state of nano-particles or colloid.
In the pressurized (about 2 atm) chamber, the volume is 1-2 liters; also inside are the cooling pipe and the reactants. Hydrogen gas was added continuously, at a low flow rate.
According to the authors, the trigger is only heat (at quite high temperatures: T>T_Curie of Nickel???). Other people speculated about ultrasound. The input power was 500-700W maximum.
My approximate calculation, assuming no thermal dissipation from the reactor, gives:
- Input Energy (3600s): (500–700 W)*3600=(1.8–2.52)MJ
- Output Energy to increase the water temperature of 90°C: 4.2* (102°C-12°C)=378 J/g
- Vaporization enthalpy, about 40.6kJ/mole water= 2633J/g
- Total energy (with 13 liter of water vaporized)= 378+2633=3011J/g of water=>39.14MJ
The energy gain is a factor of 15-20, which is really large!
They also had a twin gamma ray detector assembled in order to detect e+e- annihilation. In this run, almost no such results were detected.
Focardi was confident that they were going to get large amounts of such signal, as in previous experiments. This time, the counts were close to background for coincidences, and only some uncorrelated signal was over background.
I brought my own gamma detector, a battery-operated 1.25″ NaI(Tl) with an energy range=25keV-2000keV. I measured some increase of counts near the reactor (about 50-100%) during operation, in an erratic (unstable) way, with respect to background.
I decided to change the gamma detector from “counts” to “spectra” mode. After a few minutes, Rossi realized that I was trying to identify something secret inside the reactor. I was forced to stop the measurements.
The discussion, mostly scientific and even a heated debated about the details, lasted up to 18:45. Some Italian newspaper made an on-line report of the whole experiment (over 3h). The [RAI-TV] government television report still isn’t available.
This is starting to look like it might be real. If this continues, this will become the biggest thing ever. Bye bye then conventional and nuclear power plants!
Does anyone have any suggestions of blog sites where one might engage a few humble technical questions on some of the Widom-Larsen mechanisms? For example, should one think of the ULM Neutrons w.r.t. the Uncertainty Principle, where De Broglie Wavelength is “enormous” (micron level order of magnitude) which makes relative “position” very uncertain? Also, ULM Neutrons by definition have a momentum -> nill. Can we say then also by the H. Uncertainty Pr. that momentum is relatively “known” (i.e., small values (means) tend to have smaller standard deviations of their distribution??/e.g., empirically looking at the conical shape of Larsen’s slide photo’s of the “nuclear cratoring” melting events)? I instruct math and am sure my students would love learning about such a timely and important topic–but I need a place where I can make sure any “word problems” I might make up are sensible!
Krivit, all I can say is that historians of science, present and future engineers and scientists, and the educated public will surely benefit from all your real-time work on this site! I only hope Larsen gets the funding he needs soon for America’s sake (might be the best $25M ever invested) –this is a great opportunity for the Obama Admin., I seem to recall the President hired some forward thinking, top-notch scientists in his cabinet.
[Ed: Please see follow-up post from Nold with technical correction]
Hi Dr. Nold,
I have not seen such a site yet. I think you are at the leading edge of the interest in WLT. Many people within the LENR field who are cold fusion believers have, thus far, failed to become skilled and conversant in WLT.
People outside the LENR field have been more open and quicker to learn about WLT, but typically these are people with experience in particle physics, condensed matter physics, QED and who also have the ability to perform complex mathematical calculations. They are rare.
I saw one exchange, and the thread is now dead, here: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=159040. It included an exchange between Larsen and Gregory Greenman, a nuclear weapons physicist at LLNL.
I thank you for your kind comment. Much credit goes to my visionary benefactor. And also to those upon whose shoulders I stand: Jerry Bishop, Bruce Lewenstein, Gene Mallove, Charles Beaudette.
Steven
Hello Steven,
I happened to have seen that exchange between Larsen and G. Greenman; it was astounding to see Larsen be so helpful. I will post there in the future; thank you for the indicator.
May I please correct my posted thought above? My intuition strongly indicates that the H. Uncertainty Pr. ought not be applied to the ULM N itself, but instead to the “collective effects coherence state” causing “patches” on the surface, underneath where the ULM Ns briefly exist (according to my recollection of Larsen’s explanation). Then one can simply think of the “crator-like pits” or “deep conical hot-spots” as being somehow analogous to more garden variety Quantum detection or measurement events (i.e., collapses of the surface plasmon coherence state).
Thank you for your generosity in allowing me to correct my initial post above and I will move over to physicsforum.com as suggested.
Highest Regards,
Erich Nold MSEE, MS, Ph.D.
Bravo Italia !
There was an initial and final gamma burst when the machine was switched on and off. This may be a clue of a primitive voltage multiplier that discharges at the beginning and at the end of a controlled cycle.
I read another article in which the author stated > 1.4 kW absorption and not 600-700 Watts as claimed by Rossi. Anyway, just one thing did not look good at all: they did not show the water flow and it is incredible that Rossi claimed relevant research costs but they could not integrate a $ 20 flow meter with the software properly showing inlet-outlet water speed together its in/out temperatures….this is quite dodgy…I hope they organize a better demo next time…
The reactor can be like a cathodic tube using alpha particles rather than electrons on a nickel target where some of the heat comes from a platinum cathode and a few random fusions in the nickel produce the extra heat.
I may be obviously very wrong because it is just a guess. In my opinion they accelerate hydrogen molecules with a mechanism similar to the Farnsworth Fusor. Personally, if I had to reproduce the reactor without knowing its internal design, I would strip the electrons from the hydrogen atoms by forcing them through a grid filter positively charged and then I would place a nickel film before (but not in contact) with a negatively charged platinum cathode. Maybe the forced flow of hydrogen atoms turns into some spontaneous fusion. Who knows?…Time will tell…
Because of short duration of the measurement (actually – about half an hour only) there are many methods of falsifying the results:
1) Output power calculations are based on the assumption that all incoming water goes out as a vapor. What if significant part of the water is kept inside the reactor, and only a small portion of it was boiled?
2) It is quite possible to hide enough chemicals inside the reactor box to be capable of producing significant output power for a short period of time.
3) It is possible to accumulate enough heat inside the reactor *before* the demo.
Yep. This is the big problem. This was a lousy, lousy demonstration from the view point of quelling concerns. The claim for the (conveniently not inspectable) device powering a factory for two years are also, I would say, dodgy.
It’ll be nice if it’s true, but to be honest, this wouldn’t be the first free energy scam aimed at investors– or the first case of scientists deceiving themselves. At the very least, the nature of the demo has done their position no favors.
What if…..?!? they just put some material to burn inside the apparatus, ignited them and waited for the water to boil. Then just as the cold fusion demonstrations, creating a mist of unverified and plausible theories of physics that noone can verify…..and by the way the “company” planning to start manufacturing theese machines is owned by the big demonstrator himself…so in reality nothing has been proven…
..as the earlier replies states …a lousy demonstration.
Thank you. Personally I wonder why so many people are taken in by this. (Granted it could be real). A friend of mine just suggested how something as simple as a dry cell battery could be concealed somewhere in the device. No one seems to be asking the salient questions.
WHERE IS ALL THE STEAM?
Please see the report by Dr. Guiseppe Levi,
http://www.center-rne.org/files/NiH_reactor/Levi%20and%20Bianchini%20Reports.pdf
There you will find a picture of the Rossi – Focardi device and also a simple schematic for it. In the picture on the left hand you can se a hose that feed cold water to the device and on top of it is a similar hose through which the hot steam comes out. With a steam production rate of 13 kg steam per hour I estimate the flow speed in the hose to be around 20 m/s. Of course letting this steam out in the demonstration room would not only cause a lot of noise and moisture, it could even be dangerous to the spectators. My theory is that they put the exhaust hose down into the drain where the unruly steam could condense without bothering anyone. Or do you have a better idea?
I am optimistic overall but still somewhat restrained. It will be very exciting to take part of the extended test results when and if they become available.
If the process creates a new liquid, gas or similar (ie alcohol) and this new product is incinerated at multiple micro combustions locally at the nickel grid, these micro processes could lead to excessive heating of the water.
The big question is what materials other than nickel, used as reagent
Why keep things secret in today’s world, why do things secretly?
See the wikileaks event.
Why fear imitators? Let them try to reproduce. It does not reduce or devalue your own contribution.
Why live in fear and distrust and (thus) increase fear and distrust?
What is good and right needs no secrecy. Secrecy is by those who wish to do something evil or wrong.
Today everything is exactly recorded by days, hours, minutes, seconds and fractions of seconds. Emails, websites, mobile phone conversations, TV programs – everything is recorded and preserved. Secrecy makes no sense today.
Dear Timothy,
Your theory about micro combustions has a ring of truth to it but, if you forgive me, there could be other explanations. In order not to waste a lot of perfectly good air I strongly recommend that we start out by firmly establishing if there indeed is a need for an explanation.
Such a need would arise if the claimed but still conspicuously invisible products of the process were to be presented in a tangible way, like collecting the steam and hot water from the exit hose in a suitable volume of initially cold water.
The amount of water and heat energy that is delivered from the hose to the water is easily calculated based on the increase of volume and temperature of the initial water volume.
This is very simple and basic, not to mention convincing one way or the other. Why was not that done at the demonstration of the Engergy Catalyzer Amplifier? It is like claiming that you can turn water into wine wihout letting anybody taste the wine or even see it.
if the invention is for real, does anybody knows the motivation and purpose of a show like this?
i understand why there are no Gama ray emissions. i understand why over unity heat may be observed. i understand how it would work. But it would not seem to need a catalyst. The patent describes an optional additive to the mixture. Not a required substance. Ni is the natural element. the wave theory fits. the hydrogen fits, at least in the ionized form. We see it in industry , it is know as hydrogen stress cracking, or in normal ultrasound as solo luminescence or cavitation.
it would point to a wave function phenomenon. opening holes for h+ to tunnel in and create copper variants.
The real issue is why we cannot duplicate the system? The Hamiltonian is a non issue, the Coulomb wall isn’t relevant to in p/d disruptive molecular / atomic structures. the p wave creates the required bounding distance disruption.
Cant we just duplicate it. i do not think there is much magic. This can be seen in the work of Godes and others.
i wonder if the 720 degree rotation of the electron is a key issue or irrelevant
all the best
Tim
Dear Tim,
), where is ****, where are classical catalyzers, and rare earths. Ok I said too much!
Your comment is the most valuable and constructive I saw in this blog.
I would like to share with you and with all the great scientist here my thoughts.
+
I fear that Mr. Rossi discovered the Columbus’ eggs in a field where so many failed.
I agree with you especially on the tunneling.
I agree with you on the absence of gamma rays.
I think I understood how the device runs.
I think I understood what the “so called catalyzer” – which is so secret – is: I’ am in doubt among tree elements.
As you said may be they are not necessary for the physics, but for the commercial application yes!
I think to know why the so called “reaction” runs so well and easily with nickel.
I know for sure that on the patent and on the Bologna show, he hided the truth, so that nobody can reproduce the experiment: he is a businessman and not a scientist. I can not blame him.
Furthermore even if he was a pure scientist, I can understand why not to divulge the truth: If there will be a Nobel price, it is better to be clear on who understood the things FOR A LONG TIME end who, for a long time DID NOT UNDERSTOOD THE LAWS OF NATURE.
In his blog, He rudely answered to me that he knows “right now” the theory behind (while at Bologna he said he did not).
If the theory he sponsors is the one of his Greek Friend (also friend of Mr Focardi) I think he is still deceiving us.
He is the Genial One, not the others.
Jealousy is spreading all around the community.
Mr Rossi is playing like the only one who solved the little game, like the Rubik’s cube or the N.e.w.s. cast. And is jeering all the “scientific community”, the Big Science, like Big Pharma or Big Tobacco, spending trillions of dollars each year… He is jeering “respectable eminences” running Porsche Cayenne who aren’t able to discover the hot water.
Yesterday I hated him, today I love him!
+
Ps his experiment is really an inexpensive one (less expensive than the one of Pons and Fleischmann):
To do it You need:
1) a periodic table of elements where to check where is nickel, (also look where palladium is
1b) know what an isotope is (easy), what magnetism is (not sure so easy), what gravity is (is not what we are used to think), what the so named “strong nuclear force” is (same ad above), what quantum mechanics says (easy). Ok you just understood how unify everything, isn’t it?
1c) if all the points at the 1b) are clear… so you already know that what’s happening is not nuclear fusion, nor “reaction” whatsoever. You are ready for the Nobel price Mr Rossi will win.
2) a rubbish dump where to pick up the required elements you already should know. (ok! not all rubbish dumps are ok…)
3) invent a really cheap way to enrich the fuel (I have some idea but this is my main problem): but, please, never think that since you don’t know how to do, he doesn’t know either: as far as I know, a 96 years old man from Milan discovered the CHEAP method! So we can.
4) a couple of hydrogen (or deuterium?) bottles, some (pure?) water, a couple of resistances to get the temp you should know you need (haven’t looked on the left on table of elements? come on!), some pumps and pressure reduction to change all the parameters in a “fuzzy controlled” way near the level you know you have to achieve.
WHY? Why fuzzy? Because of numbers, big numbers, statistics, for the same reason why nickel powder is better than palladium bars! And for the same reason why single Hydrogen is better than Heavy water!
i said too much.. i haven’t said enough…
Loose your religion guys!
Byes
I’m no physicist but do you think Frank Znidarsic has the right theory?
There is no new news on this website or the blog since many days. Is nothing happening?
Why can’t Rossi give smaller demonstration with the help of his production-line devices (which will later be fitted into the 1 MW device) in front of newer (serious and sincere) investigators with newer (serious and sincere) doubts and questions?
Doubts and questions about the Rossi device continue – I mean not the freak or insulting doubts and questions but the serious and sincere ones. Every production-line device has to be individually tested. Rossi should therefore periodically hold demos and answer the newer doubts and quetions, not just with clever brush-off words but with live activity of his production-line devices. Is that impossible?
That is correct. There is no news. For now.
We have landed patt between Fukushima and Focardi-Rossi.
In German they say “hoch zu Ross” (= riding high on a tall horse like an arrogant conqueror). Rossi is going like that. He has no time for our genuine concerns, fears, questions etc. He is giving nasty excuses to avoid answers (his pending patent, his contractor Defkalion, he has everything under control, he has all the experts, he has done “thousands” of experiments etc. etc.)
The web is still full of very suspicious remarks about him.
Decentralization of a power-producing device that works on nuclear activity can be very very dangerous. It’s not some ugly-but-harmless windmills that we are talking about. Devices producing less than 10 or 20 or 50 MW will be very difficult to supervise. There will be too many of them all over the earth. The authorities will be overstretched and then just give up. What to speak of corruption among/in the govt. bodies.
Doubts are not only about Rossi, but even more so about those who will be buying these devices. What will be their motives? How will they use the devices? For what? Do we need more products – or a better distribution along with a careful-respectful conservation of the environment and a strict population control (even of those who wish to multiply themselves like mice and rabbits in the name of their god or primitive faith)?
Will there be many mini-Fukushimas?
Does mankind have the wisdom to manage wealth, especially excessive wealth, and population?
The dangers you cite were recognized a long time ago. A US Defense Intelligence Agency declassified paper: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2009/DIALENRReport.shtml
in which LENR is termed a “disruptive technology”.
Before the modern political law era, societies organized themselves with common law. Corruption was not so easy as now because there was not the wall of secrecy that the state now enjoys. Power was widely dispersed. Under such conditions, a technology that yields vast energy with little cost would arguably be a lot safer than today. What would a terrorist have to gain by making a big explosion? There would be no massive political, financial or military structure to topple. It would be analogous to blowing up an ISP. The Internet would barely notice.
If a simple, safe and cheap device, like Rossi’s appears to be, is proliferated widely and quickly, as seems very possible, the rapid obsolescence of the world’s energy, transportation, heating, etc. infrastructure would possibly be very disruptive indeed. The methods that modern politics uses for dealing with threats is to manage them into disasters, which are highly advantageous for causing people to surrender their autonomy to the state. It is hard to imagine a state solution to coordinate the technological rebirth. Politicians mainly act to increase their power and prestige. This may result in a rapid loss of prestige and power for the politics-as-usual class and reversion to older forms of social organization, only with the advantage of Internet and modern technology. After a period of real chaos, it might be a very wonderful time.
Don’t let fear rule your thinking. It tends to create circumstances to justify itself. Keep your eyes wide open and enjoy the ride as much as you can!
to Ed Wall
There are too many uncertainties right now – till October and may be far beyond October 2011. Rossi is actually playing into the wrong hands. He thinks he is the “knower-controller” and by giving feisty answers he “tends to create circumstances to justify himself”. That is my worry.
So I repeat myself:
“Doubts are not only about Rossi, but even more so about those who will be buying these devices. What will be their motives? How will they use the devices? For what? Do we need more products – or a better distribution along with a careful-respectful conservation of the environment and a strict population control (even of those who wish to multiply themselves like mice and rabbits in the name of their god or primitive faith)?”
There are too many non-saints among human beings.
to V, Godbole
Please tell me what you mean by “too many uncertainties”, as compared to what?
Do you have examples of Rossi “playing into wrong hands”, being the “knower-controller” and “feisty answers”?
I have plenty of doubts about Rossi. I have doubts about his claims. I also have doubts about Focardi. I have doubts about Obama. I have doubts about Santa Claus.
I know of no one who supposes that we have many, if any, “saints” living among us.
What do you propose as a solution to to the uncertainties that are causing you discomfort?
To Ed Wall
“What do you propose as a solution to to the uncertainties that are causing you discomfort?”
Firstly, if had solutions then I would not talk of uncertainties and discomfort.
But to be more realistic: Rossi should not refuse giving further demonstrations of his device(s). He should not keep us guessing till October. He has to test each of the 4 kW devices which he assembles into a larger whole (of 1 MW). Why does he not hold these tests in front of new groups of serious scientists from various reputable organizations, universities, institutions etc.? He should also release all the data related to security and radiation etc. He should look for questions and feed-backs. He is working hard but yet he can get a few more people on his team and organize these demos in front of interested groups.
That is my time-dependent solution – but what is the chance that I am taken seriously?
An example of how Andrea Rossi answers questions:
V. Godbole asks:
April 25th, 2011 at 8:11 PM
Dear Andrea
The number of Rossi modules that can be linked parallel is unlimited but what is the upper limit of the number that can be linked in series? For electricity production a large number in a series link will be necessary. Is electricity production really possible this way? What about a direct conversion of energy to electricity?
——————————-
Andrea Rossi replies:
April 26th, 2011 at 1:45 AM
Dear Mr V. Godbole:
We are working on this issue.
Warm regards,
A.R.
——————————
Such answers by Rossi do not raise the trust or confidence level. He is still working on this issue? He alone or “we”? We don’t know who these “we” are. How come that this issue is still not resolved? Does he not know the difficulty involved in connecting his modules in series? It is a crucial question. Does he intend to use sodium (Na) or high-pressure water as heat transporter? The Rossi device for heating buildings in cold regions is no real solution to our real energy problems.
To V, Godbole
Finding solutions requires first determining the question to be answered. You say, if you had solutions, you would not have uncertainties. Having an uncertainty means having a question that lacks an answer. There is no hope of finding an answer unless the question is known, so I respectfully suggest that you determine the nature and scope of your uncertainties.
You are asserting moral authority in stating what Rossi should or should not do. On what do you base such assertions? Your uncertainties?
Rossi is in a position where he can choose to disclose his invention and ideas or he can decide to not do so. One alternative is to attempt to influence some organization (government, probably) to force him to disclose though some sort of coercion. It is reasonable to believe that if we have a society in which vital creative ideas are met with coercion as a reward, incentive to create such ideas will cease. Another alternative is to try to persuade Rossi to disclose more, demonstrate more and share more to satisfy the appetite for information. The latter approach has worked to some extent, as he has gone well beyond his initial public demonstration at U of Bologna with two follow up demonstrations, the first time modifying the demonstration to meet the criticism concerning dry vs. wet steam, and ran it much longer. Every hour dedicated to pleasing critics and offering more public interaction adds to the delay in any new technology emerging. No matter how much time and effort he dedicates to trying to convince critics, it is a losing battle. There will always be unconvinced skeptics until a time when the device is taken for granted and widely employed.
Rossi is under no obligation of any kind to reveal with whom he works or what his future plans might be, although he has revealed much of this kind of information. He has been working as an independent and free thinker in order to explore these matters. It would be most uncharacteristic of him to suddenly take on the role of a servant in devoting all his efforts to appease the whims of any of thousands of interested individuals.
My impression is that this is a very new technology, with inherent instabilities that must be handled very carefully. If it is real, perhaps it can be used with Peltier devices to produce electricity directly, but I expect that, like power derived from other nuclear sources, it will be a new method to boil water, and that’s fine. The really critical question is, how certain can we be that it is real? All the other technical matters are relatively trivial and conventional engineering issues.
Another critical question is, assuming the device to be real, what does it tell us about the physical nature of the reaction(s), and how can this knowledge be applied in other devices?
Godbole and Wall: I will allow one more post from each of you on this thread. No more.
Thanks Steve
To Ed Wall
In India they are planning to set up a 6×1600 MW (!) fission-type nuclear project in Jaitapur (west coast, 400 km south of Mumbai). There were demos against that (post Fukushima and before that also) and a person was killed in police firing.
We need quick reliable info about Rossi modules to kip this project (being done with Areva, a French consortium). That is why I am impatient with Rossi’s “come October” strategy.
That’s why I wrote:
“In German they say “hoch zu Ross” (= riding high on a tall horse like an arrogant conqueror). Rossi is going like that. He has no time for our genuine concerns, fears, questions etc. He is giving nasty excuses to avoid answers (his pending patent, his contractor Defkalion, he has everything under control, he has all the experts, he has done “thousands” of experiments etc. etc.)”
Every inventer stands on the shoulders of earlier ones. (Newton said that). Hence Rossi shouldn’t behave the way you are justifying/glorifying it. This is not the time for individualism or any heroism etc. Secrecy will most certainly prove damaging.
1) Consciousness about the environment and population control must PRECEDE any energy plethora. That is my position.
2) In the short term petroleum prices will fall and let loose a huge sell-quick-and-earn pressure on the petroleum producers and a burn-the-cheap-petroleum pressure on the users (consumers). That would be catastrophic. In no case should petroleum prices fall but must be increased drastically (through taxes so that the govts. can reduce their wanton deficits)
Rossi, Greece, EU, USA, Japan et al must shoulder this responsibility. We must make them aware of this. NOW.
Scientists, physicists, esp. the CF community, environmentalists will have to advise – gently but firmly.
V.Godbole
Traditionally, in China there was nothing that westerners would recognize as a patent. Anything that was developed by anyone was property of the emperor. People wonder at how dynasties could be so stable (or society so stagnant). This was one of the reasons.
There are always a lot of crises. Fukushima is particularly bad and relevant to this discussion. From the moment that LENR was known to be real, by those who knew, the urgency was obvious. Yet, decades later, there is no urgency on the part of the scientific establishment or government agencies we are supposed to trust with such matters, despite vast evidence. Many highly prestigious people have tried their utmost to bring proper attention to LENR, with little success. Could that be a clue to inform your uncertainties? It has become a common opinion among those in the field that there will be no change from the entrenched positions until there is an overwhelming commercial success.
So, can we expect the government and scientific establishment that has been so bored by the massive scientific evidence (some of the best from the government’s own labs) to suddenly be the proper coercive agent to take control of Rossi’s invention, even before it becomes commercially successful?
We do not know (although we can hope) that Rossi’s device can be the solution to the problem of dangerous and toxic methods of generating power. The processes of scientific review and websites like newenergytimes will bring facts to light. If Rossi’s claims are right, and he is not suppressed, the profit motive will not let this stagnate. It is scientific curiosity, profit motive and altruism that have combined to keep LENR research alive since 1989, not people concerned about the environment.
“The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
- Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation
“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
- Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University
I know this because I have contacted numerous environmental organizations and observed no real interest in LENR.
Your position of environmental consciousness and population control are doctrines exercised in places where people have taken care of the urgency of basic survival challenges and accumulated enough wealth to concern themselves with such things, without state intervention. Prior to “making it”, people generally don’t care very much about such luxuries and instead concentrate on making lots of babies to help shoulder the work of growing enough food to survive. States exercising the greatest coercion are some of the worst polluters. I agree that some religions are grown by demanding their adherents adopt unfortunate reproductive rates, but I think that as people gain awareness, or when they manage to free themselves from such confining dogma, they tend to create a manageable sized family without state intervention. Many such developed countries are facing crises due to the insufficient number of children being born to support the aging population. So, population growth can be stabilized without state coercion. Using state coercion to try to force religions to change their dogma is a formula for major disaster.
You are without restraint in urging whomever you believe requires urging toward your goals. I do not disagree with your desire to build a better world using technology and to avoid avoidable tragedy.
I believe that it is incorrect to blame technological advance for our troubles, which is not to say that I fail to recognize the environmental destruction from misuse of technology. The Luddites had the wrong approach. The problem is not labor saving technology. The problem is ethical and moral, that is, what we decide (or fail to decide) is the right thing to do, and how we go about doing it (or not doing it). We have a way of running human society that is pretty much the way it was thousands of years ago, based on coercion and deception. Such methods are effective and time-tested, but with WMD and instant global communication, these methods are leading to planetary self-destruction.
You make predictions about what the economic impacts will be as a result of Rossi’s work. I do not claim to know what might happen. I do not claim to have the omniscience to eliminate unforeseen consequences required to abolish the right to secrecy. I do know that energy producers are actively looking for emerging technologies. Oil companies are probably more concerned with dominating the economies of the world than they are with selling oil. If they see an unstoppable technology emerge that makes their product mostly obsolete, they will probably use their vast resources to try to extract whatever power and money can be had from it.
What if abolishing secrecy, as you demand, unleashes technology that is used to destroy the world? There is no need to strip human rights, like privacy, of those who make claims of great discovery. Who is to say who gets to say who controls? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Power concentrated is corruption.
What if some inventors have taken their inventions to the grave with them because they did not want to bear responsibility for the intolerable abuses they could easily foresee. Is some government committee able to exercise some greater wisdom?
US Patent law states that if the government wants your patent, they just take it. European may be the same. There may arise a legitimate reason to seize the technology, but if Rossi’s invention is as simple as it appears and the catalyst(s) become(s) known, suppressing it would be next to impossible.
Levi: “I would also like to emphasize that Rossi is behaving as a serious scientist. Anyone who tries to do forgery behaves differently and does not go into a physics department, does not accept that you put up measuring instruments and does not confront scientists.” I agree with Levi and see Rossi’s behavior as reasonable for the circumstances he seems to have.
“The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to our planet”.I guess what rifkin’s really saying here is that it’s perfectly OK to keep paying huge prices at the
pump for gas for our cars.And what about rifkin’s so-called “Hydrogen economy” where fuel
cells are going to solve all our energy needs.Doesn’t rifkin realize that the oil companies are
behind this?Who does he think is going to build all those hydrogen fueling stations we’ll need?
Doesn’t rifkin realize we’ll still be putting money into the oil companies pockets?Only this time it
will be for hydrogen instead of gas.Rifkin must think that people are made of money or that
money grows on trees.
Rifkin’s agenda is environmental. He would probably not hate people for living prosperous and productive lives, if that could be done within the constraints he believes are necessary in order to conserve the environment. The essence of the agenda is the belief in the unsustainability of the developed nations’ lifestyles and population densities. I believe that lifestyles can be very good with proper use of technology, and that people are capable of living reasonably, despite the dismal record.
Environmental impact is a realistic and serious concern that could be a major political force in overcoming obstacles that Defkalion may face.
First that strikes me in this demonstation is a big big bottle of Hydrogen. If consumption of botk Nickel and Hydrogen was, presumably, in miligrams, why the “Hydrogen gas was added continuously, at a low flow rate”? Just to cover the leaks? Well, to produce 12 kW, only 0.1 g od H2 would be necessary to react with Oxygen or to form some other hydride. It makes about 1 l/s at normal pressure, but if you doctor manometers, to show 2 atm instead of, say, 20 atm, that “low flow rate” could be substantial indeed!
Quite another question is if there was really Hydrogen in the bottle, or some mix that will react exothermicaly when in contact with strongly (chemically) catalytic Nickel. Pity there was not a single chemist in the public!
Predrag Raos
I am wondering if employing sound pressure waves one could create local extremes of pressure that speed up the process of LENR initiation. It would be nice to be able to throttle back the reaction to not require waste of excessive heat when the demand is low. Being able to turn the reaction on and off in milliseconds would make it a candidate for directly powering an automobile drive train. Sonic pressure waves similar to the magnitude they are seen in a pulse-jet could possibly create conditions for initiation.
Regards,
Kirk Kitchen