Category Archive: LENR

Global news on the progress of LENR/Cold Fusion research.

Andrea Rossi Interview

The following was sent to me by John Maguire who I have the greatest respect for.  I thought it was worthwhile to hear from the horses mouth. Given the misleading statements made in past interviews (like the robot  factory in Florida) I have my own opinion. However here at Revolution-Green we like you to come to your own conclusion. (and hopefully share your opinion with us)

The source of the interview was Cold Fusion Now: http://coldfusionnow.org/andrea-rossi-on-3rd-party-report-industrial-heat-1mw-plant-new-interview/

 

The interviewer was  John Maguire
A self-proclaimed natural philosopher and autodidact, John attained his degree in History Education. Believing truth and authenticity are the only things worth pursuing, most of his days revolve around such aims. More of his interviews, essays, and videos can be found @ http://jmag0904.wordpress.com/

Andrea Rossi on 3rd-Party Report, Industrial Heat, & 1MW Plant — New Interview


Intro: You are listening to the Q-Niverse podcast. Let me just say, before we get started, that today’s episode is being brought to you in part by ColdFusionNow.org who helped facilitate the dialogue you are about to listen to. Today I have with me Andrea Rossi. Mr. Rossi is an inventor and entrepreneur who, for many years, has worked to develop the Energy Catalyzer, also known as the E-Cat – a reactor fueled by nickel and hydrogen that allegedly harnesses “cold fusion”, or low-energy nuclear reactions, on an industrial scale. Mr. Rossi has been working on this technology for well over a decade and has recently partnered with a highly-credible commercial investor to take the technology to the “next level”. A recent third-party analysis of the E-Cat, carried out by a coalition of European professors and engineers over the course of the past year, reports that the technology is in fact producing energy well in excess of any known chemical reaction. Andrea Rossi, thank you for being with me today.

Andrea Rossi: Thank you.

John Maguire: Starting off, can you explain your thoughts and feelings over the past year waiting for the new analysis of the E-Cat? Has this been a tense time for you, or have you been too busy refining the reactor to worry much about it?

Rossi: Basically I am focused on my work which is Research and Development, and direction of the manufacturing of the E-Cat and plant. This has been, as always, a period just of work. For what concerns the report – it is for sure an important report. [It] has been made by a third, independent party. The results are interesting, [and] very problematic, and we are studying these results.

 

 

JM: Now, were you worried at all that [analysis/report] might come up with negative results? Did you have any indication over the course of the year? Or were you pretty much in the dark like everyone else?

Rossi: This report is in the hands of the professors that made it.

JM: Sure…fair enough. What do you think the ultimate impact of the report will be? Can it possibly persuade the larger scientific community or other major industrial players beside ELFORSK to get interested in LENR generally speaking, in your opinion?

Rossi: This is difficult to say…this is difficult to say. Honestly, I do not know. But our target is not to convince anybody. Our target is to make a plant that works properly. Now we have finished [with all the tests] and we are focusing exclusively on the market and on the production that we have to set up. This report is no doubt very interesting and we are studying it because, as you probably know, there is a surprising result regarding the Nickel-62 in particular, and we are studying it because we are strongly directed, under a theoretical point of view, to understand these kinds of results that was unexpected. But our main focus remains the operation of industrial plant.

JM: Now you mentioned theory there real quick, so maybe we can talk about that really quick. Do you think that the reaction can be explained within the Standard Model or do you think we’re gonna have to go well beyond that to account for what’s going on, because as you noted there were some strange changes in the powder – which we don’t really have time to get into too much – but can you put it in a theoretical context, or do you any ideas theory wise that you’re able to share?

Rossi: No, we are starting on it. It will take time because the reconciliation is not an easy task. And we are studying with specialists.

JM: You’re working with a team to develop the theory, is that the idea?

Rossi: Yes.

JM: Now getting back to the report. In regards to excess heat, the measured coefficient-of-performance, or COP, came out to be around 3.2-3.6 over a very prolonged period of time. Some experts argue the calorimetry was suitable, while others remain unsatisfied for various reasons. So first, what did you make of the review group’s methodology and excess heat measurements?

Rossi: Well the calculations have been made by the professors. I know that some of them are very well [experienced with] that kind of measurement. They have also [made a core] with manufacturer of thermal chambers. I suppose they know what they did. I want not to enter into this question because I just accept the results [I have been given]. I have nothing to comment about that. About the various opinions [out there] we do not consider them real [objections] because what’s of interest to us, again, is that the plant we have in operation works properly. Honestly we have no more time to lose in this discussion. [Concerning] the COP – you have seen in the report the COP has been calculated in a very conservative way. Every number has been calculated [within] the most conservative margin. Actually, I think [the COP] could be maybe increased but again, this is not a theoretical issue, this is a technological issue that can be seen only at a fixed point in an industrial, operational plant — no more theoretical suppositions.

JM: The new version of the E-Cat that was tested this time had an alumina casing on it. Now this as far as my understanding goes acted as an insulator…

Rossi: It has been described in the report. I don’t want to say anything about that. The report has been very well described [elsewhere] – the casing of the reactor.

JM: You brought up the 1MW plant – how is progress going on that? And to be more specific how is the new design superior to the old version, and how long do you think it will take to get to market or, at the very least, be demonstrated publically for people?

Rossi: Well, yes, the new 1MW plant has gotten a strong evolution with [regard] to the older one — mainly under the reliability point of view; under the industrial point of view. The control system is enormously more sophisticated. Basically the plant is governed by a robot. Nevertheless it will take at least one year of operation in the factory of the customer of Industrial Heat, to whom the plant has been supplied…it will take at least one year before they complete the analysis [and] all possible errors have been adjusted. After this year with the permission of the customer, because industry is not a showroom or a theatre, so we cannot just open access to the public and say, “Alright guys, come and see!” It will not be that simple, but selected visits for a person who has title to that will be open – [but] not before we consider the plant absolutely [finished] under an industrial point of view. I suppose it will take about one year…about one year from now I suppose. But when you are in this field you cannot be sure about the scheduling because you can be sure of one thing now today, and tomorrow discover you were wrong and have to change something. This is the first time – and this is important to underline – this is the first time we had the possibility to see in operation 24-hours-a-day continuously the plant because before we could only operate on it for a couple of days or three before [we encountered] a lot of problems. The [past manufacturing facilities that we installed the old 1MW plant were not in full operations]. There was not a load to supply all the energy to. So now in the real industrial operation/situation we can see all the problems that are generated from this real operation.

JM: Now you say you’ve seen it running longer than a few days can you give some idea of how long one has been running, or how long one has been tested for? Are we talking weeks?

Rossi: You know in our factory the one megawatt plant that had been presented in October 2012 — it worked at that time.  Then, we could work with it for some [amount of time], but you cannot put in exercise for long a plant like that if you don’t have a real load and if you do not have a real operation going on.

JM: Can you give us an idea of how many people are working to develop the E-Cat? Obviously you have your hands on it in some capacity, but is this a rather large team or just a small group of engineers?

Rossi: We are working with a complex team where there are specialists for any issue.

JM: Can you give an idea of how many scientists are working on [the project]?

Rossi: I prefer to not answer in detail, but what I can say is that for any single matter, we have a specialist to take care of [that].

JMGetting a bit more personal, I’m sure people are wondering what exactly has driven you all these years, and what do you hope to ultimately achieve by bringing this technology to the world? How do you hope to be remembered?

Rossi: The first stone has been put in the building so, you know, the first industrial plant, not working in an experimental warehouse, but working in the factory of a customer to produce a profit is already in operation. So this process of industrialization has begun already.

JM: What do you hope to accomplish personally?  What drives you to keep pushing this forward?

Rossi:  Well, you know, I just go one step at a time. My biggest aspiration now is to make the 1 MW plant perfect, absolutely and totally reliable, with all the defects corrected.  This is my aspiration now. After this, I do not know.

JM: Briefly, can you speak on your past work with the now-deceased Professor Sergio Focardi of the University of Bologna. I think he might be one of the unsung heroes after the story is told, along with many others of course, but he was one of the pioneers in the nickel-hydrogen work, along with [Francesco] Piantelli and others, most notably Italians. How significant in your opinion were his contributions to the genesis of the E-Cat, your work, and just your general thoughts on him?

Rossi: Focardi has been a strong collaborator with me, mainly in the period between 2007 and 2010. I have been lucky to be helped by him with his strong theoretical preparation.  For sure, he has contributed to the development of this work, and we absolutely have to be grateful forever for his precious contribution and he is always present in our memory.

JM: I know he was in a special situation in one sense because he was retired, and though his career wasn’t behind him, he could come out and support controversial work that he might not have been able to do while he was still a teaching professor, and that’s the kind of pressure many academics face in dealing with these new technologies or this new science.  And so, we need people like Sergio Focardi, we need people like Hano Essen, like Sven Kullander, who are willing to stick their necks out for new science to discover something new. Without pioneers, without people taking these kind of risks, both economic on your end, and sociologically, say in the scientific community, on the professors’ end. So I wish people were more open-minded [and] would follow their example. I think a lot of the barriers to people understanding this new technology, this new science, is again the academic pushback, so I am always encouraged by these men of integrity, whether they are sure or unsure of what’s going on, they say, “let’s look”, “let’s investigate”.  That’s why I’m always in inspired by those kinds of people, and that’s why I brought him up.

Rossi:  Yes, I agree with you.

JM: I know you don’t have a lot of time today. We appreciate all the time you afforded to us. I know there are things you can talk about, and things you cannot talk about. So before we go our separate ways, do you have any parting thoughts? Any words of wisdom or anything you think is appropriate?

Rossi: What I can say is that, at this point, we have to focus on the industrial plant in operation, because at this point in the story we are in a situation similar to the one at the dawn of the computers.  At the very beginning it was important to have the theoretical discussion on microchips, etcetera, but at a certain point, the development, and the importance of the computer, has been determined by the market, not by the scientific community.

JM: Absolutely. Thank you for taking the time out of your very busy schedule to speak to us.

Rossi: Thank you very much.  It has been a pleasure and an honor to be with you today.

Conclusion: That does it for today’s episode. Thanks again to Andrea Rossi, Ruby Carat at Cold Fusion Now.org, and thanks to you for listening. Take care, and stay tuned for more episodes in the near future.

embedded by Embedded Video

YouTube

* More of Interviews/Essays on Cold Fusion/LENR & other topics can be found at:http://jmag0904.wordpress.com/

 

Lugano Report – Summary, Success, and Critics

After several days, an atmosphere of mixed opinions surrounds the Elforsk E-Cat test and subsequent Lugano Report. Some heated arguments will ensue and temperatures will rise as the validity of the procedure and methods of testing will come under scrutiny in the months to come.

Lugano TestThis is a positive and healthy thing however. After all, the burden of proof is the claimant’s responsibility. For claims that challenge known physics, the burden of proof is definitely higher and the testing procedures, methodologies, and presented data must be flawless and without reprive. Now some may argue that errors are acceptable to a certain extent as long as the intended result is achieved. However, as anyone experienced in the field or experienced in problem solving will know, errors compound errors and in the end may give results that are totally false.

There is no excuse for some of the errors we’ve seen present themselves in the Elforsk test. Scientists with amazing reputations and achievements such as those involved should insist on adequate support, sufficient data, a definitive plan, and parameters of testing that are non-negotiable before agreeing to dive into such a controversial tasks. I am a bit annoyed at the fact that the report appears very sloppy and data that should be present is missing.  To be honest, I retain a positive outlook on the results. I respect the scientists for taking on the task and understand that they have taken a risk which should not be overlooked. However, I may be a victim of “Hope”. We shall see what the future holds. In the mean time, I write this article to address some of the issues already plaguing the topic and to provide a thread where they may be discussed in a mature and objective manner.

 

Issues with the report itself.

  1. The initial release of the Lugano report was obviously a rough draft as it flowed very poorly. Key data points were scattered in a way that made it difficult to reference the charts with the data. For instance, one has to bounce back and forth between charts, paragraphs, tables, and table descriptions to grasp of what each data point is actually depicting in the process. Regardless of these issues, I was able to verfy the calculations that were presented with the given data in the report. This does not address the validity of the data, just the math visibile in the report.
  2. The inherent lack of data regarding the control test and methods used in the the control is sorely lacking. This breeds new skeptics as the report requires you to dig through what little information exists to confirm that the data is even usable and gives the appearance of intentional obfuscation.
  3. Another complaint I’ve been seeing is that the report is incautious or poorly proofread and edited. An example was given in reference to the paragraph that reads: “In this way, the current model of E-Cat iscapable of attaining higher temperatures than the earlier models, avoiding internal melting, a previously fairly frequent occurrence” …… One who has followed the E-Cat story closely knows that very little information on previous meltdown issues exists and only one has such case has been reported in the past. That report describes a meldown of a single device back in November 2011. Statements like this lead skeptics to believe that the current test was not truly independent as information such as this could only come from Rossi or Levi. The fact that Levi is the lead author on the report has already caused enough issues and doubts regarding the fully independent nature of the test.

The issue of an apparent lack of preparation.

  1. First, lets revisit the control test issue. In the limited information provided, we can see that they ran the reactor, void of the fuel powder, powered up by Rossi (at the request of the testers) to an imput power of 500 watts. Valid reasons were presented for this if one digs for it. The major critique on this is that you cannot use the dummy test as a proper control as it did not inherit the same input conditions as the live test. If you are one of the individuals harping on this, then I have to say you are correct but – “Read the Report”. While the layout of the report may be confusing as mentioned before, the authors do explain that this was not a control test but rather a calibration test for the calorimetry method being used. On page 6, paragraph 3; the following is explained:

    The first phase of the test was dedicated to measuring the “dummy reactor”, i.e. the E-Cat operating without its internal charge. Conservation of energy dictates that all power supplied to the dummy reactor from the electric power line be dissipated as thermal energy to the environment by means of radiation and convection. Therefore, by comparing power input, as measured by the two power analyzers, to power output as measured by us, we were able to ascertain that no overestimation had occurred. In other words, the data relevant to the dummy reactor served the purpose of checking the method used. However, it was not meant to compare the operation of the loaded reactor to the dummy run. In fact, such a procedure would   have required that the same amount of power be supplied to the dummy and to the reactor. Moreover, at the start of the measurements, there was no way of knowing what input power the loaded reactor would have absorbed.

  2. They went on to explain that they limited the input power out of fear that higher temperatures would cure the reactor’s ceramic body differently than if it were loaded with the fuel. This posed a risk of fracturing the ceramic body when ran at the higher planned temperatures in the loaded test. Again, this makes total sense seeing how they had one shot at the test. However, it is worded poorly and raises the fact that there should have been two identical reactors supplied for the test or at least enough information prior to the test to know for sure if their fears would come to pass.
  3. In order to avoid the criticism, a proper control test should have been engineered prior to the test launch and again a definitive plan. Accusations are bouncing around that the cracking ceramic body excuse was fed to the reasearches by Rossi who should have not even been present. I’m not an expert in thermal displacement or a meterial scientist so I cannot comment on the validity of their reasons. However, be careful and check the source of any accusation. Unless they are experienced in the fields related to the accusation, their words are simply opinion if not dribble.

The opionion presented by Mark-E that the data in the report does not support the claim of extraordinary heat evolution.

(Posted by Mark-E)

Mark has pointed out that the calculations in the report as follows:

Input electricity 800W => [ heat evolving process ] => radiated heat, + convected heat, + conducted heat

Input electricity 900W => [ heat evolving process ] => radiated heat +41% versus 800W input, + convected heat, + conducted heat +11.9% versus 800W input

The unknown is how much heat comes out of the process in the middle. The calculations the authors offer show the vast majority of the heat as radiated. So if those calculations are off then everything that follows is similarly off. So we conduct a basic sanity check on the reported observations and compare that to what we know about heat transfer.

Convected heat transfer efficiency tends to improve with increasing temperature difference. The increase from 800W to 900W would increase the temperature difference though not tremendously. We should therefore expect that the convected heat output at least increases proportionally to the increase in output, whatever it may be, of the unknown heat evolving process. The authors reported calculated convection heat transfer increase of 11.9%. The convection increase suggests no more than 11.9% increase in heat from the process driving the convection in response to ~12.5% increase in input electrical power. If the calculations are off a bit and/or there were losses to conduction that I didn’t see them report on, then the increase in convected heat flux they calculated is consistent with the increased electrical input power and contradicts suggestion that the “fuel” contributes any power to the output at all. It is not at all consistent with the calculated increase in radiated power increase that they reported as 41%. Absent corroborating calibration tests that actually establish that the radiated power as calculated correlates within reasonable error to a known reliable reference, this strongly indicates that the calculated radiated power upon which all of the other extraordinary claims and conclusions rely is not valid.

I do not accuse and do not attempt to second guess these authors. I am only evaluating the experiment design and experiment data that they have presented. 

Again we are plagued with a lack of data and Mark-E presents a valid point here. I hope that the information to be released this next Monday will reveal the missing data and perhaps explanations for these many conscerns.


In summary, I am not an expert in LENR research, calorimetry, or even physics for that matter. My background is entirely in electrical engineering and RF systems. So I will not ask anyone to listen to my opinions or others here but rather welcome discussion. If you have experience in these areas, then by all means share. While I’m not necessarily happy about the issues expressed here, I respect the authors and the efforts of the research team involved in the test. I also remain objective and believe there may be explanations or reasons for the mistakes and welcome the authors to present them here or in the forum that is available on the subject here: Lugano Report.

Note: We welcome productive conversation here and stress that more information and answers may be released on Monday. Please avoid accusations, ad-homs, personal attacks here or on the forum. You can register for the forum using your Disqus, Google, or Facebook account. Once registered, feel free to post sub topics with your conscerns or thoughts.

Ken

LENR, Defkalion And Bad Measurements

 Last year Defkalion publicly demonstrated what they thought was evidence of overunity with their LENR device. What did not get publicized was when the experiment was run again with the LENR device switched of, the same results were observed.

alexandros_xanthoulis_photo_mats_lewan_250px

Alexander Xanthoulis at Defkalion’s demo in Milan July 23, 2014. Photo: Mats Lewan

The reoccurring problem I see when it comes to free energy claims are methodology, inadequate instrumentation or really bad interpretation of data. Sometimes they are deliberate to mislead, but in the majority of cases is just a lack of qualifications, experience or ignorance.

I along with many others, have been critical on the measurement techniques and equipment used by Rossi, Defkalion  and a few others when making LENR performance claims. I am often asked about my own opinion which has not changed after many years. LENR is not understood, it is an anomaly or an event that can not be reliably repeated. It is worthy of further research (and a lot of credible research continues) but I feel it will be years, if ever, that they are able to engineer it into a useful continuous process. I am a supporter of further research. I am also very critical of fund raising efforts undertaken by some based on poor testing and dubious results.

Mats Lewan was there at the Defkalion demonstration last year. He is an internationally recognized and respected  journalist when it comes to all things to do with LENR. He is the author of a book ‘An Impossible Invention’ which I highly recommend. The following excerpts were taken from his blog earlier this year and is an excellent example of the politics of measurements. Please go to the following link for the full version as it is a great read.

Link: http://matslew.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/defkalion-demo-proven-not-to-be-reliable/

Measurement Error

The measurement setup that was used by Defkalion Green Technologies (DGT) on July 23, 2013, in order to show in live streaming that the Hyperion reactor was producing excess heat, does not measure the heat output correctly, and the error is so large that the reactor might not have worked at all.

This is the conclusion of a report  by Luca Gamberale, former CTO of the Italian company Mose srl that at that time was part of the joint venture Defkalion Europe, owned together with DGT.

Link to report: http://animpossibleinvention.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/dgt-faulty-demo-140502-english.pdf

The report is based on experiments, performed mainly after the live streaming, using the same setup but without the reactor being active. Yet, the experiments showed that it was possible to obtain a measured thermal power of up to about 17 kW, while the input electric power was about 2.5 kW.

 

Recommendations not followed

Gamberale describes in the report that before the demo, Mose had proposed a series of improvements to the measurement setup in order to make it more reliable but that DGT did not allow these changes. He notes that the lack of cooperation made it necessary to carry out independent verification tests.

The tests focused on a possible malfunction of the digital flow meter used to measure water flow in the setup. It was shown that by decreasing the input water flow to almost zero, the flow meter started to make fast movements back and forth, and since the direction of the flow was not registered by the flow meter, these fast movements resulted in a reading corresponding to a relatively high flow, although the flow was almost zero.

Since the calculation of thermal heat was based on how much water was heated by the reactor, this measurement error resulted in a large calculated thermal heat output, while the actual thermal heat was much lower.

The explanation is thoroughly discussed in the report. Most important, however, is the fact that Gamberale with the experiment has proved that the setup could produce readings of large amounts of excess heat, without the reactor running, and that any result from the setup showing excess heat therefore is unreliable.

Notes

Gamberale doesn’t accuse Defkalion openly for fraud, but he makes it clear that the Milan demo presented no evidence that the technology is working.

Gamberale has a PhD in theoretical high energy physics from the University of Milan, and at the Milan based Pirelli Labs he has further developed the theoretical work in coherent electrodynamics by his countryman, late Dr. Giuliano Preparata. Among his experimental work he has been assessing the technology of Black Light Power. He has also made studies on electrochemical loading of palladium wires.

Defkalion’s Future

matslewan

Mats Lewan

Defkalion’s president Alexander Xanthoulis  still claims, however,  that the development of the new reactor is on track and that according to the plans it will be certified with regard to safety and security by a Canadian certifying body corresponding to US Underwriters’ Laboratory within the next months. After that, Defkalion could start licensing the technology to partners. National licenses were previously offered at EUR 40.5 million, and though Xanthoulis told me that five contracts have been signed he also said that no money had yet been transferred.

But Defkalion will now have to present solid evidence to convince anyone that its technology is valid, and also let those people make changes to the test protocol and to the measurement set-up, if it’s necessary in order to eliminate uncertainties.

Gamberale told me that the findings he describes in the report could bring damage to serious research activities within LENR, but he also told me that he personally still believes that LENR is an important scientific and technological area and that he is getting involved in two other projects in this domain.

Source: http://matslew.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/defkalion-demo-proven-not-to-be-reliable/

 

Dr. Edmund Storms: Explaining LENR

The following is an excellent interview with Dr Edmund Storms.

 

download (64)

Dr. Edmund Storms

Dr. Storms is a nuclear chemist who spent thirty-four years working at Los Alamos National Labs. There he conducted research into materials for use in nuclear power and propulsion reactors, including studies of cold fusion. He is also the author of The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction, published in 2007, and has recently published a follow-up book exploring the theoretical side of LENR.

In the interview he discusses Nano-Cracks, Metallic Hydrogen, and gives an excellent insight into LENR.

I am often asked my opinion on LENR and have maintained over a number of years it is an interesting anomaly worth while further research and investigation. However achieving repeatable and reliable results is proving difficult and it may be many years before they are able to engineer an viable or solution that would provide the benefits many claim this technology can deliver.

It has been further complicated by the likes of a few delusional people and  many claims that could not be third party tested. There is however growing interest from academia and industry . While I am not holding my breath anything is possible.

The Foks0904 site has many more great interviews and worth subscribing to

embedded by Embedded Video

YouTube

2014 COLD FUSION COLLOQUIUM AT MIT

 

The 2014 Cold Fusion/Lattice-Assisted Nuclear Reactions Colloquium was held at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology from March 21-23, appropriately on the 25th anniversary of the cold fusion announcement by Pons and Fleischmann. Mitchell Swartz, Gayle Verner and their team at JET Energy  organized a  conference, filled with excellent presentations. Nearly 100 people were in attendance. The three-day meeting featured 28 speakers and nearly 40 talks

 

images (49)

Mitchell Swartz

Infinite Energy has posted the summary of the 2014 Cold Fusion/LANR Colloquium at MIT at:
http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/MIT2014Colloq.pdf

Further information on this and past conferences can be obtained at :
http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue115/mitcolloq.html

Revolution-Green had covered what we considered the standout presentation:

http://revolution-green.com/replicable-model-controlled-nuclear-reaction-using-metal-nanoparticles/

Other Links and Coverage

An archive of video, audio and slides is located at: http://coldfusionnow.org/interviews/2014-cflanr-colloquium-at-mit-full-coverage/.

Ruby Carat of Cold Fusion Now: http://coldfusionnow.org

Jeremy Rys of Alien Scientist: http://www.alienscientist.com

It is great to see a healthy curiosity developing in the scientific community and industry for cold fusion and LENR. This will introduce a level of credibility and professionalism that has been sadly lacking in the past. I recently stated my own views again in a recent interview that I believe there is a demonstrable effect or event, but it may be some years before it can be engineered into a useful source of energy. Even the most promising tests are not consistently repeatable or in a way that can be engineered into a continuous process. The key to moving ahead is really understanding what is going on, with good science and data evaluation, not just wild speculation and sensationalism.

 

NASA – Clean Nuclear Fuel – Is It LENR?

There has been a lot of buzz lately about a recent video that was released from the NASA’s Langley Research Center. In the video, they claim to have discovered a process where by they create clean nuclear fuel. By adding neutrons to existing elements such as Nickel(Ni), Carbon(C), and Hydrogen(H); researchers are able to produce a different element and in the process generate excess electricity and waste heat in a LENR effect. Notice, I am careful to not add or detract from their message as this will become important at the end of this article. 

 Joe Zawodny is a Senior Research Scientists in the Science Directorate at the Langley Research Institute. He is employed by NASA, but as you will see in a later quote; he does not speak directly for NASA. This video was published by NASA and you may take that as a stamp of approval for it’s message or not.    There has been a lot of hype, hooting, and hollering in the LENR arena claiming that this video is evidence that other projects such as Rossi’s E-Cat are the real deal. However, if you exercise your critical thinking skills and understand scientific principles, you will understand that using this video as any such “proof” is rubbish. Below is a quote from Joe Zawodny’s personal blog on the his personal views regarding the subject.

 

Technology Gateway Video

 

 

First the disclaimers: While I do work for NASA, I do not speak for them.  They employ me for my professional capabilities and on occasion my professional opinion. Nothing I say should ever be construed as anything other than my personal opinion. As a NASA employee I am allowed and often times encouraged to say what I think. This and the exceptional people I get to work with every day are what make NASA great and a great place to work.

I wish to respond to a number of things that have popped up on the web in the past few days and weeks. I do this here because I can control the message. Every issue has at least two sides but, only the writer gets to decide how to present them. I do not plan to make discussion of my work on this site a habit and I do not plan to allow any comments to this post. It is unlikely that any email on this topic sent to me will generate a reply. Undoubtedly, bits and pieces of this will be taken out of context and used to support claims and opinions which I myself do not hold.  Such is the nature of the Wild West Web (WWW).   All I can ever hope to do is to maintain the original content and context.  In my opinion, reputable sites will link back to this original content and others will not.

As you have likely already noted, a non-technical video on a patent application for a new technology was made public on a NASA website this past week. It is part of the overall innovation disclosure process.  It is just one of the ways NASA communicates with the public about what we do. As mandated by Executive Order, every civil servant is required to disclose an innovation or invention which may be a of value/benefit.  Google “NASA technology reporting” if you wish to read the executive order and how NASA has implemented it. If a patent application is filed, a video may be produced to inform the general public of the nature of the invention or innovation.  It may be a non-technical piece that communicates what this invention is about and why people might care.  Such is the case of the recent video on Surface Plasmon Polaritons.

As for what people are trying to read into this video, specifically my use of the word “demonstrated”, it is my professional opinion that the production of excess energy has been demonstrated when the results of the last 20+ years of experimentation are evaluated. There has been a lot of work done in the past 20+ years. When considered in aggregate I believe excess power has been demonstrated. I did not say, reliable, useful, commercially viable, or controllable.  If any of those other terms were applicable I would have used them instead. If anything, it is the lack of a single clear demonstration of reliable, useful, and controllable production of excess power that has held LENR research back. As a non-technical piece aimed at the general public, my limited media training has taught me that less information/detail is generally better than more. I did not produce or direct the video. While I saw the video before it was released, I did not learn of it’s release until the email started pouring in Thursday morning.

There have been many attempts to twist the release of this video into NASA’s support for LENR or as proof that Rossi’s e-cat really works. Many extraordinary claims have been made in 2010. In my scientific opinion, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I find a distinct absence of the latter. So let me be very clear here. While I personally find sufficient demonstration that LENR effects warrant further investigation, I remain skeptical. Furthermore, I am unaware of any clear and convincing demonstrations of any viable commercial device producing useful amounts of net energy.

So what does extraordinary evidence look like? As a trained scientist, I have been taught the historical standards for acceptance of experimental results or theories. Experiments and theories go hand-in-hand in what is known as the scientific method.  Both must be independently tested, replicated, or verified.  As a minimum, experimental results must be replicated by an objective and independent party. The nature of the test or replication needs to adhere to the spirit of the original experiment but, should be under the full design, implementation, and control of the independent tester. So, if a device is claimed to be capable of producing excess heat by nature of its operation (i.e., the consumption of fuel via a nuclear process), it must be operated properly. The way power input and power output are measured should be left up to the independent tester. This is standard scientific practice. What would take this to the next level (extraordinary evidence) would be to have the test be an open public test. The nature of the test and specific approach to executing the test should be made public. The conduct of the test should be open to additional 3rd party experts. And finally, the data should be publicly released. Further peer review of all aspects of the independent test is a must. Community consensus is the ultimate goal. Every attempted demonstration of a LENR device that I am aware of has failed to meet one or more of these criteria.

There is one last point I wish to cover. It has been claimed that I no longer give proper credit to Widom and Larsen for their theory. I disagree with that opinion. When I talk to my family, friends, or neighbors about some of my work. I do not cite Widom-Larsen Theory or any of their papers. There would be little point in doing so. Who the intended audience is must determine what you say and how you present the information. If a technically competent person comes across a non-technical presentation they should recognize it as such.  To expect that every form of communication is exactly what you need or want it to be is unrealistic.  The fact that Widom-Larsen Theory (WLT) was not explicitly mentioned in the video fit the intended audience. It is not an indication that I no longer believe WLT is likely the correct explanation behind LENR. I have been consistent in my professional briefings to indicate that I find WLT is likely correct. It appears in every briefing where I have had the time to include it and where the briefing was intended to be technical. I’ll point to my last public technical briefing at NASA GRC as evidence of this. I will continue to do so until such time that WLT has been demonstrated to be flawed. Quite frankly I am baffled that WLT is not receiving more wide spread attention. Applications of the theory appear to go far beyond LENR. The fact that I did not mention WLT in the Aviation Week article was a mistake on my part. It was a technical article to a technical audience. I communicated my regrets on that omission directly to Lewis Larsen and am quite willing to admit that error publicly – mea culpa.

You can conclude from his post that his views mirror the more logical thinkers that comment on the subject. He admits that NASA has been researching the phenomenon for 20+ years and that, there is still no demonstration to date that shows a repeatable, consistent, and commercially viable result.  On an encouraging note, he does hold the Windom Larsen Theory as the most likely explanation behind LENR and that he has seen sufficient evidence to indicate that there is excess heat in the LENR process. 
Sources:
http://joe.zawodny.com/
http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/

H-Cat Revisited

 

I found Sunday to be a good day to review articles and developments we covered over the week. I noticed this comment from Justin Church and thought it was worthy to be elevated up into an update of the H- Cat.

H-Cat_overview_400The comment was in response to the article we ran on LENR “Replicable Model for Controlled Nuclear Reaction using Metal Nanoparticles

In that article a link to a full report was included where a COP of close to two was achieved with some LENR experiments. As pointed out these tests do not have a 100% repeat ability, nominally a little above 50%, adding  to the mystery even further. i also agree with Justin’s comments that there was little chance of Sterling succeeding, I had other reasons more to do with competence and methodology rather than inconsistent results.

Justin is far from my favorite person in the world due to his racist comments and sometimes abusive behavior. However to be fair this idea does have a reasonable chance of possibly performing not unlike other LENR projects.

I do not subscribe to the notion that the tests conducted by Sterling resulted in “Sterling’s first H-Cat calorimetric test points to anomalous heat”  No result or outcome could be determined by the sloppy methodology  and incompetence in reading and using meters.

Justin’s Comments

Justin Church • 21 hours ago

One of the most useful articles on your site thus far Dansie….The pdf is easy to follow and for someone like me, provides some good information for replicating the effect. Again, I do not see any reason the H-Cat cannot produce the same results. D20 can be concentrated out by anybody with a little knowledge base and time, don’t necessarily have to buy it. We also have access to custom nano pd and ni cores through catalytic converter manufactures. All the electronics can be built by the online research community easily, if they knew what was needed. It really sucks you attempt bust up an open source LENR project such as the H-Cat and for some reason cannot comprehend how our crude experiments could end up in the same category as systems like this one. The parts are on the shelf to build this stuff, it doesn’t have to be mysterious, we just have to be led down the right path to be successful.

Follow up  Comments 

Simon Derricutt Mod  Justin Church • 19 hours ago

Justin – It’s possible that you’ll get a good result using H-cat. You may need to test quite a few before you find one that does, so having more people doing tests is good. The precise geometry of the cat at the nano scale is not really under your control, so you’ll probably only have the odd success now and again until you know precisely what is needed. It’s not going to be easy, and could take a while. Getting analysis, to see why one works and the others don’t, is going to be either expensive or difficult to arrange. Since we don’t know exactly what we’re looking for yet, it’ll be legwork in getting as much information from each experiment (whether it works or not) and correlating all we can.

I’m not trying to put you off, of course. I’m just trying to avoid having people think that if you order a particular cat matrix and set it up as before then it will automatically work. Even Mizuno only got around 50% positives, and that’s really good if you look at the history of LENR.

That low success-rate will likely lead to a lot of people trying it once, failing, and saying it will never work. Sorry but that’s just the way it is. You’ll also get people who mismeasure things and pretend it works first time. Again that’s just the way it is…. I spent around 6 months on an LENR experiment and thought it was producing energy, but traced it down to a variation in the spark-production efficiency – if I’d published it before I was sure, I’d have had a red face. Prove it’s producing overall more energy out than in before saying it works. Energy in is pretty easy to measure, energy out is somewhat more prone to error.

Good luck with the project!

Justin Church  mark dansie • 13 hours ago

I’m always open to professional help and criticism but sometimes my attitude gets in the way of being respectful. I will always feel like most of this technology could have been on the market decades ago which fuels my attitude even more but that is beside the point.

To be honest, I expected the experiment Sterling did to turn out the way it did. I told him before hand it wasn’t easy and he would not get over unity numbers his first run. It did not bother or upset me at all to see Sterling’s experiment fumble a bit. He is a journalist, not a builder or engineer, its to be expected but it did prove one thing, that anybody with the desire can pick up the equipment off the shelf and run them their self without much if any prior experience with the technology. If he keeps at it, he will learn a thing or two. Hands on experience teaches you so much more than whats in a text book.

I know that their are dozens of parameter changes we can make to obtain better or different results so Sterling alone is definitely not the final nail in the coffin with these experiments. If nothing else, I hope it inspired others to do the same and at least try it out firsthand. I’m sure he has got plenty of flack from what I am calling the peanut gallery but in my opinion, those interested in the experiments have access to the same equipment, so if we are doing something wrong or we are not practicing proper scientific methodologies, by all means, “show” not “tell” us where we are screwing up instead of screaming orders from the bleachers. Its obvious none of us know it all, input is great, but I want people to get their hands in the dirt because that’s where the rubber meets the road. You can’t sit around and talk about this stuff or pick apart somebody elses experiment. Progress is never made by people running their mouth alone. If we want to get to the bottom of this technology once and for all we have to build it and test it with our bare hands and stop waiting on someone else to do the dirty work.

Personally, I know where my experiments with the H-Cat are going to eventually lead me, I don’t need the rest of the community on board with that to keep my moral up. My goal was to give the rest of the community the head start that I didn’t have when i first got into the research. Everybody is welcome to join in and we want every experiment documented on film, negative or positive results. Credibility is not what I’m after, the spread of information and replications is more important to me.

Replicable Model for Controlled Nuclear Reaction using Metal Nanoparticles

 

This according to Jim Dunn one of the worlds leading authorities on energy technology,  was the most promising presentation at the MIT LENR Symposium, held a week ago (for the 25th anniversary of P/F announcement).

 

test2Although they only produced 75W of excess heat (from a 75-80W  input), it is very promising for the field as it was repeatable and should be scalable to larger size reactors. During the presentation Mizuno was on a Skype call from Japan, with the paper presented by Hideki Yoshino, an investor in the project, and a very smart man.

Twenty-five out of 50 tests produced significant excess heat. During excess heat production, neutrons, gamma rays and x-rays were also observed in some cases. An additional 22 additional tests performed with the improved calorimetry. Sixteen of these tests produced excess heat.”

A common problem with most if not all LENR experiments is getting the consistency with reactions. This series of tests is proberbly ahead of the pack. It is a pleasant surprise to read this presentation and its professional open approach and methodologies used. This is a welcome contrast the three ring circus Rossi  orchestrated over the last few years, casting a shadow on the legitimate researchers. Lucky for us more reports like this are now becoming available and widely accepted bringing some legitimacy to the science on LENR.

It may be some years before any of this reaches commercialization, or even if it is ever viable to do so. However with further experiments, a professional approach, a greater understanding will come about and possibly some secrets unlocked as to what is really going on.

The following is just a small excerpt from the full presentation. This is one of the better presentations and I strongly suggest should be downloaded in its original form which can be downloaded at :

http://cdn.coldfusionnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/YoshinoHreplicable-1.pdf

Replicable Model for Controlled Nuclear Reaction using Metal Nanoparticles

Hideki Yoshino, Eijiro Igari, Tadahiko Mizuno: Hydrogen Engineering Application & Development Company 

Purposes of this Report

1. Formalize a replicable CF methodology with Ni and DGas: Derive a formula based on test results only using Ni nanoparticles as metal and D2 gas, which generated the best results.

2. Analyze the Gas Composition during the Test: Accurately analyzed the changes of gas composition during the test, which we believe hasn’t been reported before.

3. Find CF Reaction Kinetics: Aim to find the reaction kinetics.

 

 

Results

Produced excess heat:

  •  Using Nickel Nano-particles and D2 gas
  •  For over 1 month
  •  Excess Heat = 75watt (COP = 1.9)
  •  Excess Energy = 108MJ

Gas:

The composites of the gas in the reactor changed during the reactions.

  •  Gas of M/e=4: (D2+) decreased in the tests when excess heat was generated.
  •  Gas of M/e=3: (HD+ or T+ or 3He+) increased at thebeginning of the reaction and decreased later.
  •  Gas of M/e=2 (D+ or H2+) increased virtually consistently, inthe tests when excess heat was generated.
  •  In the tests when excess heat was NOT produced, the increase of gas M/e=2 (D+ or H2+) was only 50%.

Additional Research Required: 

  • Gas of M/e=3 (HD+ or T+ or 3He+) appears to be the intermediate product.→Gas analysis is required to identify.
  • Gas of M/e=2 (12D or H2+) appears to be the final product.←This is inconsistent with the final product of fusion reactions, which is known to be 2 4He. Additional Research Required
  • Neutron Emission
  • γ-ray Emission
  • Transmutation Material

 

 

 

 

LENR: An Impossible Invention

 

I highly recommend this new book from Mats Lewan for people following Rossi and Free Energy

Mats aii_cover_eng1From his blogg site:

Cold fusion is an energy source that could provide clean water to Planet Earth, zero-emission vehicles with unlimited mileage, a solution to the climate crisis and much more. It is clean, compact, simple, inexhaustible and . . . physically impossible. At least that is what science has considered since 1989.

But in January 2011 the Italian inventor Andrea Rossi demonstrated a sloppily-wrapped device that boiled water with heat emanating from something that seemed to be cold fusion.

Too good to be true, some said. Fraud, according to others.

A Swedish technology journalist was one of the few who chose to take Rossi seriously. In An Impossible Invention we follow his search for the truth about Rossi and the strange device — the E-Cat. He shows that the impossible seems to be possible, that the world faces fundamental change.

Mats Lewan is a technology and science journalist, author and speaker. He works as a staff writer at the Swedish technology magazine Ny Teknik and has worked internationally as a freelance journalist and reporter at CBS Cnet News. Lewan holds a Master of Science degree in Engineering Physics from the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden where he lives with his wife and two children.

From Mats

I would like to invite you to have a look at the website Animpossibleinvention.com where I’m releasing my new book AN IMPOSSIBLE INVENTION – The true story of the energy source that could change the world.

The book covers the events that I have been following in the last three years, in which you have also participated. I would like to thank you for having been open with me, and I would like to apologize for not having been able to reveal that I was writing a book. I hope that I have not failed in confidence in any part of the book – I don’t believe that anything of what I tell in it is sensitive today, and I think that everyone will gain on this information reaching a broader audience. From this point of view I hope to continue reporting on upcoming events.

Apart from my observations, the book also discusses impossible discoveries and the treatment that LENR and Cold Fusion has attracted since 1989.

I wish you will find it interesting, and that it might contribute to an increased public attention for this field.

Kind Regards,

Mats Lewan

Source: Animpossibleinvention.com

H-Cat and the Real Justin Update

 

It appears that the original concept for this technology came out of Germany. It is a great experiment, but still no data to date to support any overunity claims.

embedded by Embedded Video

YouTube

 

Update. I have had a request to remove this article. However I decided to  included his video response. 

embedded by Embedded Video

YouTube

 

 

There has been nothing presented to me so far that convinces me that there is anything overunity about this technology to date. It is an interesting project and worthy of further pursuit and testing.  Sadly there are some red flags and questions regarding the inventors advice on HHO storage and behavior. 

 

mqdefault (1)The claim is a new heater technology is simple enough. Run some HHO through a catalytic converter and heat is the by product. The question everyone is asking is it like LENR claims of excess heat being produced above and beyond that could normally be explained with traditional science and the laws of nature?

With proper testing of the heat output, rather than just measuring surface temperatures (a Rossi Trick) and making assumptions, the truth will be known in the near future. It is an interesting an original approach. However, .show me the data!!!!! I have provided some links to videos for those who want to know more about the inventor and the technology. It is a simple enough experiment to do.

Safety Issues

My main motivation in writing this article is bringing to light some concerns I have with statements the inventor has made both private and in public, that could have serious safety repercussions. Quoting one of the following emails “ Who the f*ck told you that high pressure storage of hho will self ignite? lol, f*cking idiot

The reality is people have been killed and seriously injured in trying to store HHO under pressure. There have been two well publicized incidences in California in recent years of people being maimed and killed. Companies I had consulted with all had strict limits and safety measures that HHO never built up pressure beyond a a couple of bar. This type of misinformation to those who may not be qualified to know better, could lead to serious consequences and shows a lack of responsability. It also opens the door to litigation not only to the inventor but anyone promoting it.

The Technology

The following videos may give you some insights to Justin. I am sure you can all make up your own minds.

Video 1: H-CAT? Catalytic Combustion of HHO

embedded by Embedded Video

YouTube

Video 2 : Presentation by Justin Church of JDC Products SmartScarecrow Show

embedded by Embedded Video

YouTube

Video3: OxyHydrogen H-Cat Test

embedded by Embedded Video

YouTube

Closing Remarks

A friend of mine once said I wish I had your Job. The constant abusive attacks, threats of violence to me and my family over the years has taken its toll. In pursuit of the truth and what is real I am now at the point where I question if it is really worth the effort.

I do have a passion for renewable energy and to help bring to market technologies that will assist the less fortunate or the individual towards energy independence. I will however continue to report on positive developments, but to be honest I am past dealing with people like Jason on a daily basis. I do hope others can take over. The truth always comes at a price.

Thanks you all for you support and friendship.

Kind Regards

Mark

Hagelstein – ‘Is Cold Fusion Science?’ or Magic?

 

 

Peter Hagelstein

Peter Hagelstein

Dr. Peter Hagelstein, Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering at MIT spoke recently on a Serious Science episode on the history of Cold Fusion from the scientific community’s standpoint. 

 

Hagelstein addresses the history of cold fusion and what occurred in the scientific community that caused them to reject the idea and label it junk science or bunk. I find his narration of the events very intriguing and think we should lend an ear to what he has to say. 

 

 

Many times as humans, we tend to jump to conclusions or think we know the answers and refuse to acknowledge otherwise. In Hagelstein’s presentation, we can get a better understanding of why mainstream science responded the way it did to Fleishman and Ponns and their announcement in 1989. It makes more sense when you hear his explanation of what the overall opinion was before and during the introduction of cold fusion to world. 

 

Hagelstein explains how, in science, it is very difficult to change one’s opinion when that opinion is based on countless precedents and experimental proof. This is especially true if the new idea conflicts with every known theory in physics. Listening to Hagelstein’s presentation makes me question whether the Nuclear industry at the time used the Scientific communities ego to suppress cold fusion or if human tendencies played out in their favor. 

 

In any case, it is a history lesson to be learned. Like Peter says, we should encourage the scientific community to investigate LENR/cold fusion in order to further test existing nuclear theory. If the old theories hold out and triumph then they will be stronger for it. If not, then we will advance our science to a new age! 

‘Low Energy Nuclear Reaction Aircraft’ Presentation at NASA

NASA will be presenting ideas for LENR aircraft in their upcoming ‘Seedling Seminar’ on Feb 25th, 2014. This announcement removes all doubt on whether NASA sees legitimacy in the LENR phenomenon. 

 

airbus-avion-futuro

 

‘Low Energy Nuclear Reaction Aircraft’ Presentation at NASA — Feb 25, 2014 (via www.e-catworld.com)

Another great find by Mr Moho: The NASA Aeronautics Research Institute (NARI) is putting on what they refer to as a ‘Seedling Seminar’ during the last week of February this year in which NASA researchers present about ‘potentionally revolutionary…

Here is the abstract of what will be be discussed at the Seedling Seminar:

 

Older posts «

PGlmcmFtZSBmcmFtZWJvcmRlcj0nMCcgaGVpZ2h0PSc1NDBweCcgc3JjPSdodHRwczovL3d3dy50aHVuZGVyY2xhcC5pdC9wcm9qZWN0cy8xNjM1NS1hZGQtbW90aW9uLXRvLWFueS1jb25zb2xlLWdhbWUvZW1iZWQnIHdpZHRoPScyNTBweCc+PC9pZnJhbWU+
Every so often we will be displaying crowdfunding campaigns that show potential to make it big. For starters, Mark Dansie has met a group that stands to make it big in the game technology arena. Check out Mad Genius Controller's campaign here.