Low Energy Nickel + Hydrogen Fusion Reaction

[CraigD]

... Rossi claims in his Jan 13, 2011 US patent application (US 2011/0005506 A1) the following in Claim #0037: "IT IS INDISPENSABLE TO USE, FOR THE ABOVE THERMAL REACTIONS, A NICKEL ISOTOPE HAVING A MASS NUMBER OF 62, TO ALLOW IT TO TRANSFORM INTO A STABLE COPPER ISOTOPE 62. ALL THE OTHER Ni ISOTOPES, ON THE OTHER HAND, WILL GENERATE UNSTABLE Cu, AND, ACCORDINGLY, BETA DECAY". See this patent link:

 

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/docs/2011RossiUSPatentApp.pdf

 

So, Rossi in Claim [#0037] indicates his E-Cat must have (it is indispensable) the stable, but rare, 28-Ni-62 isotope reacting in his E-Cat. Strange, but apparently true. I read this claim to say that unless Ni-62 isotope is present, there will not be any reaction !?

A clearer read, I think, is that only the ⁶²Ni is involved in the reaction, with the remaining about 96.4% of the Ni in the device being inert. The claim is simply stating that the reaction is something like

 

⁶²Ni [imath]\to[/imath] ⁶²Cu

 

What strikes me as nonsensically strange about the claim in Rossi’s US patent application you quote is the claim that “copper isotope 62” is stable. All the references I’ve checked state that it isn’t, decaying beta decaying to ⁶²Ni with a half-life of about 9.67 minutes.

 

From this, I’m impressed that the quality of the application is terrible. Critical flaws in it can be found by a science hobbyist in a minutes using common reference materials.

 

How can the Standard Model of physics explain this claim, that a [P] from hydrogen will not fuse with the most common isotope of nickel, Ni-58, unless the very rare Ni-62 isotope is present ?

The Standard Model, which among other things describes the fundamental composition of protons and neutrons, isn’t needed here. This question needs only nuclear chemistry, which requires only an understanding of the properties of atomic nuclei and their decay and inverse decay modes.

 

⁵⁸Ni +¹P [imath]\to[/imath] ⁵⁹Cu

 

Isn’t consistent with a reaction that produces stable after-products, because ⁵⁹Cu is unstable with a half-life of about 81 seconds.

 

I think all this is beside the main point, however. I believe it’s a given that Rossi and his helpers aren’t sensibly explaining the physics of his E-Cat device. The question is, despite this, is the device really a useful power generator, or simply a confusing gadget intended to deceive and defraud investors? As Andrea Rossi has a long history of fraudulent business practices, the latter is, I think, likely, even more so given the weird secrecy and excuses involved in the various demonstrations of the device.

[belovelife]

here is another LENR

 

potentially anway, what do you think

[Qfwfq]

A clearer read, I think, is that only the ⁶²Ni is involved in the reaction, with the remaining about 96.4% of the Ni in the device being inert.

I don't think there is such a thing as a clearer read of that patent application, I think Rossi must have been drunk when he wrote it. I meant to say another thing in my previous post:

 

The claim is simply stating that the reaction is something like

 

⁶²Ni [imath]\to[/imath] ⁶²Cu

 

What strikes me as nonsensically strange about the claim in Rossi’s US patent application you quote is the claim that “copper isotope 62” is stable.

No, the most nonsensical thing is that he is saying that ⁶²Cu results when he says that the nickel absorbs a proton. It should be ⁶²Ni + p [imath]\to[/imath] ⁶³Cu which is a stable product. However, the abundance of ⁶²Ni is low.

 

I was remembering wrong in writing my previous post, ⁵⁹Cu indeed is not stable, but:

⁵⁸Ni +¹P [imath]\to[/imath] ⁵⁹Cu

 

Isn’t consistent with a reaction that produces stable after-products, because ⁵⁹Cu is unstable with a half-life of about 81 seconds.

It is however consistent with one conjecture that was proposed in January, because the product decays very rapidly by [imath]\beta^+[/imath] and thereafter a [imath]\gamma[/imath] pair would ensue. This would however be a headache because the resulting ⁵⁹Ni would have a long duration for decaying further into stable cobalt. I would therefore hope that this does not happen.

 

The question is, despite this, is the device really a useful power generator, or simply a confusing gadget intended to deceive and defraud investors? As Andrea Rossi has a long history of fraudulent business practices, the latter is, I think, likely, even more so given the weird secrecy and excuses involved in the various demonstrations of the device.

There are conjectures about the customer and its requuirement of secrecy. As for Rossi's industrial secrecy, it is fully understandable.

 

The story of Petroldragon and the flop with his Peltier devices isn't exactly a "long history of fraudulent business practices" but more like overly hasty, misguided and even brazen enterprising conduct. Skeptics have been pointing to his past but I don't think that is the thing to look at the most, it only suggests a bit of caution. I find it surprising that people aren't looking more at Focardi's papers, which should allow tests of reproducibility even without the secret catalyser or the use of nanoparticles, if even just the results Focardi published are confirmed independently and further investigated there would be far less doubt about the matter. I think the effect of the Pons-Fleischmann ill display gets in the way of this and I find it stupid when people (including John Brandon of Fox News) make out that it goes against fundamental laws of physics.

 

IMHO it's a pity that Rossi's approach is so empirical and my main doubt is whether it will become a product suitable for non professional use, he cannot yet totally guarantee safety. He is however making arrangements for research to be conducted at Bologna (already being organized) and Uppsala (being negotiated). By now, from what I've seen, it doesn't appear to be a hoax, it only needs to be properly managed and he is being much more cautious than in his past ventures.

[Rade]

...I find it stupid when people (including John Brandon of Fox News) make out that it goes against fundamental laws of physics.

Could we discuss this in more depth.

 

1. What theoretical model(s) do you think best explain(s) how the proton [P] from hydrogen gas in the E-Cat device overcomes the Coulomb potential of the 28 [P]s present in any nickel isotope, to allow a nuclear FUSION reaction with low energy input to activate the reaction ?

 

2. How do the model(s) selected in #1 explain why it is critical that the [P] from the hydrogen fuse with the very rare Ni-62 isotope when there is also present the other four stable Ni isotopes in the powder placed within the reactor tube of the E-Cat ?

[Qfwfq]

Perhaps Rade you are not distinguishing between:

 

1. We do not know a detailed explanation.
   
2. The claim contradicts fundamental things we do know.
   

The case in question is much more 1 than 2.

 

...how the proton [P] from hydrogen gas in the E-Cat device overcomes the Coulomb potential of the 28 [P]s present in any nickel isotope

At present there are only conjectures, but mind that there is no reason to rule out the Coulomb potential being passed, e. g. by tunneling as in the case of muon catalysed fusion. Looking through the web, I have seen conjectures involving Casimir effect and Bose-Einstein condensation, but I'm inclined to see it more plausibly as a case of tunneling.

 

How do the model(s) selected in #1 explain why it is critical that the [P] from the hydrogen fuse with the very rare Ni-62 isotope when there is also present the other four stable Ni isotopes in the powder placed within the reactor tube of the E-Cat ?

Given my reply to the first question, I should say I don't know.

 

However, first I'm not 100% sure it is so selective and second, I've been pondering the matter and there could be some mechanism for it being selective but my courses were not in nuclear physics. It could be a complicated thing involving resonance with levels in the ground state of each isotope or it could be something extremely simple and very fortunate: I found out that the copper isotope in question just happens to be the very stablest of all nuclei (excepting perhaps the proton) in terms of binding energy. According to this conjecture I suspect that at higher temperatures other transitions could occur more than at the lowest ones for this isotope.

I'm just woffling off the top of my head here. :shrug:

[Rade]

At present there are only conjectures, but mind that there is no reason to rule out the Coulomb potential being passed, e. g. by tunneling as in the case of muon catalysed fusion. Looking through the web, I have seen conjectures involving Casimir effect and Bose-Einstein condensation, but I'm inclined to see it more plausibly as a case of tunneling.

Thanks for the reply. Here is one paper that uses the Bose-Einstein condensation approach as a possible explanation of the Rossi E-Cat:

 

http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/yekim/BECNF-Ni-Hydrogen.pdf

 

Perhaps we can discuss this paper, for example, how can we predict a Bose-Einstein reaction at low energy input as found in the E-Cat, I thought we needed exceptionally high energy for this to be created ? Also, does it make sense, as suggested mechanism in the paper, that a [P-P] boson structure is formed within the E-Cat to allow for the Bose-Einstein condensate ?

 

I found out that the copper isotope in question just happens to be the very stablest of all nuclei (excepting perhaps the proton) in terms of binding energy. According to this conjecture I suspect that at higher temperatures other transitions could occur more than at the lowest ones for this isotope.

Please help me understand. If Ni-62 is the most stable (has highest internal binding energy)of the four other nickel isotopes in ground state' date=' would it not be predicted that it would be the last isotope to fuse with an introduced [P'] from hydrogen gas, and not the first as suggested by Rossi experimental results ?

 

Finally, concerning the Coulomb potential, would not application of Occum Razor suggest that we first need to rule out the possibility that there is no Coulomb potential to overcome within the E-Cat ? That instead, there are nucleon structures involved in the fusion interaction that are quantum configurations of pure matter plus antimatter of identical mass that fuse with large release of energy (thus with no predicted release of free neutrons, in agreement with claims of Rossi), such as discussed "in theory" as being possible in this 2004 paper in the journal Nuclear Physics A (A734:36-44) by I.N. Mishustin ?

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/0311044

[CraigD]

I continue be suspicious of fraud, either intentional, or the result of self-deception due to a desire to invent a useful energy technology that has overwhelmed Rossi and his supporters’ reason. The E-Cat device affair has hallmarks of a deception – secrecy where none is justified, promises of great profit in return for a modest purchase or investment – when the central question – does this device really convert energy in an inexpensive fuel (nickel and hydrogen) into a useful mechanical work – could be easily demonstrated. Instead, demonstrations of the devices are confusing and argument-provoking, with observers unable to even agree if device produces less energy than it consumes.

 

The main source of confusion appears to me to be that the E-Cat requires a supply of electric power, and produces steam. Rather than use the output steam to generate electricity, some of which could then be used to supply the device, and the excess be simply measured to show a particular device's power, the system has been left to vent steam, which proponents claim has more energy than the supplied electricity, critics claim has less.

 

Rossi and his supporters have apologized that they haven’t yet been able to generate electricity from the E-Cat’s steam because the steam isn’t hot enough and/or it’s difficult to generate electricity from steam. There are COTS steam engine-powered electric generators that run at low temperatures (one, according to this 2009 gizmodo article, at as low as 107 C, with peak efficiency at 316 C), however, so I don’t accept these excuses.

 

Most potential customers for the E-Cat want a system that, periodically supplied with inexpensive and obtainable fuel, generates electricity continuously. Despite years of promises and alleged development of the E-Cat, a simple demonstration of such a system hasn’t be done. This suggests to me that it can’t be done, and that claims that it can and will, by people taking money from people who hope that it can, are fraudulent.

Edited November 11, 2011 by CraigD
Fixed some bad grammer and punctuation

[Qfwfq]

Craig, do you have any sources according to which Rossi has sought investors to sell shares to? Do you have any sources about people who were present at the Oct 28th demonstration remaining skeptical? Do you have evidence of Levi, Stremmenos and Focardi being out to defraud people? What do you think of Sterling D. Allan, Nyteknik and the two Swedish physicists who were quite impressed? Can't find their names on the fly but they've got to so with the Uppsala commitee that decides for Nobels and the Swedish society of skeptics; one of their comments was: "If this is a hoax, it's a mighty good one!" In short, how closely have you looked up these things?

 

If it turns out that Rossi is mistaken, I definitely think he was missing something himself. I think this was the case with Petroldragon and his Peltier devices but, currently, the only doubts seem to be on how dry the steam actually is, with details about how measurements were taken (which on Oct 28th was at the discretion of the mystery customer and Fioravanti, their consultant). Fox has alledged it to be SPAWAR and it is known that one Paul Swanson attended a demonstration, but this org declines any comment on the matter. It is a possible explanation of the demand for secrecy.

 

I think Rossi must be unaware of the WHE of Cyclone Power Technologies, certainly Stremmenos doesn't know about it because he was highly interested in asking Roosi when steam could be produced at 500 K to the purposes of a Carnot cycle and he isn't an incompetent fool, so that WHE isn't famous yet. Tell them about it.

[Rade]

Qfwfq:

 

Please see this link to New Energy Times...they are very critical of Rossi, and provide some support for the view presented by CraigD:

 

http://blog.newenergytimes.com/

 

It would appear that Rossi needs to allow his E-Cat to run for much longer times before chemical reaction can be ruled out. This is not to say excess heat is not released, only that it may not be a nuclear fusion reaction, or a type of nuclear reaction not predicted by current models.

[Qfwfq]

There is already no doubt the matter is highly controversial. One thing that causes confusion is that not everybody knows Italian and the English of Rossi and others is somewhat sloppy. I'm also under the impression that some of the skeptics are strongly biased and they are making efforts to disseminate skepticism. This is not what I call constructive criticism.

 

Please see this link to New Energy Times...they are very critical of Rossi, and provide some support for the view presented by CraigD:

 

http://blog.newenergytimes.com/

 

It would appear that Rossi needs to allow his E-Cat to run for much longer times before chemical reaction can be ruled out.

Wow that blog is a mouthful and it took me quite a while to reach the point you are referring to. I went a bit further onward but not much because it seems to me that most is the average confused discussion that has been filling the web.

 

The most interesting thing I found in it is the Bologna University statemnt. It clarifies what I was already aware of (the Oct 28th test was not conducted on their grounds, as erroneously reported by some) and it inequivocally confirms the things Rossi had stated about his ties with them. This makes the big bold title of that post somewhat misleading. BTW their PR officer's English translation is lousy, I ought to go down and offer Ms. Storchi my assistance...:lol:

 

The first thing that irked me is the way Krivit calls it "the ultimate perpetual motion machine" as a way of discrediting their claim. It has nothing to do with perpetual motion.

 

I would be interested to have a direct source for Michael A. Nelson's presentation at NASA, which Krivit fails to provide. Neither does he provide a direct source for the "news" he attributes to Sterling D. Allan, which strikes me preposterous indeed. If authentic, it would definitely cast a bad light on Allan. Oh yes, it would also be helpful to have a direct source for the statement by James Fallin of SPAWAR that denies the conjecture of Fox News (and of course does no more than that). Krivit does supply a link to Forbes, where the NI reply that he quotes is preceded by one which sheds light on the cause of that other wrong conjecture; they are not a customer of Leonardo Corp. but a supplier of it.

 

I've been forgetting to point out an important thing: According to observers at the Oct 28th test, the 1MW plant ran in self sustained mode for five and a half hours before they called it a day. The measured input energy of 66kWh included the powering of circulation pumps and fans for condensing the steam, as well as the initial heating to reach SS mode. I wasn't there to check against tricks myself but, at face value, I call that impressive and I would be keen to know if it affects the opinion of Nelson at NASA.

 

This whole thing is getting to be like watching an awesome thriller, with the interlude of us finally being free of Berlusconi! That, at least, has become a certainty after several of my acquaintances over here took a St. Thomas stance toward it.

[belovelife]

http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llccould-lenrs-be-producing-ufos-in-large-hadron-colliderdec-7-2011

[CraigD]

I've been forgetting to point out an important thing: According to observers at the Oct 28th test, the 1MW plant ran in self sustained mode for five and a half hours before they called it a day. The measured input energy of 66kWh included the powering of circulation pumps and fans for condensing the steam, as well as the initial heating to reach SS mode. I wasn't there to check against tricks myself but, at face value, I call that impressive and I would be keen to know if it affects the opinion of Nelson at NASA.

The business of tricks, and not being able to check for them, is really the issue here, I think. Some observers believe tricks are being played (for example, some noted that they could hear that a large diesel generator used to start the 1MW E-cat was never turned off), while others don’t.

 

Nobody that’s tried to reproduce the experiment in non-secret conditions has found it produces more energy than it consumes. Until that can be done, or a clear demonstration that an E-cat is outputting more energy than is contained in the electricity or fuel being used to run it is done, I believe skeptics like myself and Michael Nelson will continue to be skeptical of Rossi’s claim.

 

http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llccould-lenrs-be-producing-ufos-in-large-hadron-colliderdec-7-2011

:naughty: As a rule (seriously, as in it’s actually a site rule), belovelife, don’t just post links without commenting on how the linked pages apply to the thread, at very least saying something like “I found this and am not sure if it’s related to [the thread’s subject] – what does everyone think?”

 

The linked paper contains speculation by former investment banker and entrepreneur Lewis Larsen, likely in collaboration with Northeastern University in Boston physicist Allan Widom, about some subtle and unexplored reactions – “low energy nuclear” ones (LENRs) – may be happening in places in the Large Hadron Collider its experimenters don’t usually pay attention to. He mentions the “Widom-Larsen mechanism”. This is a theory proposed some years ago by him and Windom that the various claims of energy being produced in various chemical concoctions with no credible explanation, such as the now infamous 1989 Fleischmann–Pons experiment, are not, as many people who believe they are due to transmutations of atoms from one element to another (that is, changing their atomic number), fusion reactions, where the atomic number (and usually atomic mass) increases, but inverse beta decay, where a proton and an electron combine to form a neutron, the atomic number decreases, and the atomic mass remains nearly the same. (Good description of Larsen, Windom, and their theory are hard to find online – this 2007 news article is the best I’ve yet found)

 

Rossi claims that his E-cat device, the subject of this thread, fuses nickel, which has atomic number Z=28, and hydrogen, Z=1, to produce copper, Z=29. This kind of explanation is exactly what Windom-Larsen theory states is wrong. So if Rossi and supporters actually showed that the E-cat had less nickel and more copper in it after it ran than before, this data would contradict Windom-Larsen theory.

 

So, in short, the paper you link discredits Rossi’s explanation of how, if it actually worked, which it isn’t clear it does, the E-cat works.

 

Because Rossi’s experiments haven’t been credibly measured or replicated, we can’t know if this is the case. To the best of my limited knowledge on the subject, there’s also no credible experimental support for W-L Theory, either.

[Qfwfq]

Some observers believe tricks are being played (for example, some noted that they could hear that a large diesel generator used to start the 1MW E-cat was never turned off), while others don’t.

Are you able to specify any of those present who think so?

 

I've read about remarks concerning the generator, by people who weren't present but had watched videos. The generator kept powering the circulation pump and steam condensers, and power was being measured throughout the whole test so, if one doesn't disbelieve this data, the total electric consumption was something over 60 kWh and output thermal power reckoned at well over 2500 kWh.

 

Nobody that’s tried to reproduce the experiment in non-secret conditions has found it produces more energy than it consumes.

I would be very interested to hear of anyone who actually tried it, according to results by Focardi et al. without success; I'd be even more interested to hear of anyone who tried the same with nanoparticle nickel, even without the unknown catalyst. Do you have any specific names?

 

No doubt, some of those present are interested and not knee-jerk skeptical but simply exercise due caution. An example of this is Andrea Di Vita of Ansaldo Energy, who has long been following literature about cold fusion type of stuff. He thinks Rossi should do as Albert B. Sabin did. Trouble is, who can force Rossi to do so? He did not conduct his research on funding and a salary, he put his own time and money into it. The fact that he is a businessman is underscored by the presence, on October 28th, of several people who declined to give their identity to jounalists because they were there on behalf of some interested party; one of these described himself as a physicist and said he sees no sign of trickery but this doesn't rule out chances of erroneous interpretation.

 

Currently. the person I'd like to know about is Domenico Fioravanti, described as a ret'd colonel of the Italian Army's Corps of Engineers, the consultant of the unknown customer that purportedly purchased the contraption given Fioravanti's satisfaction with the demonstration. It hasn't been easy to find direct sources to confirm the character (especially for a military position) and there are namesakes too (notably a breaststroke swimming champion) but he apparently is the one who has personally taken the responsibilty for a couple million and measurements were taken according to his choices. If it wasn't an impostor posing in this role, I'd say he's the one who has already bet his balls on Rossi's claims.

 

So if Rossi and supporters actually showed that the E-cat had less nickel and more copper in it after it ran than before, this data would contradict Windom-Larsen theory.

I've heard Focardi and Rossi saying so, Focardi said he had even checked the isotopic ratios and found them anomalous. He is competent enough to be aware of the fundamental importance of this. Rossi claims quite a bit of copper in the nickel he used for several months and let Essen and Kullander take some of it.

 

Now some say that the examination of that powder sample exhibits plainly refuting features, like isotopically ordinary copper and suspicious physical features, but I don't know who conducted these tests according to who says this. I don't know of Essen and Kullander having said this, I've only read that one of them said he still doesn't consider Rossi's claims certain. Also it strikes me odd Rossi would have given the game away like that.

 

BTW here is a notable character who is not at all skeptical:

[belovelife]

http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/12/04/slides-from-sept-22-nasa-lenr-innovation-forum-workshop/

[Qfwfq]

That link is very interesting BL but, as Craig has already told you, we appreciate much more if you put in a bit of comment than just posting a bare link. Possible comments include:

 

There are certainly serious folks interested in LENR and working on it.

 

The LENR group at NASA takes Rossi's claims seriously indeed, despite the problems due to his entrepreneur's approach.

 

It seems that finding less nickel and more copper wouldn't be in contradiction of Widom and Larsen, who simply propose a model which does not require H⁺ entering other nuclei.

[belovelife]

http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=177379

 

 

 

ok, how about, anyone heard about this?

[Qfwfq]

ok, how about, anyone heard about this?

No, I hadn't, but it will probably be interesting, thanks for the heads up.

 

It seems the agreement between Rossi and the university of Bologna physics dep't has also gone awry, the dep't voided the contract due to Rossi's failure of making payment within the agreed term. UniBo remains available however to conduct independent measurements and publish the results.

 

Here is NyTeknik's coverage where it seems Defkalion will be letting select parties conduct tests on their Hyperion. There are many interesting things in the updates of some of these articles, including info about efforts to offer Rossi's device on the market.