Low Energy Nickel + Hydrogen Fusion Reaction

[kowalskil]

Motives to fudge experimental data

 

I have read accusations that scientist are not always honest; that they produce reports to impress bosses, for example, in tobaco laboratories, drug companies, etc. In such institutions scientists “have a strong motive to fudge data;” they are payed to please. Commenting to this I wrote:

 

This observation calls for a clarification of the concept "scientist." Most often this term is used to describe a person preoccupied with an investigation in the physical world. Perhaps this is too broad. I suggest the following definition: "a scientist is a person who is not only preoccupied with physical matters but is also trustworthy." By "trustworthy" I mean "does not hide anything."

 

Here is one real situation. A claim was made, about a year ago, that a desirable energy-producing device was invented in Italy. About a mounth ago a prototype was actually demonstrated at Bolognia University.

 

http://pesn.com/2011/01/19/9501747_cold-fusion-journals_warming_to_Rossi_breakthrough/

 

Heat was generated as hydrogen gas was flowing through a niclel powder mixed with a catalyst. The inventor, Andrea Rossi, did not answer the question about the nature of the catalyst. One of my colleagues was present at the demonstration, standing next to it. He brought a portable instrument able to analyze nuclear radiation escaping from the device. But the demonstrator did not allow him to turn the instrument on. Because of this, I no longer think that Rossi is a scientist.

 

How would secrecy be justified by him? He would probably refer to undesirable competition, and to possible future difficulties with patenting the device. This is understandable. Secrecy is OK, but only up to the time at which the invention is publicly announced. A true scientist would not prevent my colleague from turning the instrument on; a true scientist would provide information about the chemical composition of the powder. Rossi certainly knows what is expected from a scientist. But he also needs money from potential investors. The demo at the university was probably designed to impress them. Ethically standards in business are not the saame as in science.

 

Ludwik

[Qfwfq]

I have read accusations that scientist are not always honest; that they produce reports to impress bosses, for example, in tobaco laboratories, drug companies, etc. In such institutions scientists “have a strong motive to fudge data;” they are payed to please.

R&D isn't the same thing as research in academic institutions.

 

I suggest the following definition: "a scientist is a person who is not only preoccupied with physical matters but is also trustworthy."

You could add the adjective true to the word scientist too.

 

One of my colleagues was present at the demonstration, standing next to it. He brought a portable instrument able to analyze nuclear radiation escaping from the device. But the demonstrator did not allow him to turn the instrument on. Because of this, I no longer think that Rossi is a scientist.

First of all, Rossi is not a scientist. He is an engineer, inventor and partner in enterprise so it was mistaken to have previously thought of him as a scientist. BTW is prof. Celani a colleague of yours? If so he would have told you he had been allowed to detect the gamma radiation but not to get its spectrum. It has however been said that they used nanotech in making the reactive element.

 

The reason they did not let him, as well as declining to answer many of the questions, is exactly one: industrial secret. He say this clearly in the videos I've seen. Celani says he understands and respects the point but very courteously expresses profound disappointment, in a somewhat pleading tone concluding with: "After all, when you invite a scientist..." and Rossi promptly replies: "But, when the scientist is invited by entrepreneurs..."

 

Rossi's demonstrations are being taken quite seriously, with physicists allowed to make several tests, especially those to show the heat as being of nuclear rather than chemical origin. I don't get the impression they are deliberately fudging anything and I think it is highly interesting. I do hope it doesn't turn out to be a blunder and by the dialogues with the nuclear physicists at the press conference and meetings, it seems there are plausible ideas even though they say there isn't yet a precise and certain theoretical explanation.

[Jorge1907]

Think you'd better look in a dictionary for the definition of a scientist. I will say you do a great disservice to this rossi you mentioned - based on nothing more than here say that even if true may have had a reasonable explanation. Perhaps your friend is dishonest.

[Rade]

Anyone what to take a stab at the type of low energy fusion reaction that would be required to explain the energy produced by this team of Italian physicists ?

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Andrea_A._Rossi_Cold_Fusion_Generator

[kowalskil]

R&D isn't the same thing as research in academic institutions.

 

You could add the adjective true to the word scientist too.

 

First of all, Rossi is not a scientist. He is an engineer, inventor and partner in enterprise so it was mistaken to have previously thought of him as a scientist. BTW is prof. Celani a colleague of yours? If so he would have told you he had been allowed to detect the gamma radiation but not to get its spectrum. It has however been said that they used nanotech in making the reactive element.

 

The reason they did not let him, as well as declining to answer many of the questions, is exactly one: industrial secret. He say this clearly in the videos I've seen. Celani says he understands and respects the point but very courteously expresses profound disappointment, in a somewhat pleading tone concluding with: "After all, when you invite a scientist..." and Rossi promptly replies: "But, when the scientist is invited by entrepreneurs..."

 

Rossi's demonstrations are being taken quite seriously, with physicists allowed to make several tests, especially those to show the heat as being of nuclear rather than chemical origin. I don't get the impression they are deliberately fudging anything and I think it is highly interesting. I do hope it doesn't turn out to be a blunder and by the dialogues with the nuclear physicists at the press conference and meetings, it seems there are plausible ideas even though they say there isn't yet a precise and certain theoretical explanation.

 

Yes, I am aware that Celani was stopped when he wanted to take the spectrum. I also hope that Rossi will succeed. His claims conflict with what I know about nuclear physics. But I will be happy to learn new things. Are you aware that there were another demonstartion on March 29? This time exccess heat was generated at the rate of only ~4 KW rate.

 

Good night,

 

Ludwik

.

.

[Rade]

How does Rossi explain how Coulomb repulsion is overcome to fuse the proton in hydrogen with the many protons in nickel, using only low energy input ? Take for example the most common isotope of nickel, Ni-58. How could a proton [P] from hydrogen fuse with stable Ni-58 isotope without a large input of energy to overcome the Coulomb repulsion ?

[kowalskil]

A great discovery or another disappointment?

 

An Italian inventor, Andrea Rossi claims to develop a new kind of a nuclear reactor. Each unit contains about 100 grams of powdered nickel fuel mixed with a secret catalyst, inside of a sealed container. The container is filled with compressed hydrogen. The unit uses electric energy at the rate of 0.4 kW but it generates thermal energy at the rate of 12.4 kW. The released energy is said to be due to nuclear reactions resulting from turning nickel into copper. In one case Rossi’s reactor operated for six month[, heating several rooms. During this time 30% of nickel was converted into copper. Three demonstrations were performed in 2011, at the University of Bologna.

 

References:

1) A. Rossi, http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com

2) A. Rossi, Journal of Nuclear Physics http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=62

3) F. Celani, New Energy Times, http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/36/3623rf-celani.shtml

4) H. Mills, http://pesn.com/2011/03/07/9501782_Cold_Fusion_Steams_Ahead_at_Worlds_Oldest_University/

5) M. Macy, http://pesn.com/2011/01/19/9501747_cold-fusion-journals_warming_to_Rossi_breakthrough/

6) M. Lewan, http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3108242.ece

7) J. Rothwell, http://www.lenr-canr.org/News.htm

8) M. Levan, http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3144827.ece

9) A. Rossi, http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=338#more-338

10) A. Rossi, http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=62&cpage=2

11) S. Chubb. INFINITE ENERGY • ISSUE 96 • MARCH/APRIL 2011

http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/IE96Rossi.pdf

 

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)

.

[kowalskil]

Motives to fudge experimental data

 

I have read accusations that scientist are not always honest; that they produce reports to impress bosses, for example, in tobaco laboratories, drug companies, etc. In such institutions scientists “have a strong motive to fudge data;” they are payed to please. Commenting to this I wrote:

 

This observation calls for a clarification of the concept "scientist." Most often this term is used to describe a person preoccupied with an investigation in the physical world. Perhaps this is too broad. I suggest the following definition: "a scientist is a person who is not only preoccupied with physical matters but is also trustworthy." By "trustworthy" I mean "does not hide anything."

 

Here is one real situation. A claim was made, about a year ago, that a desirable energy-producing device was invented in Italy. About a mounth ago a prototype was actually demonstrated at Bolognia University.

 

http://pesn.com/2011/01/19/9501747_cold-fusion-journals_warming_to_Rossi_breakthrough/

 

Heat was generated as hydrogen gas was flowing through a niclel powder mixed with a catalyst. The inventor, Andrea Rossi, did not answer the question about the nature of the catalyst. One of my colleagues was present at the demonstration, standing next to it. He brought a portable instrument able to analyze nuclear radiation escaping from the device. But the demonstrator did not allow him to turn the instrument on. Because of this, I no longer think that Rossi is a scientist.

 

How would secrecy be justified by him? He would probably refer to undesirable competition, and to possible future difficulties with patenting the device. This is understandable. Secrecy is OK, but only up to the time at which the invention is publicly announced. A true scientist would not prevent my colleague from turning the instrument on; a true scientist would provide information about the chemical composition of the powder. Rossi certainly knows what is expected from a scientist. But he also needs money from potential investors. The demo at the university was probably designed to impress them. Ethically standards in business are not the saame as in science.

 

 

 

 

For the update see:

 

http://scienceforums.com/topic/23394-a-great-discovery-or-another-disappointment/

 

Ludwik

.

[Moontanman]

For the update see:

 

http://scienceforums.com/topic/23394-a-great-discovery-or-another-disappointment/

 

Ludwik

.

 

Ludwik, why would you provide a link that takes you to the top of the same page?

[Rade]

I suggest the following definition: "a scientist is a person who is not only preoccupied with physical matters but is also trustworthy." By "trustworthy" I mean "does not hide anything".

 

First, I realize this topic is way off the OP intent, but since the issued was raised.........

 

The English word "science" has a root in the Latin word "scire", which is translated into English to mean "to know". So, a "scientist" is a person that is a specialist in the mental process called "knowing".

 

Now, there are many different aspects to knowing, and "physical matters" is only one of many. So, a scientist could also have interest in knowing non-physical matters. Your definition is too narrow.

 

As to your second point, it is not at all necessary that a scientist does not hide anything. A scientist might hide from the scientific community the factual results of an experiment that suggest some revolutionary new understanding of a phenomenon, until such time that the experiment can be replicated. Then again, the scientist might decide to report, there is no set rule to follow.

 

As to being trustworthy, consider the often stated example. You are a scientist in Holland during WW II and the Nazi police knock on the door and ask if you are hiding Jews in your house. In truth you are, and you lie and tell the Nazi that you are not...that is, you hide information. My question to you--is that scientist "trustworthy" ? The answer each of us provides informs the type of philosophy we have adopted to guide our life.

[kowalskil]

 

... Rossi's demonstrations are being taken quite seriously, with physicists allowed to make several tests, especially those to show the heat as being of nuclear rather than chemical origin. I don't get the impression they are deliberately fudging anything and I think it is highly interesting. I do hope it doesn't turn out to be a blunder and by the dialogues with the nuclear physicists at the press conference and meetings, it seems there are plausible ideas even though they say there isn't yet a precise and certain theoretical explanation.

 

I also know several respectful scientists who take Rossi's claims seriously. But, like most of us, they are waiting for the outcome of the promised October 2011 demonstration.

 

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)

[Qfwfq]

Yes, so was I waiting. It seems that it went reasonably well, apart from the demand for secrecy of the unknown customer. :doh:

 

Aside from this there were some people present who have an ounce of reliability. The ones invited by th customer were also concealing their identity but apparently they are competent individuals. The only disclosed detail about this mystery customer is "a large American industry".

 

Is anybody here familiar with Sterling D. Allan and his PESN and similar organizations? He reports a favourable impression of the event and gives quite a bit of detail, without violating the confidentiality. I'd be interested to know what folks think of him.

[Qfwfq]

Well, an amusing combination of Italian and Sloppy English, this was posted today:

 

http://pesn.com/2011/10/31/9501942_After_the_E-Cat_Test--Report_and_Q-A_with_Rossi/

[Rade]

A question for Qfwfq.

 

Concerning the secret catalyst used by Rossi in his E-Cat. Seems to me that if there is a true nuclear fusion reaction between the atomic nuclei of nickel isotopes and hydrogen it would be important to get as many atoms of the two elements as closely packed as possible. I mean, we need to maximize the overlap of the quantum wavefunctions for there to be a fusion reaction, correct ? Let us assume for now that Rossi has stumbled across an E-Cat design that can overcome the Coulomb repulsion between the hydrogen proton [P] and the 28 protons {PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP] found in all isotopes of Ni. Perhaps we can discuss how you think this is possible. But, concerning the secret catalyst....

 

Chemists have known for years how to catalyze nickel to help with reactions involving hydrogen, they form an alloy of the Ni with another metal, such as Al, or Fe, so they end up with Ni-Al or Ni-Fe alloy. Then, they use NaOH to remove either the Al or Fe and they end up with a a Ni that has a mesh like structure with large surface area ~ 100m^2 / gram Ni. This is called a Raney Nickel catalyst. Another approach that yields a similar result is called a Urushibara Nickel catalyst. You can Google them. Given that Raney Nickel is pyrophoric, it might not be the best for the E-Cat design...leaving some type of Urushibara Nickel as a possible secret catalyst option for the E-Cat.

 

Any comment ?

[Qfwfq]

Seems to me that if there is a true nuclear fusion reaction between the atomic nuclei of nickel isotopes and hydrogen it would be important to get as many atoms of the two elements as closely packed as possible. I mean, we need to maximize the overlap of the quantum wavefunctions for there to be a fusion reaction, correct ?

This is reasonable enough, my conjecture is that his secret catalyser would have to favour a high concentration of protons being inside the metallic particles.

 

I don't think Raney and Urushibara catalysers are to the point of the matter, it strikes me they have a totally different purpose. While they catalyse chemical reactions between hydrogen and other things, Rossi claims to cause a reaction between hydrogen and the nickel itself.

 

There is no doubt he uses nanoparticles of nickel and I doubt these are prepared in the manner of Raney or Urushibara. Presumably he is exploiting the fact that the nanoparticles have a high surface to volume ratio. I think that the nickel needs to be in the ordinary metallic state, inside each particle. Material scientists would be better at figuring out the mechanism. I don't know if he uses isotopically enriched nickel; the hope is to have essentially the 58 isotope reacting, in order to avoid production of radioactive residues.

[Rade]

.. I don't know if he uses isotopically enriched nickel; the hope is to have essentially the 58 isotope reacting, in order to avoid production of radioactive residues.

Thanks for your reply. Concerning your comment, 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 !? 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 ?

[Qfwfq]

Just a bit of press update:

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-11/06/cold-fusion-heating-up?page=all

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/11/02/andrea-rossi-italian-cold-fusion-plant/

http://www.nyteknik.se/taggar/?tag=Cold+Fusion

 

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.

I don't understand why Rossi wrote that, but elsewhere in the same doc he writes what I would expect, about [ce]Ni58[/ce] becoming [ce]Cu59[/ce] which is stable. Glancing through the whole thing, I got the impression he made the application with inadequate consultance, perhaps he just made a hash of what Focardi, Stremmenos et al. had told him.

I dunno...:shrug: