A Great Invention? I Am Skeptical.

[kowalskil]

An Italian inventor, Andrea Rossi, claims that a 1000 MW nuclear reactor, being constructed in Greece, will become operational in October 2011. I hope he is right; how can one not be happy to have electricity which is ten times less expensive than from coal, and without any pollution? But I am skeptical. Why? Read this paper:

 

http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/rossi.html

 

But many reputable people take his claim seriously, as illustrated in these two posts:

 

http://www.rainews24.rai.it/it/video.php?id=23096

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzL3RIlcwbY

 

How can such optimism be explained?

 

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)

.

[Rade]

To Ludwik:

 

The reason the Rossi experiment does not make sense is because you are using incorrect fusion reactions.

 

The correct fusion reactions taking place in the Rossi device are:

 

Ni-62 + P ---> Cu-63 + energy

Ni-64 + P ---> Cu-65 + energy

 

Because Rossi makes no attempt to separate the various Ni isotopes that he places in the copper tube, Ni-62, being more abundant naturally, is the major reaction leading to energy production. With both of the copper isotopes produced being stable, there is no reason to predict that the Rossi device would produce any radioactivity. Nor is there any reason to predict that free neutrons would be produced. The only products predicted from the Rossi reaction are gamma ray energy to heat the water and energy from momentum of the stable copper isotopes produced.

 

Of the five stable isotopes of Ni that exist, fusion at low energy with a P (proton) is only possible for two of them, Ni-62 and Ni-64. This is the clear take home lesson from the experimental facts provided by the Rossi device. The fact that current models of the atomic nucleus cannot explain these facts indicates that the models are incorrect, not the facts.

 

ps/ Ludwik...the key experiment that Rossi or someone else needs to conduct is to put 100% pure Ni-58 isotope into the copper tube and run the experiment as before. I predict here that absolutely no excess energy will be produced from the experimental design, nothing anywhere near the current results of ~750 kwh energy now being reported.

 

If you know anyone that conducts this experiment and my hypothesis holds then contact me via PM and I will explain how I made this prediction. Conversely, if you find significant excess energy, then my prediction falsified, and of course I would want to know that also.

[CraigD]

To Ludwik:

 

The reason the Rossi experiment does not make sense is because you are using incorrect fusion reactions.

 

The correct fusion reactions taking place in the Rossi device are:

 

Ni-62 + P ---> Cu-63 + energy

Ni-64 + P ---> Cu-65 + energy

I believe you’ve misread Ludwik’s paper, Rade.

 

It does mention the [ce]^{62}Ni \to[/ce][ce]^{63}Cu[/ce] and [ce]^{64}Ni \to[/ce][ce]^{65}Cu[/ce] reactions (in “comment 2”), then continues to criticize Rossi’s claim that, after a sufficiently long time, 30% of the nickel dust in the device has been replaced with a similar mass of copper dust, by noting that for an ordinary sample of nickel contains only about 3.6% and 0.9% [ce]^{62}Ni[/ce] and [ce]^{64}Ni[/ce], so even if all of it were transmuted into copper, less than 5%, far less than 30%, would be transmuted.

 

From what I’ve read, neither Rossi nor any people familiar with his device and its tests claim to know the precise nuclear and ordinary chemistry of how it allegedly works.

 

As, according to links from its wikipedia article, Rossi’s Energy Catalyzer device has obtained its first patent, from Italy’s PTO, and the planned use of the device as a heater for a planned factory to make the machines is apparently proceeding, I hope it will soon be possible for reliable parties such as the US’s NIST, to examine the EC in detail, showing if it actually works (though not necessarily why), or if it is an intentionally fraudulent or unintentional scam.

[Rade]

..30% of the nickel dust in the device has been replaced with a similar mass of copper dust, by noting that for an ordinary sample of nickel contains only about 3.6% and 0.9% [ce]^{62}Ni[/ce] and [ce]^{64}Ni[/ce], so even if all of it were transmuted into copper, less than 5%, far less than 30%, would be transmuted.

Thanks for the comment.

 

It is my hypothesis, based on a model of the atomic nucleus I study, that only the four most rare stable Ni isotopes are involved in a fusion reaction in the Rossi E-Cat device. They are (Ni-60, Ni-61, Ni-62, Ni-64). Combined they represent ~ 28% of the known isotopic Ni in nature, which is very close to the 30% reported by Rossi. This differs from my post above where I only reported that two Ni isotopes were involved. I have done more detailed calculations and now have verified in theory that four Ni isotopes are involved in production of excess energy in the E-Cat device, the four mentioned above.

 

What this means, if true, is very interesting. It means that the most common Ni isotope in nature 28-Ni-58, is NOT involved in any type of fusion reaction in the Rossi E-Cat device. 28-Ni-58 represents ~ 68% of all known stable nickle. Thus, if I am correct, then ~ 68 % of the nickle powder that Rossi places into his E-Cat device remains unused, and a very high percentage of what remains that is not used should be 28-Ni-58 (and not the four other rare stable isotopes of Ni), at a percentage in the ash much higher than the ~ 68% found in nature. Again, a very easy prediction I make that can be falsified via experiment with the E-Cat device.

 

..From what I’ve read' date=' neither Rossi nor any people familiar with his device and its tests claim to know the precise nuclear and ordinary chemistry of how it allegedly works.[/quote']This is true based on meaning of the word "precise". There have been different ideas (not sure how precise) how the reaction works that are printed on the web page run journal blog by Rossi.

 

Concerning this topic, the model I study does predict precisely that four rare and stable Ni isotopes (Ni-60, Ni-61, Ni-62, Ni-64) can undergo fusion reactions with hydrogen [P] to produce the combination of copper and zinc and nickle isotopes found in the ash of the reported E-Cat experiments. However, because the model I study is outside the Standard Model of physics, and published only in marginal journals, and not recognized by the community of professional physicists, I cannot get into details here, without violation of forum rules.

 

But, I can make predictions derived from the model that could be falsified by experiment. This is the way of science.

 

Here is one model prediction. Place pure 28-Ni-58 isotope into the Rossi E-Cat device. The model predicts no excess energy produced ! The model also predicts that two Ni isotopes (28-Ni-59 and 28-Ni-60) would have to be found in the ash if there was any fusion reaction of pure hydrogen [P] involving 28-Ni-58. Neither of these Ni isotopes have been reported by Rossi in any ash from any E-Cat device. I have contacted Rossi about this, but he does not reply to me if he has ever conducted the experiment I suggest. He replys that he does not discuss such topics. Worst yet, only Rossi can test my prediction because he claims to use a catalyst in his E-Cat device but refuses to disclose it, even in his WO patent application (copyright issues).

 

Here is a second prediction I make that Rossi can falsify. I predict that a very large percentage (at least 70%) of the energy produced in the Rossi device comes from fusion reaction of hydrogen gas with only one nickle isotope, the rare and stable 28-Ni-62. This is very easy to test by placing separately all the different stable Ni isotope into the Rossi E-Cat device. The highest percentage of energy will be produced by 28-Ni-62 fusion with hydrogen [P].

 

Now, 28-Ni-62 is a very interesting isotope in the universe because it has the highest binding energy per nucleon than any other isotope for any element. The Rossi E-Cat device has stumbled upon a fusion mechanism, that he and others do not understand, that makes use of the large amount of binding energy available in 28-Ni-62.

 

The model I study also predicts that the only source of the 29-Cu-65 isotope that Rossi finds in his ash is from fusion of hydrogen with 28-Ni-64. No other Ni isotope is involved in the production of 29-Cu-65. Easy for Rossi to falsify my prediction. Place pure 29-Ni-64 isotope into the E-Cat device. Excess energy will be produced, and the only copper in the ash will be 29-Cu-65 isotope. Place any other pure isotope into the E-Cat and 29-Cu-65 will not be found in the ash.

 

Finally, the model predicts that there are many, many different isotopes of elements (other than nickle) that also will produce excess energy at low energy input when subjected to pure hydrogen gas in an E-Cat device. There is nothing magic about use of nickle and hydrogen to produce excess energy from low energy input. If anyone is interested in this topic, let me know exactly the isotope you are interested in. I will let you know if a fusion reaction with pure hydrogen [P] is predicted, and what isotopes are predicted to be present in the ash or as a by-product of the reaction, the only way to verify the model prediction against experimental results at this time.

[Rade]

For what it is worth, see this web site discussion of the Rossi E-Cat technology. If the discussion is correct and the USA Department of Energy knows about this technology and is testing it, it is time for the physics of low energy nuclear reactions to be taken seriously by theoretical physicists.

 

http://truthfrequencynews.com/?p=3662

[CraigD]

It is my hypothesis, based on a model of the atomic nucleus I study, that only the four most rare stable Ni isotopes are involved in a fusion reaction in the Rossi E-Cat device. They are (Ni-60, Ni-61, Ni-62, Ni-64). Combined they represent ~ 28% of the known isotopic Ni in nature, which is very close to the 30% reported by Rossi. This differs from my post above where I only reported that two Ni isotopes were involved. I have done more detailed calculations and now have verified in theory that four Ni isotopes are involved in production of excess energy in the E-Cat device, the four mentioned above.

The problem with adding

[ce]^{60}Ni \to [/ce] [ce]^{61}Cu[/ce]

to the previous two reactions you proposed,

[ce]^{62}Ni \to [/ce] [ce]^{63}Cu[/ce]

[ce]^{64}Ni \to [/ce] [ce]^{65}Cu[/ce]

is that, unlike [ce]^{63}Cu[/ce] and [ce]^{65}Cu[/ce], which are stable, [ce]^{61}Cu[/ce] is radioactive, with a half-life of about 3.33 hours and a positron emission (β⁺) decay mode. Given a half-life of 3.33 hour 95% of this sample would decay (to [ce]^{61}Ni[/ce], which is stable) in about 15 hours. This decay would be very energetic: by my calculation, 1 gram produces about [math]\frac{0.001}{2} \cdot \frac{60.9334578-60.9310560}{60.9334578} c^2 \frac{1}{3.33 \cdot 3600} \dot= 295000 \,\mbox{W}[/math]

 

I noticed you mentioned several times some “model of the atomic nucleus” you study, Rade. What is this model? Can you point us to its literature?

[belovelife]

this is too perfect for an electric vehicle

[CraigD]

this is too perfect for an electric vehicle

I wouldn’t say that.

 

First, it’s yet to be demonstrated that these devices actually work. Though Rossi has staged demonstrations of prototype E-Cats for a handful of scientists, he’s tightly controlled who was allowed to attend and what they were allowed to examine, so there’s a possibility that they are all an elaborate money-making scam. Rossi has a history of such showmanship, and the legal troubles that go along with it.

 

Assuming the E-Cat does exactly what’s claimed, unlike, say, a hydrogen fuel cell, it’s not a electric power supply, but a steam generator. To propel a vehicle with it, you’d need to attach it to some sort of steam engine. The ones demonstrated so far, “bench top” size devices roughly the size of an car engine, claim stable outputs of between 2 and 10 kW (about 2.5 to 13.5 horsepower) – allowing for some scaling up, in the rough range of what’s needed for a car.

 

So, even if the E-Cat is what its proponents claim, I think it more likely that it’d be used to generate electricity in large power plants closely resembling present day gas, oil, and coal plants. As at present, electric cars would charge their batteries by plugging into home or public power lines.

[Tekime]

I'm not qualified to comment on the science, but this has all the hallmarks of a well-orchestrated con.

 

- It promises results that are too good to be true

- There is a "secret ingredient"

- There is only a handful of "qualified" individuals have access

- There is a convenient excuse for why he can't share the "additive"

- The inventor has already pulled a similar scam and failed!

- Conveniently, most of the "device" is hidden from view by what looks like tinfoil

 

When it comes to something this remarkable, it'll take a lot more than a few professors with questionable involvement and the "CEOs" of a previously unknown company to convince the world.

 

I could name a dozen other great reasons this is a scam.

 

I hope I'm wrong, but from what I can tell this is a lot of empty promises and fuzzy science. Playing on human emotion is critical for con-artists... people want to believe it's true so badly they are willing to overlook obvious flaws in the logic and science of his arguments.

 

My guess is they'll drum up investors and try to get rich quick, then come up with some more convenient excuses as to why it didn't actually work.

 

Sorry... call me a skeptic. :D