Andrea Rampardo: Private Ukrainian Lab Replicated Parkhomov — Detected Neutrons

The article promised by Daniele Passerini has been published on 22passi.blogspot.com. It is written by Andrea Rampado who recently visited a private Ukrainian laboratory where he reports that a team has replicated the Parkhomov version of the E-Cat.

He writes:

I returned a few days ago from a very interesting trip to Ukraine, I visited the laboratories (private) of a group of scientists who have replicated the E-Cat Rossi based on indications and specific publicly released by the Russian scientist Parkhomov, which in turn has successfully replicated the system of Rossi.

Rampado says that he was specifically interested in the production of neutrons, since he was surprised that in the Lugano report no neutrons were detected even though transmutation of isotopes was found. He consulted about this matter with Italian physicist Fabio Cardone who has suggested that the explanation could lie with the “Theory of Space Time Warped”.

Dr. Cardone says that neutrons must have been produced in the Lugano experiment, and the lack of detection lies in the improper use of the measurement software used by the testers, because these instruments were set up to measure neutrons produced in traditional nuclear reactions — i.e. where a continuous stream of neutrons is produced, instead of in a non-continuous or pulsed manner. Rampardo states that the Ukranian experimenters reported measuring neutrons, but that we are going to have to wait at least a year before seeing any scientific report from this group. Apparently they are involved in non-scientific (i.e. commercial) activity at the moment.

Andrea Rossi has reported, covered by Mats Lewan in his book An Impossible Invention, that in early experiments with Focardi, when they pushed the E-Cat very hard, that neutrons were detected using a neutron dosimeter (bubble detector), but none of the third party reports published so far, have any neutrons been detected.

  • Daniel Maris

    Well I will put that in the “Hmmm….” file.

    Interesting…but we still await a breakthrough.

    • Gerrit

      When the dawn light wakes up
      A new life is born
      Somehow I have to make this final breakthrough
      Now

  • Rossi has been working with E-Cats for years. If they did produce dangerous high velocity neutrons he would have died many years ago. The E-Cat does produce neutrons that are so low in velocity that they do not escape the reactor core in any significant numbers. Other companies, such as Global Energy Corporation (GEC), have LENR reactors that produce high velocity neutrons on purpose. They have plans for a hybrid cold fusion-fission reactor, the GeNiE Hybrid Fusion Reactor.

    “The GeNiE Reactor takes advantage of the efficiently produced high-energy neutrons in a proprietary hybrid fusion, fast-fission reactor design to produce power from un-enriched uranium. The GeNiE Reactor is not prone to melt down since it doesn’t rely on a chain-reaction to produce high-energy neutrons. The GeNiE Reactor will extract more energy from the fuel than conventional nuclear reactors. The GeNiE Reactor is lower cost since it doesn’t required enriched uranium and it doesn’t produce hazardous nuclear waste that is costly to handle. By fissioning existing hazardous waste, the GeNiE Reactor can generate power and mitigate existing hazardous waste at the same time.”

    This reactor design was partially based on breakthrough research conducted by the United States Navy research center, SPAWAR.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      “The E-Cat does produce neutrons that are so low in velocity that they do
      not escape the reactor core in any significant numbers.”
      No, it is not so. Slow neutrons would undergo many elastic collisions with nuclei, but eventually most of them would find their way outside the reactor. They have a lot of time to diffuse out because their lifetime is very long, ~15 minutes, and at room temperature they move ~1500 m/s. Before decaying after 15 minutes, they can only disappear by reacting with a nucleus. Only some nuclei such as boron-10, lithium-6 and helium-3 are good absorbers of neutrons. Such elements did not exist in the Lugano reactor in any significant quantities. The small amount of Li-6 contained in the fuel was far too little to do it.

      “Neutrons readily pass through most material, but interact enough to cause biological damage.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_radiation

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Maybe I am wrong, but the values in the table on the bottom of p. 36 of the Lugano report do not seem to exclude the possibility of a slightly increased neutron flux in the vicinity of the reactor.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          It doesn’t exclude that there may be an increase in neutron flux due to the reaction which is a small fraction of the natural background. But because the change in the numbers is well within the standard deviation of the measurement, the numbers are also consistent with there being no effect at all. If there is any effect, it was too small to be measured. For all practical purposes, it means that no neutrons were produced by the reaction.

      • Freethinker

        I agree to a point. But …

        We know nothing for a fact about the genesis of these neutrons at this point. Your reasoning is that thermal neutrons are following a Maxwell-Boltzman distribution and that 1/2mv²=kT, as where they gas molecules.

        I challenge that notion, and infer that these neutrons are formed or exist in a lattice environment, and can not be treated as a classical gas. What are really the cross-section for absorption of neutrons to nuclei in a lattice, frantically vibrating and being coaxed and jerked in its structure?

        What mean free path would a thermal neutron have where the voids between heavier nuclei are loaded protons, deuterium, and perhaps He-3 -regardless of the abundance in a posteriori analysis for this volatile substance?

        There are neutrons measured, but looking at the Focardi-Piantelli paper referred to above, the measured neutrons come when there is a larger energy production. To it spell statistics. The more energy a system generates the more events generating the neutrons, and the higher probability for detectable escapes.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          Even if neutrons exist inside the fuel and if they do something exotic there, after exiting the fuel and moving through the reactor walls, they would undergo elastic collisions, become thermalised (unless they have so high energy initially that they fly straight through, which of course didn’t happen here because none were detected outside), and then they would obey Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution. (Although for detection, their distribution function wouldn’t actually matter.)

          • Freethinker

            I agree, that a free neutron will have a velocity related to kT. So when it escapes the section of solid matter, it will behave like so.

            But then consider the lattice:

            But if the neutron by some exotic way have low initial energy, and the mean free path is such that collisions are very unlikely, then they would not traverse far before decaying into a proton.

            If the the mean free path is such that there will be many collisions, most of them will be inelastic/elastic collisions, but the more the interact the larger the probability for absorption. It will drive energy, but in each collision there will be transfer of moment, and deflection. Some times there will be an increase, sometime a decrease of momentum. The repeated deflections from multiple collisions would make sure that only a fraction (could be a big fraction though) can escape.

            And what about the Alumina casing. It contains Aluminium. ? (See Nasa http://bit.ly/18BCjqe ).

          • Pekka Janhunen

            One could test this hypothesis by moving a working E-cat so that snail neutrons inside it suddenly find themselves left behind.

            The Nasa document discusses rather high energy neutrons, although named low.

            To get some perspective to the numbers, consider the following. A 2 kW E-cat makes some 1e21 nuclear reactions per second. If neutrons would play a key role in it, that would make about similar number of neutrons per second. In Lugano, David Bianchini’s neutron detector saw one count every four seconds, which was mainly due to background. If there are energetically important neutrons inside, some mechanism has to prevent them from escaping and the mechanism must be essentially perfect, at level 99.9[insert 20 nines] per cent.

          • Freethinker

            True. I accept your numbers hands down. Any fraction of neutrons having any kind of momentum would find its way out sooner or later, numerous enough to be measured readily.

            The neutrons have to be spectacularly local and the have very low momentum, or be absorbed virtually simultaneously as they are brought into existence.

      • I think Widom and Larsen would disagree with you from their own years of direct experiments. If what you say is totally true, then why is Rossi still alive and in such good health that he regularly works 16 hours a day with no complaints?

        • Pekka Janhunen

          “Why is Rossi still alive..” My favourite explanation to this “phenomenon” is that the reaction does not produce free neutrons.

          I want to follow the experimental evidence. Lugano is one of the better characterised experiments, and it produced energy, transmutations and (taking Rossi’s word) soft X-rays, but no neutrons.

          The small amounts of neutrons that are sometimes seen in other
          experiments, especially those using deuterium, might be due to
          fractofusion caused by brittle nature of the hydrogen-laden metal.

      • Ted-X

        EXCHANGE of neutrons or protons between elements in the “m”-state could explain the lack of free neutrons outside, with the formation of new isotopes happening anyway. In the “m”-state, NEUTRONS or PROTONS are located in the shells extending “far away” from the center of the nucleus. Somebody has already proposed neutron exchange, but he has not mentioned the “m” state. To achieve the “m”-state, UV-light energy or soft gamma (surface plasmons?) may be sufficient.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          Possibly a good idea, but I’m not familiar with it. Does m-state refer to metastable state?

    • Agaricus
      • peter gluck

        Excellent news, interesting research but Lugano & Parkhomov are about
        huge excess power and energy densities, this is NOT a Lugano and /or
        Parkhomov replication even if the setup is quasi-identical.
        Playing in an other league, Neutron Hunters- see my blog this evening

        Peter

  • Rossi has been working with E-Cats for years. If they did produce dangerous high velocity neutrons he would have died many years ago. The E-Cat does produce neutrons that are so low in velocity that they do not escape the reactor core in any significant numbers. Other companies, such as Global Energy Corporation (GEC), have LENR reactors that produce high velocity neutrons on purpose. They have plans for a hybrid cold fusion-fission reactor, the GeNiE Hybrid Fusion Reactor.

    “The GeNiE Reactor takes advantage of the efficiently produced high-energy neutrons in a proprietary hybrid fusion, fast-fission reactor design to produce power from un-enriched uranium. The GeNiE Reactor is not prone to melt down since it doesn’t rely on a chain-reaction to produce high-energy neutrons. The GeNiE Reactor will extract more energy from the fuel than conventional nuclear reactors. The GeNiE Reactor is lower cost since it doesn’t required enriched uranium and it doesn’t produce hazardous nuclear waste that is costly to handle. By fissioning existing hazardous waste, the GeNiE Reactor can generate power and mitigate existing hazardous waste at the same time.”

    This reactor design was partially based on breakthrough research conducted by the United States Navy research center, SPAWAR.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      “The E-Cat does produce neutrons that are so low in velocity that they do
      not escape the reactor core in any significant numbers.”
      No, it is not so. Slow neutrons would undergo many elastic collisions with nuclei, but eventually most of them would find their way outside the reactor. They have a lot of time to diffuse out because their lifetime is very long, ~15 minutes, and at room temperature they move ~1500 m/s. Before decaying after 15 minutes, they can only disappear by reacting with a nucleus. Only some nuclei such as boron-10, lithium-6 and helium-3 are good absorbers of neutrons. Such elements did not exist in the Lugano reactor in any significant quantities. The small amount of Li-6 contained in the fuel was far too little to do it.

      “Neutrons readily pass through most material, but interact enough to cause biological damage.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_radiation

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Maybe I am wrong, but the values in the table on the bottom of p. 36 of the Lugano report do not seem to exclude the possibility of a slightly increased neutron flux in the vicinity of the reactor.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          It doesn’t exclude that there may be an increase in neutron flux due to the reaction which is a small fraction of the natural background. But because the change in the numbers is well within the standard deviation of the measurement, the numbers are also consistent with there being no effect at all. If there is any effect, it was too small to be measured. For all practical purposes, it means that no neutrons were produced by the reaction.

      • Freethinker

        I agree to a point. But …

        We know nothing for a fact about the genesis of these neutrons at this point. Your reasoning is that thermal neutrons are following a Maxwell-Boltzman distribution and that 1/2mv²=kT, as where they gas molecules.

        I challenge that notion, and infer that these neutrons are formed or exist in a lattice environment, and can not be treated as a classical gas. What are really the cross-section for absorption of neutrons to nuclei in a lattice, frantically vibrating and being coaxed and jerked in its structure?

        What mean free path would a thermal neutron have where the voids between heavier nuclei are loaded protons, deuterium, and perhaps He-3 -regardless of the abundance in a posteriori analysis for this volatile substance?

        There are neutrons measured, but looking at the Focardi-Piantelli paper referred to above, the measured neutrons come when there is a larger energy production. To me it spell statistics. The more energy a system generates the more events generating the neutrons, and the higher probability for detectable escapes.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          Even if neutrons exist inside the fuel and if they do something exotic there, after exiting the fuel and moving through the reactor walls, they would undergo elastic collisions, become thermalised (unless they have so high energy initially that they fly straight through, which of course didn’t happen here because none were detected outside), and then they would obey Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution. (Although for detection, their distribution function wouldn’t actually matter.)

          • Freethinker

            I agree, that a free neutron will have a velocity related to kT. So when it escapes the section of solid matter, it will behave like so.

            But then consider the lattice:

            But if the neutron by some exotic way have low initial energy, and the mean free path is such that collisions are very unlikely, then they would not traverse far before decaying into a proton.

            If the the mean free path is such that there will be many collisions, most of them will be inelastic/elastic collisions, but the more the interact the larger the probability for absorption. It will drive energy, but in each collision there will be transfer of moment, and deflection. Some times there will be an increase, sometime a decrease of momentum. The repeated deflections from multiple collisions would make sure that only a fraction (could be a big fraction though) can escape.

            [In Edit]:
            Int the lattiice the nuclei are stationary except for the vibration due to the heat, At some collision, II interpret that as if the neutron momentum mv would be low as the kT is not applicable, it would be lower energy.[]

            And what about the Alumina casing. It contains Aluminium. ? (See Nasa http://bit.ly/18BCjqe ).

          • Pekka Janhunen

            One could test this hypothesis by moving a working E-cat so that snail neutrons inside it suddenly find themselves left behind.

            The Nasa document discusses rather high energy neutrons, although named low.

            To get some perspective to the numbers, consider the following. A 2 kW E-cat makes some 1e21 nuclear reactions per second. If neutrons would play a key role in it, that would make about similar number of neutrons per second. In Lugano, David Bianchini’s neutron detector saw one count every four seconds, which was mainly due to background. If there are energetically important neutrons inside, some mechanism has to prevent them from escaping and the mechanism must be essentially perfect, at level 99.9[insert 20 nines] per cent.

          • Freethinker

            True. I accept your numbers hands down. Any fraction of neutrons having any kind of momentum would find its way out sooner or later, numerous enough to be measured readily.

            The neutrons have to be spectacularly local and the have very low momentum, or be absorbed virtually simultaneously as they are brought into existence.

      • I think Widom and Larsen would disagree with you from their own years of direct experiments. If what you say is totally true, then why is Rossi still alive and in such good health that he regularly works 16 hours a day with no complaints?

        • Pekka Janhunen

          “Why is Rossi still alive..” My favourite explanation to this “phenomenon” is that the reaction does not produce free neutrons.

          I want to follow the experimental evidence. Lugano is one of the better characterised experiments, and it produced energy, transmutations and (taking Rossi’s word) soft X-rays, but no neutrons.

          The small amounts of neutrons that are sometimes seen in other
          experiments, especially those using deuterium, might be due to
          fractofusion caused by brittle nature of the hydrogen-laden metal.

          • bachcole

            I first thought that you were talking about why Rossi hasn’t been assassinate yet. Then I realized that you were talking about neutrons.

            Rossi is a great data point for the safety of LENR. But this will not deter hysterians from getting hysterical about LENR. I GUARANTEE that some people will oppose and avoid LENR because it (1) is new, (2) has the word “nuclear” in it’s label, (3) and seems to defeat the need for environmentalism. Perhaps there are other reasons I cannot think of right now.

          • Omega Z

            You missed the easiest one.
            Profits from my coal mine will be disrupted. :-()

      • Ted-X

        EXCHANGE of neutrons or protons between elements in the “m”-state could explain the lack of free neutrons outside, with the formation of new isotopes happening anyway. In the “m”-state, NEUTRONS or PROTONS are located in the shells extending “far away” from the center of the nucleus. Somebody has already proposed neutron exchange, but he has not mentioned the “m” state. To achieve the “m”-state, UV-light energy or soft gamma (surface plasmons?) may be sufficient.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          Possibly a good idea, but I’m not familiar with it. Does m-state refer to metastable state?

  • Bob Greenyer

    Sergio Focardi and Francesco Piantelli had so many neutrons it was scary in 1994 AND they published the fact.

    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2004/2004CampariEGoverviewOfH-NiSystems.pdf

    The devil is in the detail.

    Full assay of Fuel and ash

    Full assay of reactor structure. Did they replicate or “improve”

    And it will be a “year” before a report – why a year, why not a date, or 360 days?

    It is my firm understanding that there will be no neutrons from the E-Cat, Parkhomov or Hot Cat. Parkhomov had everything needed to test for Neutrons, and everything else for that matter and there were none.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Sergio Focardi and Francesco Piantelli had so many neutrons it was scary in 1994 AND they published the fact.

    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2004/2004CampariEGoverviewOfH-NiSystems.pdf

    The devil is in the detail.

    Full assay of Fuel and ash

    Full assay of reactor structure. Did they replicate or “improve”

    And it will be a “year” before a report – why a year, why not a date, or 360 days?

    It is my firm understanding that there will be no neutrons from the E-Cat, Parkhomov or Hot Cat. Parkhomov had everything needed to test for Neutrons, and everything else for that matter and there were none.

  • Ophelia Rump

    It sounds to me like they are trying to spike Rossi to slow down acceptance of his work.
    Bad mouthing the work of Industrial Heat is presumptuous and derogatory.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Yes, the people who have a functioning 1 MeV plant are all lumbering morons.

  • Ophelia Rump

    It sounds to me like they are trying to spike Rossi to slow down acceptance of his work.
    Bad mouthing the work of Industrial Heat is presumptuous and derogatory.

    We are supposed to believe that no one at IH knows how to use a neutron detector.
    None of the scientists from the Lugano Report knows how to use a neutron detector, only Rampado knows how to use a neutron detector.

    Excuse me, my B.S. Detector is going off.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Yes, the people who have a functioning 1 MeV plant are all lumbering morons.

      • Montague Withnail

        1 MW thermal I believe is the claim

        • Alan DeAngelis

          Thank you Montague. I missed that one. I’ve been doing too many MeV calculations. I’m in the middle of one now.

  • bachcole

    Count me among those who will be waiting for confirmation for this one.

    • I too don’t understand why Passerini made this hype? Is this realy that important? Or was it just a promotion for his website?

  • bachcole

    Count me among those who will be waiting for confirmation for this one.

    • Asterix

      So, did Mark Prelas of SKINR (U of Missouri) ever make more neutrons?

    • I too don’t understand why Passerini made this hype? Is this “someone said” realy that important? Or was it just a promotion for his website?

  • Hi all

    One obvious thing people seem to be missing, is that LENR is a Low Energy Nuclear Reaction. Neutrons produced are not going to be the fast moving high energy Neutrons of Hot Fusion or Fission.

    Any Neutrons produced in LENR are far more likely to be absorbed in the matter they are being released in and produce isotopic changes. Or indeed decay before exiting the reactor, any Beta so produced will absorbed in the mass of the fuel itself and produce anomalous heat. It certainly would not have enough energy to escape the reactor.

    MFMP and others have reported Gamma bursts at the start of some of reactions, that then disappears. It almost seems analogous to a car backfiring before running steadily.

    Kind Regards walker

    • Obvious

      Low is a rather subjective term. It is only slightly better than the Cold in Cold Fusion, IMO.
      Escaping neutrons or other particles are stealing energy from the system. It is wasteful, besides being dangerous.

      • bachcole

        Plus what I just said below 1 minute ago.

    • bachcole

      Ian, I did not miss it at all. But I GUARANTEE that there are enough luddites that any mention of neutrons, however slow, or gamma rays, however weak, is going to give them an excuse to get hysterical about LENR and refuse to have anything to do with it.

      • Obvious

        Making neutrons “chemically” would be strong proof, however.

      • SG

        No doubt there are Luddites a plenty. But microwave ovens produce very dangerous radiation as well–it just so happens that such dangerous radiation is well-contained and nobody really thinks twice about it. If the neutrons and gamma rays are so weak as to barely be detected, and so simple to shield as it is suggested, then the Luddites will just have to be educated to such facts.

        • Mike Ivanov

          There is a clear difference between microwave “radiation” which is actually a bunch of micro waves (surprise) of any power and neutrons radiation. Neutrons can create induced radioactivity and micro waves can’t.

        • bachcole

          These luddites wouldn’t use a microwave oven to save their lives. Educating someone else is easier said than done.

      • Omega Z

        bachcole

        Aren’t Luddites the preferred material for use as neutron absorption?

  • Deepak Saharan

    seriously I think there is an explanation. Rossi uses the catalyst which might mean that he is able to do the reaction at much low energy levels of neutron so that they can skip from the nuclei to outer environment. Any way I am not a science geek . It is just a thought. If someone could provide his views on it I would be grateful…

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Nice thought, but it’s not possible, see my answers to Christopher Calder and Andreas Moraitis below.

      Also, Cardone’s claim about neutron pulses somehow escaping conventional detectors does not look sustainable. Neutrons are detected by letting them react with certain nuclei and then detecting the resulting secondary radiation. Nothing in the measurement method depends on whether the neutrons arrive in pulses or as a continuous stream. Furthermore, even if neutrons would be produced as short pulses inside the reactor, the time it takes for each neutron to reach the detector would be different (because neutrons move inside matter like a flipper ball by undergoing elastic collisions with nuclei) so the pulses would be spread out in time at the time of detection.

      Even if the neutrons detectors would have faulty, the fast electrons (beta) from neutron decays (a free neutron decays on average after 15 minutes to proton, electron and antineutrino) would have been detected by the ionising radiation detectors.

      I resist the temptation to say anything about his proposal of space time warping being involved.

      • georgehants

        Pekka, be brave and give your opinion on the possible ” space time warping being involved.”
        That is called science, thinking with an open-mind, let in all possibilities so that none are missed, as has happened with Cold Fusion

        • Freethinker

          I upvote that invite.

          But I wish to say something myself. As much as I agree and understand your aversion against suppression of ideas, there still must be some general threshold of reason – that everyone for himself obviously need to decide. To simply stack sexy science words and serve them up as a tabloid journalist would, will not make it any more real.

          Andrea Rossi has been accused many a time for being a con man, a scam artist. And we are many in this forum that do not agree with that description. But trust me when I say that there are people out there with fantastic ideas, that are completely unsubstantiated, lack any coherence, and are basically only wild imagination, but with the aim to make money (you have those not aspiring to make money too, ofcourse).

          Cold Fusion was not conceived that way, nor has it continued to live on that way, nor has the work of Rossi followed a path like that.

          “space time warping” is a word salad construct that take on Ke$hean dimension of magical anti-gravity constructs and cold fusion in room tempered liquids in Coca Cola PET bottles. It is my very personal view, that as much as they are trying to make a reproduction of Parkhomovs stuff, the creator of the word salad is lost in intellectual darkness.

          But hey! Who am I to judge. The only thing I can say for sure, is that I have been wrong at least once before in my life. And then some.

          • georgehants

            Freethinker, nothing wrong with being wrong in science if one is pursuing the Truth.
            Having a theory and doing honest Research that proves that theory in error is very positive, but that is not understood by most of science.
            There should be a Nobel Prize for the best negative work done each year.
            One should never be wrong with “opinion” as it always should be marked as “OPINION” and not in any way looked at as a Fact as happens so often in today’s crazy science.
            Keep to temporarily known Facts and make sure one clearly marks any “opinion” and one is very rarely wrong.
            In all my comments I state self-evident or temporarily excepted Facts all the time and if I give an “opinion” it is always marked by, I think, my opinion is, etc. etc.
            I am sure I have missed that occasionally but am always happy for somebody to point that out to me.
            Best
            ——–
            A link showing how things can and do go terribly wrong
            http://chalcedon.edu/research/articles/a-review-of-the-end-of-darwinism-and-how-a-flawed-and-disastrous-theory-was-stolen-and-sold/

      • Omega Z

        Pekka
        Beyond my pay grade, but- what about a slow neutron.
        and what effect would a tungsten steel core have in shielding.

        I note Rossi use to talk about the beta decay & that about 10 minutes or so after the E-cat is shut off, it is safe to open the reactor other then for cooling down to be handled.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          A neutron cannot be cold than thermal (=the reactor temperature), because due to its continuous elastic collisions with nuclei, it tends to reach the same temperature as the nuclei. Even a room temperature neutron moves 1.5 km/s.
          Tungsten is not a special material regarding neutrons. Tungsten, being a high-Z element, is a good shield against gamma and X rays (because the inner electron shells of a high-Z element have large binding energies and therefore provide opportunities for the high energy photon to interact with them and to scatter), but not for neutrons.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Ultra low momentum neutrons which are generated by inverse beta minus decay might be captured by a nearby nucleus before they get thermalized:

            “The neutrons themselves are produced at very low momenta, or equivalently, with very long wavelengths. Such neutrons exhibit very large absorption cross sections which are inversely proportional to neutron velocity. Very few of such neutrons will escape the immediate vicinity. These will rarely be experimentally detected.”

            http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0505026.pdf (p. 3)

          • Pekka Janhunen

            In my opinion, it is pure speculation from W and L which has no observational basis.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            I agree that there is a methodological problem with W-L theory, since the postulated ULM neutrons cannot easily be observed. But I would not go so far to say that any theory which refers to entities that are difficult to observe must be necessarily wrong.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Agreed, but the reason I responded was that I could not agree with what to me sounded like an affirmative tone of your opening sentence.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            That was not intended. Add as many conditionals to my comments as you want.

          • question is if thermalization can be prevented 10e12 absorption against 1 thermalization,
            as observed neutrons from LENR are about 10e12 less than expected.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    No thoughts about neutrons yet but another thing just popped into my head.

    Could the iron be consumed in the following reaction?

    Fe(56) + Li(7) > Ni(62) + H(1) 13.7576 MeV

    • Obvious

      Substitute H5 for more fun.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Well Obvious, it’s just that the iron in the fuel [natural iron is 91.754% Fe(56)] and Li(7) are disappearing and regions of pure Ni (62) are seen in the ash. So, I thought that this might be the most straightforward way to explain that.

        • Alan DeAngelis

          PS
          If a stream of MeV protons could be channeled through a coil, electricity could be generated.

          • Omega Z

            So does this mean there’s a possibility E-cats could generate electricity directly.

        • Obvious

          I’m not convinced the iron is disappearing. I am convinced that it is anything but straightforward.
          56Fe + 5H > 62Ni + p

          • Pekka Janhunen

            What is this 5H thing? According to wikipedia such isotope has been synthesised by bombarding tritium with tritium, but decays in 1e-21 seconds.
            The problem is indeed that to make Ni62 out of natural nickel requires lots of neutrons and it’s far from Obvious where they could come from(:-)

          • Obvious

            If one can attach 4 neutrons to nickel without high energy bombardment, I have no problem with glueing 4 neutrons to a proton, even for just long enough to pop onto a nickel atom. 27Al to 24Mg might be a source. There are so many improbable reactions suggested so far that a couple more can do little harm….

          • Pekka Janhunen

            If you like neutrons, there is John Fisher’s polyneutron theory of cold fusion http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/191fisher.html , http://www.markfisher.net/johnfisher/

            It has some issues, but it’s an intelligent attempt. I would say that it’s not yet definitely ruled out.

          • Obvious

            I’ll have a look. I have fiddled with the atom soup combinations enough to decide it is something quite different going on than finding a convenient ladder of fusion-fission products that works itself out neatly. Something more basic yet exotic is going on, like puzzle pieces of atoms popping together when aligned “just so” for whatever reason. I have given up on theory for now. Best to attempt a build, then adjust parameters when something finally works. Then the thing can be put to theoretical tests.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Much agreed. Building theory is hard because the experimental data are still so scarce. For example, even though Lugano is one of the best experiments, we still don’t even know the net reaction that occurred there.
            Concerning the polyneutron theory, I do not like the poison thing there because it feels unnatural. But it’s kind of a malleable looking theory with many unknown parameters. Also, it was developed before Ni-H was widely known. Maybe the theory has potential if developed further.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    No thoughts about neutrons yet but another thing just popped into my head.

    Could the iron be consumed in the following reaction?

    Fe(56) + Li(7) > Ni(62) + H(1) 13.7576 MeV

    • Obvious

      Substitute H5 (5H really) for more fun.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Well Obvious, it’s just that the iron in the fuel [natural iron is 91.754% Fe(56)] and Li(7) are disappearing and regions of pure Ni (62) are seen in the ash. So, I thought that this might be the most straightforward way to explain that.

        • Alan DeAngelis

          PS
          If a stream of MeV protons could be channeled through a coil, electricity could be generated.

          • Omega Z

            So does this mean there’s a possibility E-cats could generate electricity directly.

        • Obvious

          I’m not convinced the iron is disappearing. I am convinced that it is anything but straightforward.
          58Ni + 5H > 62Ni + p

          • Pekka Janhunen

            What is this 5H thing? According to wikipedia such isotope has been synthesised by bombarding tritium with tritium, but decays in 1e-21 seconds.
            The problem is indeed that to make Ni62 out of natural nickel requires lots of neutrons and it’s far from Obvious where they could come from(:-)

          • Obvious

            If one can attach 4 neutrons to nickel without high energy bombardment, I have no problem with glueing 4 neutrons to a proton, even for just long enough to pop onto a nickel atom. 27Al to 24Mg might be a source. There are so many improbable reactions suggested so far that a couple more can do little harm….

          • Pekka Janhunen

            If you like neutrons, there is John Fisher’s polyneutron theory of cold fusion http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/191fisher.html , http://www.markfisher.net/johnfisher/

            It has some issues, but it’s an intelligent attempt. I would say that it’s not yet definitely ruled out.

          • Obvious

            I’ll have a look. I have fiddled with the atom soup combinations enough to decide it is something quite different going on than finding a convenient ladder of fusion-fission products that works itself out neatly. Something more basic yet exotic is going on, like puzzle pieces of atoms popping together when aligned “just so” for whatever reason. I have given up on theory for now. Best to attempt a build, then adjust parameters when something finally works. Then the thing can be put to theoretical tests.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Much agreed. Building theory is hard because the experimental data are still so scarce. For example, even though Lugano is one of the best experiments, we still don’t even know the net reaction that occurred there.
            Concerning the polyneutron theory, I do not like the poison thing there because it feels unnatural. But it’s kind of a malleable looking theory with many unknown parameters. Also, it was developed before Ni-H was widely known. Maybe the theory has potential if developed further.

  • By the way: Ugo Abundo is reporting at LENR Forum about his replication attempt:
    http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/1199-Ugo-Abundo-Parkhomov-replications/

  • By the way: Ugo Abundo is reporting at LENR Forum about his replication attempt:
    http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/1199-Ugo-Abundo-Parkhomov-replications/

  • Sanjeev

    There is a picture of Ukrainian experiment posted on last blog by Filimonenko.
    Can someone tell more about it ? What is the source?

  • Sanjeev

    There is a picture of Ukrainian experiment posted on last blog by Filimonenko.
    Can someone tell more about it ? What is the source?

  • Pekka Janhunen

    Nice thought, but it’s not possible, see my answers to Christopher Calder and Andreas Moraitis below.

    Also, Cardone’s claim about neutron pulses somehow escaping conventional detectors does not look sustainable. Neutrons are detected by letting them react with certain nuclei and then detecting the resulting secondary radiation. Nothing in the measurement method depends on whether the neutrons arrive in pulses or as a continuous stream. Furthermore, even if neutrons would be produced as short pulses inside the reactor, the time it takes for each neutron to reach the detector would be different (because neutrons move inside matter like a flipper ball by undergoing elastic collisions with nuclei) so the pulses would be spread out in time at the time of detection.

    Even if the neutrons detectors would have faulty, the fast electrons (beta) from neutron decays (a free neutron decays on average after 15 minutes to proton, electron and antineutrino) would have been detected by the ionising radiation detectors.

    I resist the temptation to say anything about his proposal of space time warping being involved.

    • georgehants

      Pekka, be brave and give your opinion on the possible ” space time warping being involved.”
      That is called science, thinking with an open-mind, let in all possibilities so that none are missed, as has happened with Cold Fusion

      • Freethinker

        I upvote that invite.

        But I wish to say something myself. As much as I agree and understand your aversion against suppression of ideas, it still must be some general threshold of reason – that everyone for himself obviously need to decide. To simply stack sexy science words and serve them up as a tabloid journalist would, will not make it any more real.

        Andrea Rossi has been accused many a time for being a con man, a scam artist. And we are many in this forum that do not agree with that description. But trust me when I say that there are people out there with fantastic ideas, that are completely unsubstantiated, lack any coherence, and are basically only wild imagination, but with the aim to make money (you have those not aspiring to make money too, ofcourse).

        Cold Fusion was not conceived that way, nor has it continued to live on that way, nor has the work of Rossi followed a path like that.

        “space time warping” is a word salad construct that take on Ke$hean dimension of magical anti-gravity constructs and cold fusion in room tempered liquids in Coca Cola PET bottles. It is my very personal view, that as much as they are trying to make a reproduction of Parkhomovs stuff, the creator of the word salad is lost in intellectual darkness.

        But hey! Who am I to judge. The only thing I can say for sure, is that I have been wrong at least once before in my life. And then some.

        • georgehants

          Freethinker, nothing wrong with being wrong in science if one is perusing the Truth.
          Having a theory and doing Research that proves that theory in error is very positive, but that is not understood by most of science.
          There should be a Nobel Prize for the best negative work done each year.
          One should never be wrong with “opinion” as it always should be marked as “OPINION” and not in any way looked at as a Fact as happens so often in today’s crazy science.
          Keep to Facts and make sure one clearly marks any “opinion” and one is very rarely wrong.
          Best
          ——–
          A link showing how things can and do go terribly wrong
          http://chalcedon.edu/research/articles/a-review-of-the-end-of-darwinism-and-how-a-flawed-and-disastrous-theory-was-stolen-and-sold/

    • Omega Z

      Pekka
      Beyond my pay grade, but- what about a slow neutron.
      and what effect would a tungsten steel core have in shielding.

      I note Rossi use to talk about the beta decay & that about 10 minutes or so after the E-cat is shut off, it is safe to open the reactor other then for cooling down to be handled.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        A neutron cannot be cold than thermal (=the reactor temperature), because due to its continuous elastic collisions with nuclei, it tends to reach the same temperature as the nuclei. Even a room temperature neutron moves 1.5 km/s.
        Tungsten is not a special material regarding neutrons. Tungsten, being a high-Z element, is a good shield against gamma and X rays (because the inner electron shells of a high-Z element have large binding energies and therefore provide opportunities for the high energy photon to interact with them and to scatter), but not for neutrons.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          Ultra low momentum neutrons which are generated by inverse beta minus decay might be captured by a nearby nucleus before they get thermalized:

          “The neutrons themselves are produced at very low momenta, or equivalently, with very long wavelengths. Such neutrons exhibit very large absorption cross sections which are inversely proportional to neutron velocity. Very few of such neutrons will escape the immediate vicinity. These will rarely be experimentally detected.”

          http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0505026.pdf (p. 3)

          • Pekka Janhunen

            In my opinion, it is pure speculation from W and L which has no observational basis.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            I agree that there is a methodological problem with W-L theory, since the postulated ULM neutrons cannot easily be observed. But I would not go so far to say that any theory which refers to entities that are difficult to observe must be necessarily wrong.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Agreed, but the reason I responded was that I could not agree with what to me sounded like an affirmative tone of your opening sentence.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            That was not intended. Add as many conditionals to my comments as you want.

          • question is if thermalization can be prevented 10e12 absorption against 1 thermalization,
            as observed neutrons from LENR are about 10e12 less than expected.

  • fritz194

    ??Is there a chance that those Ukrainian scientists can be linked to that curious indiegogo campaign ??

  • fritz194

    ??Is there a chance that those Ukrainian scientists can be linked to that curious indiegogo campaign ??

  • Gerrit

    If I got the translation correct, the article claims that Andrea Rossi will attend the ICCF19. As far as I know that’s not going to happen.

    my questions:

    who is Andrea Rampado ? Why was he visiting a private lab? What are his connections to them that they showed him the working experiment ?

    I would need some follow up before I get excited about this.

    • Giuliano Bettini

      Tra poco meno di un mese in Italia a Padova ci sarà
      il 19° ICCF, durante il quale scienziati provenienti da quasi tutto il mondo
      presenteranno i risultati delle ricerche nel campo della fusione fredda; Andrea
      Rossi e il suo E-Cat non ci saranno, ma sicuramente le novità non mancheranno,
      come le sorprese del resto…
      Google:
      In a little less than a month in
      Italy in Padua there will be the 19th ICCF, during which scientists from almost
      all over the world will present the results of research in the field of cold
      fusion; Andrea Rossi and his E-Cat will be there, but it certainly will not
      miss the news, as the surprises of the rest .
      Wrong. The right translation is:
      Andrea Rossi and his E-Cat will not
      be there.

      • Mr. Moho

        It’s supposed to be “[…] Andrea Rossi and his E-Cat will not be there […]”, but for some reason Google Translate is skipping a negative particle, so the result is the opposite of what the author likely intended.

        Bing Translator does a better job here, although in an overall less refined manner.

        • Gerrit

          good idea, next time I will run the text through bing translation too. (My goodness, I never thought I would say that)

        • Sanjeev

          Apparently, just like Rossi, Google AI also thinks it can be either positive or negative.

      • Gerrit

        Thanks for the clarification !

  • Gerrit

    If I got the translation correct, the article claims that Andrea Rossi will attend the ICCF19. As far as I know that’s not going to happen.

    my questions:

    who is Andrea Rampado ? Why was he visiting a private lab? What are his connections to them that they showed him the working experiment ?

    I would need some follow up before I get excited about this.

    • Giuliano Bettini

      Tra poco meno di un mese in Italia a Padova ci sarà
      il 19° ICCF, durante il quale scienziati provenienti da quasi tutto il mondo
      presenteranno i risultati delle ricerche nel campo della fusione fredda; Andrea
      Rossi e il suo E-Cat non ci saranno, ma sicuramente le novità non mancheranno,
      come le sorprese del resto…
      Google:
      In a little less than a month in
      Italy in Padua there will be the 19th ICCF, during which scientists from almost
      all over the world will present the results of research in the field of cold
      fusion; Andrea Rossi and his E-Cat will be there, but it certainly will not
      miss the news, as the surprises of the rest .
      Wrong. The right translation is:
      Andrea Rossi and his E-Cat will not
      be there.

      • Gerrit

        Thanks for the clarification !

  • Gerrit

    The tiles in the background look more like a Ukrainian kitchen.

  • Sanjeev

    Thanks for the link. Unfortunately, no more info there.
    It looks like the plastic cable is about to melt and catch fire ! Why do they need to hang a cat ?

    • Filimonenko

      I find it very interesting the coincidence of the two articles. A few hours separate them and article Rampado had been announced at least three days ago.

    • Omega Z

      Hanging cats is a sign of a sick mind!
      🙂

  • Dave Lawton

    Neutrons ? is it repeatable or was it from cosmic ray shower?

    • Freethinker

      It has been known to be detected in other experiments. It may depend on elements used in the fuel, reactor geometry, reactor material, mode of operation, temperature of operation etc etc. Do note we are talking about small quantities.

      • Dave Lawton

        Yes but it still could be a shower which could be ruled out using out spark chamber
        and a plastic bat scintillator pm detector. Unless you do you really
        don’t know what you are seeing.

        • Freethinker

          Of course in a single measurement, can you be sue unless serious precautions has been taken? There have been a lot of work over the years to determine the neutron count.

          Some examples are:

          http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/JonesSEneutronemi.pdf
          http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ANS2012W/2012Cirillo-ANS-LENR-Paper.pdf
          http://coldfusionnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Boss-2014-CF-LANR-MIT-03-22.pdf
          http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LipsonAGevidencefob.pdf

          • Dave Lawton

            Freethinker thanks for the links,interesting. Would that mean that that there is
            a possibility of workers using electrolytic cleaning baths since the 1970`s blasting
            themselves with neutrons?

          • Freethinker

            Well, “blasting”?

            No.

            I don’t know the details of the work of such cleaning baths, but I say that – as with any LENR reaction – there need to be a certain environment, elements and solutions involved.

            For instance, as in Cirillo’s work, if the bath needed to handle several amps with high voltages, with any of the electrodes would have plasma continuously being formed, there might be a situation where the neutron radiation would be slightly elevated compared to normal.

            Of course, working daily in such an environment for many years could potentially be harmful, if in fact the setup was conducive to LENR. But I think it unlikely.

            Looking at Pd/D cells, the activity is far less dramatic. But I guess any lattice material loaded with Hydrogen or isotopes thereof, that is put under any serious physical stress, could potentially have some level of LENR reactions, and potentially release some neutrons. But as per what is known today, it is very low levels of radiation if any.

  • Freethinker

    It has been known to be detected in other experiments. It may depend on elements used in the fuel, reactor geometry, reactor material, mode of operation, temperature of operation etc etc

  • Bob Greenyer

    What Nickel Powder was used?

    []=Project Dog Bone=[]

    Captured in the Live Doc http://bit.ly/1xo0HBA

    • Andrea Rossi seems not be convinced, but maybe it is disinformation:

      Ing. Michelangelo De Meo:
      I repeat the answer already given to the comment of “April” few hours ago.
      I could also add:
      E = BSc^2
      where BS stays for Bull S….
      Should this equation be true, with the theories I read regarding
      electron capture in LENR we could move all the high speed trains of the
      world for millions of years.
      Not to mention the tragicomic reference to ” very fast changes of
      pressure”: what does mean very fast ??? In these reactions one second is
      an eternity: who controls if a reaction is faster or slower? It appears
      clearly that these guys have no idea what is a real experiment, what is
      a real machine, what is real work…in this paradisiac condition they can
      say whatever theoretical BS they want, provided they have not to make
      real work that forces them to pay hard if make mistakes.
      I suppose to have made clear my opinion.
      As my friend Sergio Focardi many times said: ” To understand LENR is not
      necessary to make exotic Physics, is enough to study seriously the
      existing Physics”.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.

      • georgehants

        I think Mr. Rossi said some time ago that he had a theory of his Cold Fusion.
        He then last week said he had changed it because of the information from the TPR scientists.
        If he changed it from the first time, why would it not be clear that it may have to change another 1,000 times before a reasonable temporary theory is acceptable?
        If it is not a Quantum explanation of Cold Fusion then it will just be a crude, low-level approximation like all other theories of physics.

        • GreenWin

          I rather think Rossi invokes QM as part of his unpublished theory. And that suggests all manner of odd, spooky effects and actions. One idea is the nanoparticle geometry produces Casimer gaps that suppress certain virtual particles or waveforms. It is these stabilizing “virtual” particles that Max Planck refers to as providing the precise balance between atomic particles: ” …the matrix of all matter.”

          • Pekka Janhunen

            If you are referring to your Max Planck quote above, he doesn’t mention virtual particles there, he said “by virtue of a force”, that is, due to a force.

      • Axil Axil

        This reaction of Rossi to reject electron capture is a statement that confirms what we all have known for a long time. Rossi does not accept Piantelli’s theory of electron capture. Over the vast experimental history of LENR reactions, there has been every possible nuclear reaction observed. But each individual system has its most probable collection of allowable reactions. Some involves electron capture and others do not. There are a million possible combinations of nuclear reactions that can occur. Electron capture cannot be considered as fundamental. The basic cause of the LENR reaction is deeper than electron capture. If this is what Rossi is thinking, he will be correct.

      • Sanjeev

        Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.
        – Nikola Tesla,
        Modern Mechanics and Inventions, July, 1934

      • Bob Greenyer

        It is not EC

        Piantelli’s empirically derived theory, which does not require any “exotic physics’ is 1H (Proton capture) and Rossi was very happy to put his name on the same paper as Sergio Focardi to explain the fuel and products of the E-Cat with the same equations as I have captured from the NNDCs Q-Calc and the same decays as I have taken from Wikipedias isotopic decay charts.

        Here is the paper, which I only discovered yesterday AFTER having ran the reaction chains assuming Piantelli

        https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz7lTfqkED9WdEg2X2dTWFJvQzA/view

        In this paper ( and as the USPTO pointed out) there is no explanation as to where the critical 1H is coming from ). Focardi had retired and was not working with Piantelli when he derived his empirically founded, standard model based, solution to their presence.

        Piantelli’s theory completely relies on H- (Protide, a Proton with two electrons) ion that is what molten LiH (the product of LiAlH4 decomposition) provides in BUCKET loads DIRECTLY to the surface on the Nickel as we determined from our ‘Bang!’ reactor SEMs and subsequently found was near-identical in morphology to the SEM of the Lugano ash particle 1 as shown in appendix 3 of the Lugano report.

        Piantelli uses a low Hydrogen pressure in his published patent extension to avoid re-association of the H before it can become H- and to allow ejected 1H to reach a secondary material, all of this is published. By having this new reaction domain, there is always H- available ready to be drawn into the Nickel atoms, then the secondary material is exactly on the surface of the Nickel to take on board any failed 1H captures as 1H projectiles.

        I am not saying that Piantelli is correct in any of this, it is just interesting that I did not know what to expect, but the outcome of using publicly available, unquestioned data, fits the experimental data (when you know that the Lugano report was not at 1410ºC as we showed live on the outside, implying far higher internal temperatures).

  • Bob Greenyer

    What Nickel Powder was used in Lugano?

    []=Project Dog Bone=[]

    Forensic analysis based on MFMP ‘Bang!’ and Lugano SEMs captured in the Live Doc

    http://bit.ly/1xo0HBA

    I have also added why it was likely that earlier reactors ran very high (but useless) COPs, sintered and failed, with possible bad stuff. All relates to the choice of powder.

    It is in the “Explaining Nickel Transmutation (inspired by Piantellis published patent extension)” section

    • Andrea Rossi seems not be convinced, but maybe it is disinformation:

      Ing. Michelangelo De Meo:
      I repeat the answer already given to the comment of “April” few hours ago.
      I could also add:
      E = BSc^2
      where BS stays for Bull S….
      Should this equation be true, with the theories I read regarding
      electron capture in LENR we could move all the high speed trains of the
      world for millions of years.
      Not to mention the tragicomic reference to ” very fast changes of
      pressure”: what does mean very fast ??? In these reactions one second is
      an eternity: who controls if a reaction is faster or slower? It appears
      clearly that these guys have no idea what is a real experiment, what is
      a real machine, what is real work…in this paradisiac condition they can
      say whatever theoretical BS they want, provided they have not to make
      real work that forces them to pay hard if make mistakes.
      I suppose to have made clear my opinion.
      As my friend Sergio Focardi many times said: ” To understand LENR is not
      necessary to make exotic Physics, is enough to study seriously the
      existing Physics”.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.

      • georgehants

        I think Mr. Rossi said some time ago that he had a theory of his Cold Fusion.
        He then last week said he had changed it because of the information from the TPR scientists.
        If he changed it from the first time, why would it not be clear that it may have to change another 1,000 times before a reasonable temporary theory is acceptable?
        If it is not a Quantum explanation of Cold Fusion then it will just be a crude, low-level approximation like all other theories and constants of physics.

        • GreenWin

          I rather think Rossi invokes QM as part of his unpublished theory. And that suggests all manner of odd, spooky effects and actions. One idea is the nanoparticle geometry produces Casimer gaps that suppress certain virtual particles or waveforms. It is these stabilizing “virtual” particles that Max Planck refers to as providing the precise balance between atomic particles: ” …the matrix of all matter.”

          • Pekka Janhunen

            If you are referring to your Max Planck quote above, he doesn’t mention virtual particles there, he said “by virtue of a force”, that is, due to a force.

          • georgehants

            Pekka as nothing is known regarding the origin of any of particle physics only that it leads bank to the Quantum, the same being True regarding any force, time for science to admit it knows nothing beyond a few minor effects in this reality.
            Would you not agree that these honest Facts should be taught to kindergarten children and the World instead of being kept hidden?
            Would appreciate your comment on the below link from the great Amit Goswami.
            http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2015/02/10/we-honestly-have-no-fucking-idea-what-were-doing-admits-leading-quantum-physicist/

          • Pekka Janhunen

            I tend to think that we don’t know much about the universe yet. Basically, mankind discovered at about Newton’s time that it’s possible to model nature (not only geometry) by mathematics. What we nowadays call science is basically about utilising that discovery. It has worked in some cases very well, in other cases not so well. Matter of opinion if one is happy with the progress thus far or not. Compared to the age of the universe, 500 years is a short time. In that sense our progress has been good.
            I guess it would be good news to young people that there is still a lot to do, that the world of science is not ready. I don’t think it would despair anyone. In this sense, why not teach it in school at some level; I don’t know which level. People need a purpose of life, anyway. And besides, it’s true; or at least more true than false.
            I don’t know what Goswami is talking about. I’m not worried about smashing particles together because cosmic rays are doing it all the time with far greater energies.

          • georgehants

            Pekka, thank you for a very noncommittal reply with no content, that I am sure the holy priests of science will be very happy with.
            If you wish I could explain to you what “Goswami is talking about.” but I think your denial is more politically motivated than your not understanding his very clear and honest report.
            Best

          • Pekka Janhunen

            I think he might be joking, but I don’t find his humour funny. If he’s semi-serious, I don’t get his point. For example, I don’t understand what he means by “We keep proving stuff that never actually happened”. It could refer to quantum physics affecting events backward in time which I think was some recent science news. Also I don’t agree with “Over the years there have been just a handful of us pretending to know something about the universe that no one else does.”, because even I have met more than a handful who do. I suspect that it’s some internal joke that those who know his research career know how to decipher. I hope they have a good time.

          • georgehants

            Pekka, I think it is totally clear that he is serious and what he says is obviously True in all respects, I do not wish to have a hand-waving discussion designed only to try and muddy the waters.
            His Truth is undeniable, but as usual he will be accused like other Truthful scientists when they no longer care about the consequences, as having the Nobel disease.
            May I ask you as a practicing scientist to tell me scientifically, is it possible for any scientist to deny the existence of a creator based on any scientific Evidence.
            Would you agree that any scientist trying to use the name of science to do so is an unprofessional Fraud?

          • Pekka Janhunen

            My personal view is the following. A falsifiable assertion which does not contradict current experience can be called Science. A non-falsifiable assertion which does not contradict current experience can be considered Religion. No problems arise if the separation is kept, and keeping the separation is possible, even easy. Problems surely arise if it is not kept: if Religion makes assertions either falsifiable or contradicting experience, or if Science makes assertions not falsifiable or contradicting with experience.

            Answers to your questions: “Is it possible for any scientist to deny the existence of a creator?” Yes, many have done that. “Based on scientific evidence?” If you ask them, sometimes yes, I would guess. If you ask me, I say that the question of existence of Creator belongs into Religion, not in Science. In other words, it’s an example of the problem referred to above. “Would you agree that any scientist … is an unprofessional Fraud?” No because I cannot say “he is fraud”, I can only say as an opinion, for example, “he was wrong with that” or “he behave fraudulently about this”, but not “he is fraud”, because I believe that every person is equally complex, cannot be described by one attribute, positive or negative as it may be.

          • georgehants

            Pekka, your reply is unscientific mumbo-jumbo.
            A little basic logic for you.
            Science does not have a shred of Evidence to show a creator does not exist, therefore if a scientist attempts falsely to imply that it does, he is a clear Fraud.
            Thanks for your time.

          • bachcole

            Pekka, I found what you said to make perfect sense. If it is not provable, it is not science. This also means that if something is provable, EVEN IF IT IS NOT PHYSICAL, then it is science. This would include homeopathy, which has been proven many times. This also means that generally speaking negatives are not a part of science. When the pharmaceutical company and the FDA say that there are not harmful side effects to a particular drug or vaccine, they are not being scientific. They could say that in our studies XYZ drug had only .01% bad reactions. But they can’t say that XYZ does no harm. Unless we the people worship them, then that would be religion.

            I can say that there is no BigFoot in my room right now. But I cannot say scientifically that there are no BigFoots (would that be BigFeet?) in existence anywhere.

          • Roland

            Goswami says that the most fundamental attribute of all ‘matter’ down to the quantum level is consciousness; a characteristic that is in evident in countless physics experiments. Goswami has taught Quantum Mechanics for three decades and is intensely interested in contemporary experiments probing the nature of this consciousness.

      • Axil Axil

        This reaction of Rossi to reject electron capture is a statement that confirms what we all have known for a long time. Rossi does not accept Piantelli’s theory of electron capture. Over the vast experimental history of LENR reactions, there has been every possible nuclear reaction observed. But each individual system has its most probable collection of allowable reactions. Some involves electron capture and others do not. There are a million possible combinations of nuclear reactions that can occur. Electron capture cannot be considered as fundamental. The basic cause of the LENR reaction is deeper than electron capture. If this is what Rossi is thinking, he will be correct.

        • Andrew Hurley

          The most exciting part about this for me is that the best method to initiate LENR probably has not been found. Makes me wish I could be involved!

      • Sanjeev

        Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.
        – Nikola Tesla,
        Modern Mechanics and Inventions, July, 1934

      • Bob Greenyer

        It is not EC

        Piantelli’s empirically derived theory, which does not require any “exotic physics’ is 1H (Proton capture) and Rossi was very happy to put his name on the same paper as Sergio Focardi to explain the fuel and products of the E-Cat with the same equations as I have captured from the NNDCs Q-Calc and the same decays as I have taken from Wikipedias isotopic decay charts.

        Here is the paper, which I only discovered yesterday AFTER having ran the reaction chains assuming Piantelli

        https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz7lTfqkED9WdEg2X2dTWFJvQzA/view

        In this paper ( and as the USPTO pointed out in its rejection of the supporting evidence from the Levi et al. ) there is no explanation as to where the critical 1H is coming from ). Focardi had retired and was not working with Piantelli when he derived his empirically founded, standard model based, solution to their presence.

        Piantelli’s theory completely relies on H- (Protide, a Proton with two electrons) ion that is what molten LiH (the product of LiAlH4 decomposition) provides in BUCKET loads DIRECTLY to the surface on the Nickel as we determined from our ‘Bang!’ reactor SEMs and subsequently found was near-identical in morphology to the SEM of the Lugano ash particle 1 as shown in appendix 3 of the Lugano report.

        Piantelli uses a low Hydrogen pressure in his published patent extension to avoid re-association of the H before it can become H- and to allow ejected 1H to reach a secondary material, all of this is published. By having this new reaction domain, there is always H- available ready to be drawn into the Nickel atoms, then the secondary material is exactly on the surface of the Nickel to take on board any failed 1H captures as 1H projectiles.

        I am not saying that Piantelli is correct in any of this, it is just interesting that I did not know what to expect, but the outcome of using publicly available, unquestioned data, fits the experimental data (when you know that the Lugano report was not at 1410ºC as we showed live on the outside, implying far higher internal temperatures).

        If Piantelli is correct, Rossi should have patented this new reaction domain (molten H- donors and 1H receiver feedstock on sintered nickel mesh), just like Celani applied for a patent on his reaction matrix.

        There are patents for specific applications of Nickel powder use and processing, it was not an obvious step and easy to describe.

    • PureEnergy

      Hi Bob,
      When is MFMP planning on running another replication attempt?

      • Bob Greenyer

        We will report this evening on the next planned experiment in the []=Project Dog Bone=[] thread

  • peter gluck

    Excellent news, interesting research but Lugano & Parkhomov are about
    huge excess power and energy densities, this is NOT a Lugano and /or
    Parkhomov replication even if the setup is quasi-identical.
    Playing in an other league, Neutron Hunters- see my blog this evening

    Peter

  • Sanjeev
    • Freethinker

      He seem to achieved temperatures exceeding 1500C.

      • Sanjeev

        Alumina melting point is above 2000C, so the temperatures must have reached that value. It is interesting that there was no blast or cracks, so the heat must have increased slowly to a very high amount.
        More info needed ….probably he will write a post on his blog.

        • Bob Greenyer

          It was insulated in Alumina Powder. With enough insulation you can melt a house with 1W. Dr Parkhomov had more problems with meltdown when he did this.

          • Sanjeev

            Only a control run can tell. May be his alumina has low melting point. The wire didn’t vaporize completely, it didn’t even break, so its likely that temperatures were lower than 2k.

          • Axil Axil

            Jack Cole: :”The heating element was Kanthal A1. It’s strange that the heating element was able to completely melt at points. In the past, it has always failed before melting.”

          • Axil Axil

            According to Jack, the reaction did not happen in the fuel, but in the insolating layer. The fuel composition does not matter. IMHP, what matters is the exact nature of the heater current.
            In these triac light dimmers, the rise/fall times are very sharp maybe in the nanoseconds. That means that a lot of instantaneous power is being feed into the heater wire as the power pulse starts when the leading edge waveform circuit design is used.
            From Jack’s picture, the tube looks a little bent to me. Did the heat of melting come from the inside out or the outside in?
            http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/IMG_20150317_084823_361.jpg
            It is possible that the LENR reaction was not carried inside the tube in the fuel, but in the alumina cement that covered the heater wire. The cement must have some residual water in it. Therefore, a sonoelectrochemistry based mechanism might be producing nanoparticles in this cement and these particles are the source of the reaction. If Jack runs the test without fuel and the reaction still occurs, then look to the cement as the LENR active element.

          • GreenWin

            Andy, you sound just like Mary! – ducking and dodging facts. My post has little to do with “religion.” Attempting to turn Planck against Einstein is sophomoric. You’ve swung a missed three time friend. Which means you’ve struck out.

            “Brooke said Einstein believed that “there is some kind of intelligence
            working its way through nature. But it is certainly not a conventional
            Christian or Judaic religious view.”
            From your foxnews link.

  • Sanjeev
    • Freethinker

      He seem to achieved temperatures exceeding 1500C.

      • Sanjeev

        Alumina melting point is above 2000C, so the temperatures must have reached that value. It is interesting that there was no blast or cracks, so the heat must have increased slowly to a very high amount.
        More info needed ….probably he will write a post on his blog.

        • Bob Greenyer

          It was insulated in Alumina Powder. With enough insulation you can melt a house with 1W. Dr Parkhomov had more problems with meltdown when he did this.

          • Sanjeev

            Only a control run can tell. May be his alumina has low melting point. The wire didn’t vaporize completely, it didn’t even break, so its likely that temperatures were lower than 2k.

          • Axil Axil

            Jack Cole: :”The heating element was Kanthal A1. It’s strange that the heating element was able to completely melt at points. In the past, it has always failed before melting.”

          • Axil Axil

            According to Jack, the reaction did not happen in the fuel, but in the insolating layer. The fuel composition does not matter. IMHP, what matters is the exact nature of the heater current.
            In these triac light dimmers, the rise/fall times are very sharp maybe in the nanoseconds. That means that a lot of instantaneous power is being feed into the heater wire as the power pulse starts when the leading edge waveform circuit design is used.
            From Jack’s picture, the tube looks a little bent to me. Did the heat of melting come from the inside out or the outside in?
            http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/IMG_20150317_084823_361.jpg
            It is possible that the LENR reaction was not carried inside the tube in the fuel, but in the alumina cement that covered the heater wire. The cement must have some residual water in it. Therefore, a sonoelectrochemistry based mechanism might be producing nanoparticles in this cement and these particles are the source of the reaction. If Jack runs the test without fuel and the reaction still occurs, then look to the cement as the LENR active element.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Following the same logic I predict that Ugo Abundos use of LiBH4 may either not work, or work better than LiAlH4/NaAlH4 under section

    What about LiBH4?

  • Bob Greenyer

    Following the same logic I predict that Ugo Abundos use of LiBH4 may either not work, or work better than LiAlH4/NaAlH4 under section

    What about LiBH4?

    • Da Phys

      Worth a try. However, given all data available today, my preference goes to Li3AlH6.

  • Freethinker

    Of course in a single measurement, can you be sue unless serious precautions has been taken. There have been a lot of work over the years to determine the neutron count.

    Some examples are:

    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/JonesSEneutronemi.pdf
    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ANS2012W/2012Cirillo-ANS-LENR-Paper.pdf
    http://coldfusionnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Boss-2014-CF-LANR-MIT-03-22.pdf
    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LipsonAGevidencefob.pdf

  • It seems everyone is trying to do their own experiment rather than replicate Rossi’s proven work. Again, for the last time, my suggestion is to replicate Rossi’s work exactly first. Then, and only then, go off on your own experimental tangent. The E-Cat (Hot-Cat version) fuel contained approximately 55% nickel powder (.99999% pure), about 39% iron powder, which is used to break H2 gas into H1 gas, and approximately 6% lithium aluminum hydride (LiAlH4), which is used as a source of hydrogen gas and as a catalyst.

    If you don’t use lithium and iron dust, you are not even in the same ballpark as Rossi.

    • Gerrit

      It seems that nobody is able or willing to just replicate a successful experiment. We have heard about several exploded, melted or otherwise malfunctioned reactors, but nobody has a repeatable success.

  • Chris, Italy

    I read the whole thing in the original and I find Rampado totally unconvincing, especially after a spot of googling on his name. As for Cardone, he is Italian but he is not a physicist; apparently he is a technician at an important Italian national research institution (CNR) who has a mild tendency to get a tad too big for his boots.

    http://www.ilsecoloxix.it/p/italia/2012/06/15/APLAYDjC-candidato_finto_prof.shtml

  • Chris, Italy

    I read the whole thing in the original and I find Rampado totally unconvincing, especially after a spot of googling on his name. As for Cardone, he is Italian but he is not a physicist; apparently he is a technician at an important Italian national research institution (CNR) who has a mild tendency to get a tad too big for his boots.

    http://www.ilsecoloxix.it/p/italia/2012/06/15/APLAYDjC-candidato_finto_prof.shtml

    • Wally

      I totally agree with Chris.
      Rampado is TOTALLY UNRELIABLE, and a little look to his article is enough to prove it.
      At the top of the story, he writes about a new invention, whose developing is going on from so
      long in kazakistan. It’s a new system to break C02 molecule in C and O2, using 1/100 of the
      energy needed for the opposite process, the combustion between C and O2.
      Anybody with a little physical knowledge can understand that this is clearly impossible. It’s a
      violation of energy conservation law, and it carries to perpetual motion.
      Maybe Rampado can’t.

      He adds that the President of Kazakistan was “directly” interested to this “invention”, and large
      funds were provided for the developement of this “invention”.
      He inserts two links to Kazakistan press to confirm this last statement.

      (5) http://karaganda-akimat.gov.kz/kk/news-region/id/2938
      (6) http://kp.kazpravda.kz/c/1332964571

      (5) the first link is about the project “Karagandy Coal Basin coalbed methane gas production”,
      based on a well known technology to get methane from a coal basin, called “coalbed methane
      extraction”. Nothing new in science world.
      Alexander Borisenko is the director of “Technological gas cleaning unit and auxiliary equipment
      for the production of plant asset”.
      This is not strange.
      Borisenko owns a company working on gas cleaning filters.
      Therefore, in the frame of the Karagandy project, he only does his work.
      (6) the second link says that the Minister of Environment Mr. Kapparov had a two-day working
      visit to Karaganda region. He visited «Absalut ecology» and he became acquainted with the method of Alexander Borisenko for treatment of industrial process gases and attended the presentation of the original pilot plant.

      Both news are dated 2012.
      In both news there is nothing about the amazing “invention” at the top of the story, and the
      large government funding for its developement, Andrea Rampado was writing about.

      He doesn’t know the first law of thermodynamics, and pastes random links to make believe something that doesn’t exist.
      On such basis, what can we say about the rest of Rampado’s article it’s just your choice.

      This is what Andrea Rampado is.
      Italian readers don’t need this explaination, ‘cos this is his usual scheme.
      bye
      W

    • Anonymous

      For those who like it, seems as if even friends of Rampado are wondering about the fake he posted: “was it a social experiment?” someone asked.

      My answer is no: he was simply trolling, as usual: if you can believe him, you could believe anything, and even buy something

      http://22passi.blogspot.com/2015/03/putin-e-imminente-lannuncio-di-una.html?showComment=1426700277971#c576576065469122346

      • Chris, Italy

        Yes perhaps he is plain deliberate, it would explain the sheer incompetence that he exhibits. It would mean he is namedropping about Cardone who is instead quite convinced of his work, just like Petrucci.

        Mind, I’ve come across so many crackpots on the web that aren’t the least bit deliberate, they just don’t get the difference between stuff that requires competence and plain ranting. I’ve also come across competent people who can’t see their own blunders no matter how you point them out. Both are examples of delusional cases and they will defend their views no matter what.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Thank you Montague. I missed that one. I’ve been doing too many MeV calculations. I’m in the middle of one now.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    The MeV alphas, He(4) from the classical lithium reaction we’ve been talking about could be used to initiate this other well known classical transmutation of aluminum into silicon and a MeV proton.

    Al(27) + He(4) > Si(30) + H(1) 2.3722 MeV

    Then this MeV proton, H(1) could be used to trigger the original lithium, Li(7) to helium He(4) reaction.

    H(1) + Li(7) > 2 He(4) 17.3 MeV

    These coupled reactions could keep cycling. This could explain the disappearance of aluminum in the fuel and the formation of silicon in the ash. (someone must have already thought of this already).

    • Alan DeAngelis

      PS
      We talk about this reaction that was done in a Cockcroft-Walton accelerator in 1931 before.
      Li(7) + H(1) > He(4) + He(4) 17.3 MeV
      http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/04/26/lithium-the-case-for-an-e-cat-catalyst-guest-post/
      See the comments.

      • Mats002

        See first comment, Mills popped up again.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Yes, I only mentioned tertiary+ 4He interactions because Piantelli refers to them, it is in section

        “The role of the plentiful alpha particles”

        I note that 58Ni + 4He(Elab=0.0 MeV) just decays to 62Ni.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Good spot

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Here are some other classical (1930s) alpha to proton reactions we might be able to use in coupled cycling reactions. Radium was their alpha source.

        B(10) + He(4) > C(13) + H(1) 4.0616 MeV

        Na(23) + He(4) > Mg(26) + H(1) 1.8206 MeV

        • Alan DeAngelis

          I’m getting carried away here.
          Here are some more of Cockrolf and Walton’s alpha forming transmutations that we could use instead of lithium in coupled cycling reactions.

          F(19) + H(1) > O(18) + He(4) 8.1139 MeV

          Al(27) + H(1) > Mg(24) + He(4) 1.6009 MeV
          PS
          I think we’re having way too much fun here on this website.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Now it is becoming clear what the Catalyst is in E-Cat.

          Initial 1H from failed H- capture stimulated by AC magnetic field, RF and heat above a threshold caused by the chopped AC input power

          SSM might be from bread 4He breading 1H, rinse repeat

    • Pekka Janhunen

      This reaction chain would proceed the better, the higher the hydrogen, aluminium and lithium number density, while temperature would play no role. The Space Shuttle’s liquid hydrogen tank was made of aluminium lithium alloy. One should explain why LENR did not occur there.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Yeah Pekka, I don’t think it explains everything but they could be side reactions.
        I think I heard that the boron-10 to boron-11 ratio of natural boron on earth is not always exactly the same. Maybe this might to some extent happen spontaneously in nature.

        B(10) + He(4) > C(13) + H(1) 4.06 MeV

        B(11) + H(1) > Be(8) + He(4) 8.59 MeV

  • Alan DeAngelis

    The MeV alphas, He(4) from the classical lithium reaction we’ve been talking about could be used to initiate this other well known classical transmutation of aluminum into silicon and a MeV proton.

    Al(27) + He(4) > Si(30) + H(1) 2.3722 MeV

    Then this MeV proton, H(1) could be used to trigger the original lithium, Li(7) to helium He(4) reaction.

    H(1) + Li(7) > 2 He(4) 17.3 MeV

    These coupled reactions could keep cycling. This could explain the disappearance of aluminum in the fuel and the formation of silicon in the ash. (someone must have already thought of this already).

    • Alan DeAngelis

      PS
      We talk about this reaction that was done in a Cockcroft-Walton accelerator in 1931 before.
      Li(7) + H(1) > He(4) + He(4) 17.3 MeV
      http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/04/26/lithium-the-case-for-an-e-cat-catalyst-guest-post/
      See the comments.

      • Mats002

        See first comment, Mills popped up again.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Yes, I only mentioned tertiary+ 4He interactions because Piantelli refers to them, it is in section

        “The role of the plentiful alpha particles”

        I note that 58Ni + 4He(Elab=0.0 MeV) just decays to 62Ni.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Good spot

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Here are some other classical (1930s) alpha to proton reactions we might be able to use in coupled cycling reactions. Radium was their alpha source.

        B(10) + He(4) > C(13) + H(1) 4.0616 MeV

        Na(23) + He(4) > Mg(26) + H(1) 1.8206 MeV

        • Alan DeAngelis

          I’m getting carried away here.
          Here are some more of Cockrolf and Walton’s alpha forming transmutations that we could use instead of lithium in coupled cycling reactions.

          F(19) + H(1) > O(18) + He(4) 8.1139 MeV

          Al(27) + H(1) > Mg(24) + He(4) 1.6009 MeV
          PS
          I think we’re having way too much fun here on this website.

          • Alberonn

            Way over my head, but so great fun watching you lot being carried away !
            Hopefully carried away to a great future if this all works out…
            carry on please :>))

        • Bob Greenyer

          Now it is becoming clear what the Catalyst is in E-Cat.

          Initial 1H from failed H- capture stimulated by AC magnetic field, RF and heat above a threshold caused by the chopped AC input power

          SSM might be from bread 4He breading 1H, rinse repeat

    • Pekka Janhunen

      This reaction chain would proceed the better, the higher the hydrogen, aluminium and lithium number density, while temperature would play no role. The Space Shuttle’s liquid hydrogen tank was made of aluminium lithium alloy. One should explain why LENR did not occur there.

      • Alex Ruiz

        That is the point. No LENR occurrences must be explained as well. I wonder how to expect exoenergetic phenomena around the most stable and energy binded region of the periodic table.

        • Alan DeAngelis

          Yeah Alex, I think it was Bob Greenyer who pointed out that Ni(62) is the nucleus with the lowest packing fraction (I always thought it was an isotope of iron.), therefore the most stable nucleus. But never the less, the following fusion reactions are exothermic,

          Ni(58) + H(1) > Cu(59)* 3.4185 MeV

          Ni(60) + H(1) > Cu(61)* 4.8003 MeV

          Ni(61) + H(1) > Cu(62)* 5.8546 MeV

          Ni(61) + H(1) > Cu(62)* 5.8546 MeV

          Ni(62) + H(1) > Cu(63)* 6.1224 MeV

          Ni(64) + H(1) > Cu(65)* 5.8546 MeV

          If somehow these fusion reactions could take place, I was thinking (if you want to dignify it with that word) that the created copper nuclei in such excited states, Cu* would somehow dissipate their energy in such a way that they would regenerate a stable nickel nucleus. So, I was thinking they would readily grab a protons to become zinc in an excited state, Zn* that would lose its energy by fissioning back to a stable nickel nucleus (with two fewer neutron) and a stable alpha, He(4), helium.

          Ni(n)H2 >CuH*>Zn*> Ni(n-2) + He

          For example:

          H(1) + Ni(64) > Cu(65)* Step1

          H(1) + Cu(65)* > Ni(62) + He(4) Step 2
          ________________________
          Over all
          2 H(1) + Ni(64) > Ni(62) + He(4) 11.8 MeV

          • Alex Ruiz

            Dear Mr. DeAngelis

            You can add a protion to any element getting similar results (try Sn120-Sb121 for instance) because if you can add a protion getting a high probable isotope (P=1 for stable isotopes) the resultant total binding energy should be, even tiny, always bigger. The fact is that when one writes H+ the kinetic energy is not accounted and that is necessary to overcome the electrostatic repulsion.

            The binding energy given in tables is the average binding energy per nucleon. Not every nucleon into the atomic nucleus posesses the same binding energy. As one can deduce from the Weisszacker empiric formula, the skin factor is very relevant. Though empiric, the formula reflects the reality such as it is.

            Even neutrons have difficulty to collide with nuclei. They possese a magnetic moment which interacts with the strong electrostatic nucleus field. As the interaction force depends upon their speed, the apparent cross section grows inversely to the neutron speed in a certain range. This explains why moderated neutrons favorize the fission and why the fragments are asymetric.

            It is true that Fe56 has the lower mass per nucleon. But even Fe58 has higher binding energy. This is due to the existence of two extra neutrons which are “tensing” the nuclear skin (like extending a spring) and apport a pairing bound. For that reason Fe57, even stable, presents a lower binding energy.

            Otherwise I agree to Mr. Janhunnen’s argument, i.e.such reactions were never observed even in high energy environements as for instance welding in helium atmosphere where ionized He4 atoms (alpha particles) are formed. Being high energetic for our dayly experience their energy is many orders of magnitude lower than the alpha particles used for nuclear reactions (around 5 MeV).

          • Alan DeAngelis

            Hydride, H-, forms soft (by HSAB) polarizable covalent bonds with transition metals like nickel. So, this isn’t analogous to a proton, H+, in a plasma. I had some crazy thought about this before.
            http://coldfusionnow.org/peter-gluck-and-yeong-e-kim-on-lenr-research/

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Yeah Pekka, I don’t think it explains everything but they could be side reactions.
        I think I heard that the boron-10 to boron-11 ratio of natural boron on earth is not always exactly the same. Maybe this might to some extent happen spontaneously in nature.

        B(10) + He(4) > C(13) + H(1) 4.06 MeV

        B(11) + H(1) > Be(8) + He(4) 8.59 MeV

  • GreenWin

    Perhaps Dr. Rossi and Focardi refer to a standard model of physics that the father of QM described thusly:

    “All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings
    the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar
    system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the
    existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix
    of all matter.”
    Max Planck, 1944

    This does not discard the mathematics of the minute solar system of the atom. It does suggest the loss of a “virtual force” e.g. Casimir Effect — will distort the structure and vibration of an atom. The geometry of the Ni lattice invokes Casimir which then suppresses portions of the virtual field. This allows electron orbits below ground state, pseudo-neutrons, and reduction of Coulomb forces. All that’s necessary is… an intelligent mind.

    • Mats002

      What is the meaning of “minute” in this context?

      • GreenWin

        Is it not self-explanatory?

        • Mats002

          No, I would not ask if that was the case. I might be blind. Is it temporary?

      • Mike Henderson

        Minute: Tiny, miniscule, small, diminutive, slight, minor, unimportant, trifling, trivial, insignificant,inconsequential, negligible, nugatory, infinitesimal.

      • William D. Fleming

        He’s just making an analogy–calling the atom a miniature solar system.
        I don’t think there’s any technical meaning intended.

      • Charles

        Itsy bitsy teeny weeny as in polka dot bikini.

    • georgehants

      GreenWin, your quote is from that Wonderful time in physics when many truly great scientists walked the Earth.
      Their open and brilliant minds led to outstanding work and discoveries that all died with the discovery of Atomic Power for weapons.
      It has never recovered and never will until science moves away from reductionist, materialistic, restrictive thinking.
      So sad to see our potentially “Einstein etc.” students wasted on the closed-minded science of today.

      • GreenWin

        Indeed George. As you can see from Andy’s comments, the skeptics are extremely frustrated by Rossi’s success. It is a narrow mind that cannot accept the inevitable. And out of chagrin attacks a hard working visionary such as Dr. Rossi and his success. Now we will hear the whining and foot stomping of skeptics who claim IH/Rossi should give away their hard won technology. The fact is it WILL be given away when it is a fully functional, burned-in product with safety certifications and at least a year of successful operation.

        It is a Catalyzer because it catalyzes not only LENR, it has also catalyzed real scientists, engineers and inventors to replicate Rossi’s success. Albeit in their own way. Anything that causes science to return to the simple laboratory, experimenting with simple equipment is a gift. Rossi and the CF community have accomplished in 25 years with a paucity of funding what BIG SCIENCE has failed to do (e.g. hot fusion) in 65 years with $250B taxpayer dollars. A home run on any scorecard.

  • GreenWin

    Perhaps Dr. Rossi and Focardi refer to a standard model of physics that the father of QM described thusly:

    “All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings
    the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar
    system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the
    existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix
    of all matter.”
    Max Planck, 1944

    This does not discard the mathematics of the minute solar system of the atom. It does suggest the loss of a “virtual force” e.g. Casimir Effect — will distort the structure and vibration of an atom. The geometry of the Ni lattice invokes Casimir which then suppresses portions of the virtual field. This allows electron orbits below ground state, pseudo-neutrons, and reduction of Coulomb forces. All that’s necessary is… an intelligent mind.

    • Mats002

      What is the meaning of “minute” in this context?

      • Andrew Hurley

        small?

      • GreenWin

        Is it not self-explanatory?

        • Mats002

          No, I would not ask if that was the case. I might be blind. Is it temporary?

        • Andy Kumar

          An atom on the Planck scale is ginormous.
          http://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module6_Planck.htm

          Green, you are falling for the discredited, fallacious, anthropomorphic argument — if you find a watch, there must be a watch maker. If you find a dog, there must be a dog maker (lord of all creation). Ever think, who made the dog maker? Planck was probably being polite to some religious crowd. See Einstein’s private thoughts on the matter.
          http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/05/13/einstein-bible-is-primitive-pretty-childish/

          • GreenWin

            Oh dear Andy, first you refuse to believe the work of Nobel laureate Frank Wilczak, on time crystal ‘perpetual motion.’ Then you bluster about the Indian Academy of Science’s Special Section on LENR peer review. Now you attack the father of Quantum Mechanics Nobel laureate Max Planck for being fallacious…?

            Andy, have you become cynical and bitter because Dr, Rossi is a rousing success and Cold Fusion is disrupting tired old science? “In baseball or softball, a strikeout (or strike-out) occurs when a batter accumulates three strikes during a time at bat.” Better luck next time at bat Andy! 🙂

          • Andy Kumar

            “Now you attack the father of Quantum Mechanics Nobel laureate Max Planck for being fallacious…?”
            False appeals to (cherry picked, out of context) authority. When Einstein and Planck disagree, who you going to side with? Green, you are always picking the wrong horse – Rossi over Bob Park. Planck over Einstein.

          • GreenWin

            Andy, you sound just like Mary! – ducking and dodging facts. My post has little to do with “religion.” Attempting to turn Planck against Einstein is sophomoric. You’ve swung a missed three time friend. Which means you’ve struck out.

            “Brooke said Einstein believed that “there is some kind of intelligence
            working its way through nature. But it is certainly not a conventional
            Christian or Judaic religious view.”
            From your foxnews link.

      • Mike Henderson

        Minute: Tiny, miniscule, small, diminutive, slight, minor, unimportant, trifling, trivial, insignificant,inconsequential, negligible, nugatory, infinitesimal.

      • William D. Fleming

        He’s just making an analogy–calling the atom a miniature solar system.
        I don’t think there’s any technical meaning intended.

      • Charles

        Itsy bitsy teeny weeny as in polka dot bikini.

    • georgehants

      GreenWin, your quote is from that Wonderful time in physics when many truly great scientists walked the Earth.
      Their open and brilliant minds led to outstanding work and discoveries that all died with the discovery of Atomic Power for weapons.
      It has never recovered and never will until science moves away from reductionist, materialistic, restrictive thinking.
      So sad to see our potentially “Einstein etc.” students wasted on the closed-minded science of today.

      • GreenWin

        Indeed George. As you can see from Andy’s comments, the skeptics are extremely frustrated by Rossi’s success. It is a narrow mind that cannot accept the inevitable. And out of chagrin attacks a hard working visionary such as Dr. Rossi and his success. Now we will hear the whining and foot stomping of skeptics who claim IH/Rossi should give away their hard won technology. The fact is it WILL be given away when it is a fully functional, burned-in product with safety certifications and at least a year of successful operation.

        It is a Catalyzer because it catalyzes not only LENR, it has also catalyzed real scientists, engineers and inventors to replicate Rossi’s success. Albeit in their own way. Anything that causes science to return to the simple laboratory, experimenting with simple equipment is a gift. Rossi and the CF community have accomplished in 25 years with a paucity of funding what BIG SCIENCE has failed to do (e.g. hot fusion) in 65 years with $250B taxpayer dollars. A home run on any scorecard.

        • Andy Kumar

          Frothy eloquence neither convinces nor satisfies. As I said before, judgment gets clouded when someone is intoxicated by their own verbosity.

        • Alberonn

          GreenWin, you surprise me : you label as “skeptic” anybody who is not cheering Rossi/IH in all his/their strategic decisions, even if we still cheer him as the hardworking visionary he is ?? We certainly do not attack your hard-working visionary out of frustration about his success, but out of frustration about his decision to try and stall for at least year, in sharing the technology with the world. Instead in the future he hopes to sell us products, preferably as a monopolist : nothing will be given away…
          Since Parkhomov CS his chances are waning : THAT is a fact….

          • psi2u2

            It isn’t a fact at all. It’s an interpretation – and one that I would respectfully suggest neither you nor anyone else is in a position to reliably estimate.

          • Alberonn

            OK, you’re actually right, slightly overdone :>( – what I meant it’s just as much a fact as, I quote GW ” The fact is it WILL be given away when it is a fully functional, burned-in product with safety certifications and at least a year of successful operation.” The PRODUCT will be SOLD, at a competative price and their intention is to sqeeze any competition out as Rossi has stated, so as a monopolist. That’s IMO not what the world needs, we need free proliferation of the technology, open source, so that humanity all over the world will profit… Not yet a fact unfornunately, but a personal expectation and a hope…

          • psi2u2

            Ok, I see your point – thanks for seeing mine. Neither is really a fact. As for what Rossi has said, I don’t really think he is a “monopolist” — although I would concede that one could construe him in this light based on his statements about the competitive nature of his advantage. Please remember this is a guy who once held the world’s record for the 24 hour distance run. Competition is a major part of his personality. You can say this is bad, because what the world needs is more cooperation, open source, etc. — and I won’t disagree with you. But notice that there is also something to be said for the competitive spirit that drives the researcher or the entrepreneur forward in new discovery. I am reluctant to be overly critical at this point of the man who, more than any other, is responsible for the current resurgence in LENR research and who very much appears to be leading the race to industrialization. It is only natural under our current situation that he would want to emphasis in public that he feels his team is leading and will “crush” the competition.

            Does that mean he is oblivious to the humanitarian aspect of the new technology? Not to me.

            Does it make him a mean-spirited monopolist who will do anything to put the “competition” out of business? I don’t think so.

            Does it mean that I.H. is going to lock up the technology and prevent an open source LENR movement from developing? Highly unlikely. I would say, cut him a little slack and see what happens.

          • Alberonn

            psi2u2, there is a vast overlap in our points of view :>), and , yes, I take into account the probable ‘psychological make-up’ of Rossi, been following him for quite some time and read the book. He is a passionate, hardworking guy and, yes, he deserves to be rewarded for his efforts as an entrepreneur and a visionairy against all odds. But this thing is too grand to leave to a ‘super Bill Gates’, so much money and power concentrated at one spot is useless and very dangerous. It will be ‘taken over’ by the powers that are harassing mankind for some centuries now, one way or an other and again, nothing will change : they “will manage to put a meter on LENR”…
            I.H. is IMO a serious risk : we know nothing about them, they keep in the dark, omnious, we can’t seriously trust them with a thing this grand and important for the world – no single entity in the world, actually-
            OK. my opinion/fear again…
            Rossi’ll get rich ok, but I hope, and since Parkhomov and in his trail a wolfpack of garage-science replicants, with more confidence, that that will happen parallel to a healthy proliferation of LENR, beyond the reach of these powers. Russia, India, China.. as far away from the Morgan-Stanley’s and Rotschilds of this world and the internet will enable it… hoping, dreaming…

          • Frank Acland

            I think things are pretty much out of Rossi’s hands when it comes to commercialization of this technology now. He says he’s not on the management team of IH.

            I think the Lugano report took IH by surprise — the amount of information that was put into the public domain — and now we see that smart people like Alexander Parkhomov can figure out a lot from it. This release of knowledge will surely factor into IH’s decisions regarding how they manage this technology.

          • Alberonn

            Frank, that is my main concern, at least before Parkhomov ‘happened’ : IH is a wild-card and Rossi – of whom I have high esteem, as you can see from my comments – is being used and out of control… We, the world, cannot trust ANY single entity to handle and control LENR, or even just the ‘Rossi-effect’, which may be only a fraction of the whole spectrum of LENR reactions, be realistic… IH : no info, no website, no clear agenda with Rossi’s baby… anything can happen, things that the world can’t afford too !
            I cheer MFMP to now clearly follow Parkhomov in a serious effort to open-source LENR to the world in a very EFFECTVE way, no time to waste…

  • Andy Kumar

    With so many replications being reported, Rossi may find himself becoming irrelevant, left on the ash heap of history. That will be just deserts for failing to share the benefits of the magnificent discovery.

    http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/07/its-just-deserts-not-just-desserts/

    • Alberonn

      Right Andy, very likely : 3-4 years ago Rossi had not even reached the hot-cat stadium and has been struggling basicly with control – low-budget and mainly on his own- as he himself admits. At this moment a scientific theory is developing in this LENR-community, you see it all
      around you. When this happens control is mainly an engineering problem and should not take too much time, given a reasonable budget…
      The guys that get a reactor fired in the near future stand on the shoulders of
      nearabout everybody, with focussed data and knowledge available on the web :
      still not a piece of cake, but incomparable with the problems Rossi has been
      facing. Rossi and IH is unfortunately stalling and losing a lot of time in
      trying to do things properly and try to “time” the launching conveniently in
      order to remain in COMPLETE CONTROL… This is probvably an illusion : they may
      well be overrun by the wolfpacks in their wake, unseen in the mirky woods of
      garage-science all around…

      Anyway : I for myself think the world is best served with a shortterm and uncontrolled unleashing of this tech, disruptive though it may be : water for the parched now…

  • Freethinker

    Well, “blasting”?

    No.

    I don’t know the details of the work of such cleaning baths, but I say that – as with any LENR reaction – there need to be a certain environment, elements and solutions involved.

    For instance, as in Cirillo’s work, if the bath needed to handle several amps with high voltages, with any of the electrodes would have plasma continuously being formed, there might be a situation where the neutron radiation would be slightly elevated compared to normal.

    Of course, working daily in such an environment for many years could potentially be harmful, if in fact the setup was conducive to LENR. But I think it unlikely.

    Looking at Pd/D cells, the activity is far less dramatic. But I guess any lattice material loaded with Hydrogen or isotopes thereof, that is put under any serious physical stress, could potentially have some level of LENR reactions, and potentially release some neutrons. But as per what is known today, it is very low levels of radiation if any.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Certainly on the importance of Li forming the most important yield for long term operation.

    Of course, it is only a product of LiAlH4.

    This is a VERY important text

    http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/10915998_7#page-1

  • GreenWin

    Oh dear Andy, first you refuse to believe the work of Nobel laureate Frank Wilczak, on time crystal ‘perpetual motion.’ Then you bluster about the Indian Academy of Science’s Special Section on LENR peer review. Now you attack the father of Quantum Mechanics Nobel laureate Max Planck for being fallacious…?

    Andy, have you become cynical and bitter because Dr, Rossi is a rousing success and Cold Fusion is disrupting tired old science? “In baseball or softball, a strikeout (or strike-out) occurs when a batter accumulates three strikes during a time at bat.” Better luck next time at bat Andy! 🙂

  • Pekka Janhunen

    I tend to think that we don’t know much about the universe yet. Basically, mankind discovered at about Newton’s time that it’s possible to model nature (not only geometry) by mathematics. What we nowadays call science is basically about utilising that discovery. It has worked in some cases very well, in other cases not so well. Matter of opinion if one is happy with the progress thus far or not. Compared to the age of the universe, 500 years is a short time. In that sense our progress has been good.
    I guess it would be good news to young people that there is still a lot to do, that the world of science is not ready. I don’t think it would despair anyone. In this sense, why not teach it in school at some level; I don’t know which level. People need a purpose of life, anyway. And besides, it’s true; or at least more true than false.
    I don’t know what Goswami is talking about. I’m not worried about smashing particles together because cosmic rays are doing it all the time with far greater energies.

    • georgehants

      Pekka, thank you for a very noncommittal reply with no content, that I am sure the holy priests of science will be very happy with.
      If you wish I could explain to you what “Goswami is talking about.” but I think your denial is more politically motivated than your not understanding his very clear and honest report.

      Best

      • Pekka Janhunen

        I think he might be joking, but I don’t find his humour funny. If he’s semi-serious, I don’t get his point. For example, I don’t understand what he means by “We keep proving stuff that never actually happened”. It could refer to quantum physics affecting events backward in time which I think was some recent science news. Also I don’t agree with “Over the years there have been just a handful of us pretending to know something about the universe that no one else does.”, because even I have met more than a handful who do. I suspect that it’s some internal joke that those who know his research career know how to decipher. I hope they have a good time.

        • georgehants

          Pekka, I think it is totally clear that he is serious and what he says is obviously True in all respects, I do not wish to have a hand-waving discussion designed only to try and muddy the waters.
          His Truth is undeniable.
          May I ask you as a practicing scientist to tell me scientifically, is it possible for any scientist to deny the existence of a creator based on any scientific Evidence.
          Would you agree that any scientist trying to use the name of science to do so is an unprofessional Fraud?

          • Pekka Janhunen

            My personal view is the following. A falsifiable assertion which does not contradict current experience can be called Science. A non-falsifiable assertion which does not contradict current experience can be considered Religion. No problems arise if the separation is kept, and keeping the separation is possible, even easy. Problems surely arise if it is not kept: if Religion makes assertions either falsifiable or contradicting experience, or if Science makes assertions not falsifiable or contradicting with experience.

            Answers to your questions: “Is it possible for any scientist to deny the existence of a creator?” Yes, many have done that. “Based on scientific evidence?” If you ask them, sometimes yes, I would guess. If you ask me, I say that the question of existence of Creator belongs into Religion, not in Science. In other words, it’s an example of the problem referred to above. “Would you agree that any scientist … is an unprofessional Fraud?” No because I cannot say “he is fraud”, I can only say as an opinion, for example, “he was wrong with that” or “he behave fraudulently about this”, but not “he is fraud”, because I believe that every person is equally complex, cannot be described by one attribute, positive or negative as it may be.

          • georgehants

            Pekka, your reply is unscientific mumbo-jumbo.
            Thanks for your time.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Yeah Alex, I think it was Bob Greenyer who pointed out that Ni(62) is the nucleus with the lowest packing fraction (I always thought it was an isotope of iron.), therefore the most stable nucleus. But never the less, the following fusion reactions are exothermic,

    Ni(58) + H(1) > Cu(59)* 3.4185 MeV

    Ni(60) + H(1) > Cu(61)* 4.8003 MeV

    Ni(61) + H(1) > Cu(62)* 5.8546 MeV

    Ni(61) + H(1) > Cu(62)* 5.8546 MeV

    Ni(62) + H(1) > Cu(63)* 6.1224 MeV

    Ni(64) + H(1) > Cu(65)* 5.8546 MeV

    If somehow these fusion reactions could take place, I was thinking (if you want to dignify it with that word) that the created copper nuclei in such excited states, Cu* would somehow dissipate their energy in such a way that they would regenerate a stable nickel nucleus. So, I was thinking they would readily grab a protons to become zinc in an excited state, Zn* that would lose its energy by fissioning back to a stable nickel nucleus (with two fewer neutron) and a stable alpha, He(4), helium.

    Ni(n)H2 >CuH*>Zn*> Ni(n-2) + He

    For example:

    H(1) + Ni(64) > Cu(65)* Step1

    H(1) + Cu(65)* > Ni(62) + He(4) Step 2
    ________________________
    Over all
    2 H(1) + Ni(64) > Ni(62) + He(4) 11.8 MeV

  • Omega Z

    You missed the easiest one.
    Profits from my coal mine will be disrupted. :-()

  • Chris, Italy

    Yes perhaps he is plain deliberate, it would explain the sheer incompetence that he exhibits. It would mean he is namedropping about Cardone who is instead quite convinced of his work, just like Petrucci.

    Mind, I’ve come across so many crackpots on the web that aren’t the least bit deliberate, they just don’t get the difference between stuff that requires competence and plain ranting. I’ve also come across competent people who can’t see their own blunders no matter how you point them out. Both are examples of delusional cases and they will defend their views no matter what.

  • psi2u2

    It isn’t a fact at all. It’s an interpretation – and one that I would respectfully suggest neither you nor anyone else is in a position to reliably estimate.

  • Andrea Rampado

    Hi Wally/Cimpy/mW, I think you should review what you wrote and learn to make searching with google. I reported exactly what is on the net ..
    Denigrate and offend people is a sign of low intelligence and stupidity.
    http://22passi.blogspot.it/2015/03/nazarbayev-believes-in-perpetual-motion.html

  • psi2u2

    Ok, I see your point – thanks for seeing mine. Neither is really a fact. As for what Rossi has said, I don’t really think he is a “monopolist” — although I would concede that one could construe him in this light based on his statements about the competitive nature of his advantage. Please remember this is a guy who once held the world’s record for the 24 hour distance run. Competition is a major part of his personality. You can say this is bad, because what the world needs is more cooperation, open source, etc. — and I won’t disagree with you. But notice that there is also something to be said for the competitive spirit that drives the researcher or the entrepreneur forward in new discovery. I am reluctant to be overly critical at this point of the man who, more than any other, is responsible for the current resurgence in LENR research and who very much appears to be leading the race to industrialization. It is only natural under our current situation that he would want to emphasis in public that he feels his team is leading and will “crush” the competition.

    Does that mean he is oblivious to the humanitarian aspect of the new technology? Not to me.

    Does it make him a mean-spirited monopolist who will do anything to put the “competition” out of business? I don’t think so.

    Does it mean that I.H. is going to lock up the technology and prevent an open source LENR movement from developing? Highly unlikely. I would say, cut him a little slack and see what happens.

    • Alberonn

      psi2u2, there is a vast overlap in our points of view :>), and , yes, I take into account the probable ‘psychological make-up’ of Rossi, been following him for quite some time and read the book. He is a passionate, hardworking guy and, yes, he deserves to be rewarded for his efforts as an entrepreneur and a visionairy against all odds. But this thing is too grand to leave to a ‘super Bill Gates’, so much money and power concentrated at one spot is useless and very dangerous. It will be ‘taken over’ by the powers that are harassing mankind for some centuries now, one way or an other and again, nothing will change : they “will manage to put a meter on LENR”…
      I.H. is IMO a serious risk : we know nothing about them, they keep in the dark, omnious, we can’t seriously trust them with a thing this grand and important for the world – no single entity in the world, actually-
      OK. my opinion/fear again…
      Rossi’ll get rich ok, but I hope, and since Parkhomov and in his trail a wolfpack of garage-science replicants, with more confidence, that that will happen parallel to a healthy proliferation of LENR, beyond the reach of these powers. Russia, India, China.. as far away from the Morgan-Stanley’s and Rotschilds of this world and the internet will enable it… hoping, dreaming…

      • ecatworld

        I think things are pretty much out of Rossi’s hands when it comes to commercialization of this technology now. He says he’s not on the management team of IH.

        I think the Lugano report took IH by surprise — the amount of information that was put into the public domain — and now we see that smart people like Alexander Parkhomov can figure out a lot from it. This release of knowledge will surely factor into IH’s decisions regarding how they manage this technology.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Hydride, H-, forms soft (by HSAB) polarizable covalent bonds with transition metals like nickel. So, this isn’t analogous to a proton, H+, in a plasma. I had some crazy thought about this before.
    http://coldfusionnow.org/peter-gluck-and-yeong-e-kim-on-lenr-research/