E-Cat Theory Paper Published by Andrea Rossi and Norman Cook

Thanks to AlainCo for sharing the following link on the LENR-Forum

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1504/1504.01261.pdf

A paper by Norman Cook of Kansai University, Osaka and Andrea Rossi titled ‘On the Nuclear Mechanisms Underlying the Heat Production by the “E-Cat”’ has been published on Arxiv.org, a repository of pre-print science papers hosted at Cornell University.

Here’s the abstract to the paper:

We discuss the isotopic abundances found in the E-Cat reactor with regard to the nuclear mechanisms responsible for excess heat. We argue that a major source of energy is a reaction between the first excited-state of 7Li4 and a proton, followed by the breakdown of 8Be4 into two alphas with high kinetic energy, but without gamma radiation. The unusual property of the 7Li4 isotope that allows this reaction is similar to the property that underlies the Mossbauer effect: the presence of unusually low-lying excited states in stable, odd-Z and/or odd-N nuclei. We use the lattice version of the independent-particle model (IPM) of nuclear theory to show how the geometrical structure of isotopes indicate nuclear reactions that are not predicted in the conventional version of the IPM. Finally, we speculate on similar mechanisms that may be involved in other low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR).

This is the first time that we have seen Andrea Rossi’s theoretical understanding of the E-Cat published, and so this is a very significant event in the history of the E-Cat, and I am sure the paper will be studied and discussed at length.

Rossi has long praised the work of Norman Cook, and has said that his book Models of the Atomic Nucleus is one of his favorite physics books, so it is interesting to see that the two of them have teamed up on this paper.

  • (Reposted from Always Open Thread):

    Rossi working with the man himself!

    The paper is a triumph for Cook’s lattice model of the nucleus and explains how an excited state of Lithium-7 can produce gamma-free energy release by acquiring a proton and subsequently splitting into two Helium particles. The lattice model shows very clearly how this can happen and in this way the paper seems to clearly explain the Li-7 to Li-6 change in the E-Cat and energy release as primarily heat.

    The paper also makes a convincing argument via the Lattice model that there are excited states of Lithium nuclei that are achievable with sub-MeV levels of energy and serve as perfect foundations for LENR reactions.

    The paper is less convincing on the Nickel front. They can explain some of the Nickel-62 but the entire sample containing mostly Ni-62 seems impossible to them and they resort to sample bias as a possible explanation. Maybe. (Side note here… Rossi/IH had the rest of the ash, why didn’t they just analyze it and find out???)

    The paper also fails to provide an answer the front end of the reactions — the necessary energy input to achieve the vulnerable excited states Lithium and Nickel. So they succeed in showing how the energy bar is relatively low to achieve the necessary excited states and that those excited states really look like the home of the nuclear reactions that occur, but they still can’t explain where that energy comes from in the first place to achieve those excited states. They mention some hypotheses of other scientists but basically it’s still a mystery to them.

    Important takeaway: Rossi still doesn’t really know how his E-Cats work entirely.

    The lattice model of the nucleus is so compelling it’s a shame it hasn’t received more attention and exploration. It really seems to explain a lot of observed phenomenon.

    So the nuclear lattice people appear to have a good grasp of what happens to the nuclei and where the output energy comes from. The plasma/condensed matter people need to step up and explain how enough energy arrives at the Lithium and Nickel nuclei to kick them into excited states and allow the approach of a nucleon for capture.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      I read the paper also and agree with your summary of it.

    • Bob Greenyer

      I really like Cooks work.

  • (Reposted from Always Open Thread):

    Rossi working with the man himself!

    The paper is a triumph for Cook’s lattice model of the nucleus and explains how an excited state of Lithium-7 can produce gamma-free energy release by acquiring a proton and subsequently splitting into two Helium particles. The lattice model shows very clearly how this can happen and in this way the paper seems to clearly explain the Li-7 depletion in the E-Cat and energy release as primarily heat.

    The paper also makes a convincing argument via the Lattice model that there are excited states of Lithium nuclei that are achievable with sub-MeV levels of energy and serve as perfect foundations for LENR reactions.

    The paper is less convincing on the Nickel front. They can explain some of the Nickel-62 but the entire sample containing mostly Ni-62 seems impossible to them and they resort to sample bias as a possible explanation. Maybe. (Side note here… Rossi/IH had the rest of the ash, why didn’t they just analyze it and find out???)

    The paper also fails to provide an answer for the front end of the reactions — the necessary energy input to achieve the vulnerable excited states Lithium and Nickel. So they succeed in showing how the energy bar is relatively low to achieve the necessary excited states and that those excited states really look like the home of the nuclear reactions that occur, but they still can’t explain where that energy comes from in the first place to achieve those excited states. They mention some hypotheses of other scientists but basically it’s still a mystery to them.

    Important takeaway: Rossi still doesn’t really know how his E-Cats work entirely.

    The lattice model of the nucleus is so compelling it’s a shame it hasn’t received more attention and exploration. It really seems to explain a lot of observed phenomena.

    So the nuclear lattice people appear to have a good grasp of what happens to the nuclei and where the output energy comes from. The plasma/condensed matter people need to step up and explain how enough energy arrives at the Lithium and Nickel nuclei to kick them into excited states and allow the approach of a nucleon for capture.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      I read the paper also and agree with your summary of it.

    • Bob Greenyer

      I really like Cooks work.

    • f sedei

      You are correct. The cause of energy matter remains the underlying issue.Until it is explained, how can a patent be issued? Also this mysterious cause of excessive energy, if and when identified, may cause a scientific revolution. We must assume the utmost importance of this discovery which NASA and Navy research has also been involved since day one.

  • tlp

    4Discussion
    “The Nickel-LiAlH4 system known as the ECat
    is one of several dozen LENR
    configurations for which excess heat has
    been experimentally demonstrated [1, 2].”

    1 is Lugano paper, 2 point to this site, and Parhomov.

    So Rossi is saying, that E-Cat is also just Nickel-LiAlH4 system.

    He is also saying, that he doesn’t know how it works.

  • tlp

    4Discussion
    “The Nickel-LiAlH4 system known as the ECat
    is one of several dozen LENR
    configurations for which excess heat has
    been experimentally demonstrated [1, 2].”

    1 is Lugano paper, 2 points to this site, and Parkhomov.

    So Rossi is saying, that E-Cat is also just Nickel-LiAlH4 system.

    He is also saying, that he doesn’t know how it works.

  • private5

    Li-7 is the key

  • private5

    Li-7 is the key

  • Hi all

    With the Cook Rossi theoretical paper we now need to examine the failures, such as MFMP’s Glow stick to examine whether those failures conform to that theory’s expectations, and whether they give indications of how such experiments could be made to work, thus testing the theory.

    Kind Regards walker

    • private5

      This paper + Lugano report = simplified instructions from Rossi.
      He is not that selfish after all. Replication should be relatively easy now.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Did I miss something?
    I don’t understand the notation. 7Li4 shouldn’t that be 7Li3?
    I’ll reread is slowly tonight when I get home.

    • They are using t X n notation (total nucleons / element / # neutrons).

      They also mistakenly use “Ni” instead of “N” in a bunch of places. But it’s a preprint so these things will be fixed.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      There is a superscript 7(the sum of all the protons and neutrons) and the subscript 3(the number of protons) 7Li3. By definition lithium has 3 protons. So, there is no need to keep writing the subscript. And nickel will always have 28 protons. So, there is no need to always write the
      subscript 28 with nickel. They are just there for bookkeeping reasons when you
      are balancing nuclear equations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68IcPjHulAg

  • Svein Arild Utne

    Hi Alan I think 7Li4 is Li with 4 neutrons. 6Li3 is Li with only 3 neutrons.

  • Svein Arild Utne

    Hi Alan I think 7Li4 is Li with 4 neutrons. 6Li3 is Li with only 3 neutrons.

  • Hank Mills

    To Bob Greenyer:

    “At the temperature of operation of the ECat used in the Lugano test, the Lithium contained in the LiAlH4 is vaporized, and consequently was distributed evenly within the volume of the E-Cat. In contrast, the Nickel fuel remained in a solid or liquid state. At the time of sampling after one month of operation, Nickel was found to be encrusted on the internal surface of the reactor, from which a 2 mg sample of “ash” was obtained near to the center of the charge. Starting with an initial charge of approximately 1 gram, it cannot be said that the 2 mg sample was necessarily representative of the entire Nickel charge, but it remains to be explained how the isotopic ratios in the 2 mg sample show predominantly 62Ni34.”

    I urge you to…

    VAPORIZE THAT LITHIUM

    DON’T WORRY ABOUT MELTING THE NICKEL

    PUSH FOR 1300 EXTERNAL

    COOK THAT GLOWSTICK

    If you want high COP, then stop playing so conservatively.

    • Bob Greenyer

      We have said we would do that.

      The low temp E-Cat operates at lower temperature

      • Hank Mills

        Thank you! I look forward to seeing the results of that experiment. My guess is that the excess heat will be very significant.

      • tlp

        In this video from 3/2012 Rossi is talking about normal E-Cat but says that core temperature is about 1500C, external coolant system works in 120C range:
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fef8sHD34M
        This is 30 minutes long, but worth watching specially after this science paper release.
        Edit: Temperature question is on 5:30-8:00 if you have not time to watch it all now.

      • US_Citizen71

        The output of the low temp E-Cat is at low temps. This could be accomplished by surrounding a 1500C core per tlp below with a large thermal mass. We never were allowed to see inside the early low temp E-Cats as far as I know, much of the device may have been nothing but solid mass to spread the heat. The Lugano ‘Dog Bone’ might be the central core of the low temp commercial reactor minus the temperature moderating thermal mass.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Yes – that is possible

  • J Storrs Hall

    LENR G: possibly the energy is coming from a Hagelstein-style composition of phonons in the nickel lattice. (Note that PH references Cook in several papers.)

  • J Storrs Hall

    LENR G: possibly the energy is coming from a Hagelstein-style composition of phonons in the nickel lattice. (Note that PH references Cook in several papers.)

  • Mike Henderson

    This theory could be tested by measuring He in the gas phase post-reaction. Easier said than done.

  • Mike Henderson

    This theory could be tested by measuring He in the gas phase post-reaction. Easier said than done.

  • georgehants

    Only a repeatable demonstration of Cold Fusion technology is at this stage necessary, we have hopefully eons of time for educated guesses about how it works, that will probably be updated a million times until the Quantum and beyond explanation is achieved.
    One just needs the practicalities of a working device.
    This is not a display of scientific prowess but a serious race to save lives.

    • curious

      This. Frankly, I think theories are irrelevant until the effect is regularly replicated.

      Sometimes the theory can guide experiments, but it is not the case here: theory does not predict LENR

      • Mats002

        I suggest that MFMP mass produce the glowstick including filling it up with different compositions of Ni and LiAlH4. Then coordinate an Edisonian test program with volentair institutions and garage tinkerers, running the device at heat cycles, all data sent back to MFMP for analysis in open science community. Including ash analysis when something of interest happens.

        • GreenWin

          Mats002, while this sounds reasonable, it opens each data set to viperous critique. It would however potentially identify systems worthy of further investigation.

          • Mats002

            I would say it is the same system but what is tested is the procedure for triggering and maintain the effect.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          Sounds a very good idea to me, Mats002. Making and loading the reactors requires skill, but running them only calls for persistence. I don’t think GW’s critique issue is serious because if someone finds something, repetition to check the result would anyway soon at the “headquarters”.

  • georgehants

    Only a repeatable demonstration of Cold Fusion technology is at this stage necessary, we have hopefully eons of time for educated guesses about how it works, that will probably be updated a million times until the Quantum and beyond explanation is achieved.
    One just needs the practicalities of a working device.
    This is not a display of scientific prowess but a serious race to save lives.

    • curious

      This. Frankly, I think theories are irrelevant until the effect is regularly replicated.

      Sometimes the theory can guide experiments, but it is not the case here: theory does not predict LENR

  • farhad66

    look at this table and decide for yourself that if you can accept ash come from fuel.

    • normally the fuel is H2 for LENR.
      it is clearly possible if not probable that the reactor don’t consume Li7 or Ni<=61, but destroy it by side effect, like when you burn the paper bag containing charcoal

      this is not that that theory paper propose, but anyway it may raise interesting point…

      note that fraud is very improbable as the result does not raise a credible answer.
      It is raising more question than answering.

      one hypothesis that would be less imporbable and more simple, is simply inversion fo the samples…

      fuel is Li6+Ni62 and ash is a soup strangely of natural abundance. this natural abundance play agains that hypothesis, but it is less crazy than an absurd salting causing more question than answers.

      fraud, unlike nature, respect some human logic.
      It have to answer to questions, not to raise mysteries.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        Interesting suggestion (accidental swapping of samples). Argument against it: since enriched Ni62 and Li6 are expensive, Rossi (even if he’s Rossi) probably wouldn’t use such materials accidentally.

        • Mats002

          Well, reading the Edström report, it is not totally clear what is ‘new’ and ‘old’. The one who wrote this on the samples hoppfully know which is which…

    • Axil Axil

      Those trace elements were seen in the particles analyzed in appendix 3.

  • Ged

    Looks like once again what Rossi said is correct. This should provide a lot of meat for experiments to test this hypothesis–wonderful. Argues for the case that LiAlH4 sources depleted of 6Li3 isn’t an issue (while the opposite would be). Also suggested that loading of hydrogen into nickel is only important in so much as where Li also loads in, and provides a “hammer and anvil” environment to facilitate the Li-H first step fusion. This makes sense of a lot of observations. Li isn’t the catalyst then, it is the main fuel along with hydrogen,
    as suspected.

    Would there then be different optimal structures for nickel than we’ve been optimizing for? This’ll take a bit more thinking and evaluating. The implications are huge for reactor fuel design -if- Cook’s theoretical model is correct.

    • Mats002

      Ni and Al form raney nickel with heat at heat cycles not unlikely Parkhomov replications. raney nickel can be a cheaper substitute for palladium as a catalysator, just saying…

      • Axil Axil

        Raney niclel was not seen in the Lagano experimental results.

      • Ged

        I think there was talk of tests with raney nickel soon. We need a fully working reactor before we can do these intriguing formulation comparisons, however.

        Tis a good idea, Mats!

  • Ged

    Looks like once again what Rossi said is correct. This should provide a lot of meat for experiments to test this hypothesis–wonderful. Argues for the case that LiAlH4 sources depleted of 6Li3 isn’t an issue (while the opposite would be). Also suggested that loading of hydrogen into nickel is only important in so much as where Li also loads in, and provides a “hammer and anvil” environment to facilitate the Li-H first step fusion. This makes sense of a lot of observations. Li isn’t the catalyst then, it is the main fuel along with hydrogen, as suspected.

    Would there then be different optimal structures for nickel than we’ve been optimizing for? This’ll take a bit more thinking and evaluating. The implications are huge for reactor fuel design -if- Cook’s theoretical model is correct.

    • Mats002

      Ni and Al form raney nickel with heat at heat cycles not unlikely Parkhomov replications. raney nickel can be a cheaper substitute for palladium as a catalysator, just saying…

      • Axil Axil

        Raney niclel was not seen in the Lagano experimental results.

      • Ged

        I think there was talk of tests with raney nickel soon. We need a fully working reactor before we can do these intriguing formulation comparisons, however.

        Tis a good idea, Mats!

  • Bob Greenyer

    We have said we would do that.

    • tlp

      In this video from 3/2012 Rossi is talking about normal E-Cat but says that core temperature is about 1500C, external coolant system works in 120C range:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fef8sHD34M
      This is 30 minutes long, but worth watching specially after this science paper release.

    • US_Citizen71

      The output of the low temp E-Cat is at low temps. This could be accomplished by surrounding a 1500C core per tlp below with a large thermal mass. We never were allowed to see inside the early low temp E-Cats as far as I know, much of the device may have been nothing solid mass to spread the heat. The Lugano ‘Dog Bone’ might be the central core of the low temp commercial reactor minus the temperature moderating thermal mass.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Yes – that is possible

  • Bob Greenyer

    There are so many material errors and omissions in this paper, I suspect it is a very early draft or not written by the claimed individuals. I discuss elsewhere on this site.

    • Ged

      Not written by the claimed individuals would be a twist. Guess we need to hear confirmation.

      • ecatworld

        Andrea Rossi

        April 7th, 2015 at 7:45 AM

        Dear Readers of the JONP:
        After due peer reviewing, has been published on Arxiv the theoretical paper written by Prof. Norman Cook and Andrea Rossi:
        Please find it here:

        http://arxiv.org/abs/1504.01261

        Warm Regards,
        A.R.

        • Ged

          That settles that! Thanks, Frank.

        • Gerrit

          Rossi uses a very interesting definition of peer review.

          As it stands the paper is merely submitted to the preprint service Arxiv.

          Whatever reviewing happened before submission, it failed to catch the Ni vs N typo and mixups in the reference numbering.

          • Obvious

            Not to mention referencing the “Observation of abundant heat production from a reactor device and of isotopic changes in the fuel” report incorrectly as “The Report on the Lugano Test”…

          • Obvious

            With all due respect to Rossi and you, it has not been adequately demonstrated that he has the medicine.
            The planet is not dying.
            Rossi is making no profits.
            Get building, instead of complaining. Hot air and keystrokes saves no one.

          • Robert Ellefson

            I am building, as a matter of fact, despite being incompetent to be conducting such work. I entirely disagree that discourse such as this is useless. If it serves to inspire competent researchers, then these keystrokes will be useful.

          • Obvious

            Fair comment.
            What I mean is that complaining about Rossi doing or not doing something isn’t helping. We are lucky to have whatever we get. Many inventors hide away, and say nothing until they have a final version, or die with their knowledge undistributed at all. Rossi might never have said anything, or stuck to processing garbage for oil. Or went to work for the skunk works, building stealth jet exhaust TEGs, Hadron Enforcers, or whatever.
            Inspiring others is of course a positive outcome. Rossi, in his own way, is inspiring others to get off their butts. I think we learn more from him by trying to figure out what he is up to than waiting for the recipe on a silver platter. Since he seems to have given up on several garage-built versions already, there should be some low-hanging fruit for those that are working on some answers.

          • Omega Z

            Obvious
            I have considered your thoughts myself.
            Imagine had Rossi just stayed silent, all the guff he wouldn’t have had to put up with. And Imagine the influence he has had that wouldn’t have been.

            One thing no one can really deny. Rossi has had a huge impact on the number of players in play today. Likely the field would still only be around half a dozen if not for Rossi.

            The influence goes beyond the obvious. All these new entities will have a huge impact on readiness. Corporations will already be preparing the way for the introduction of this technology. Their awareness will shave several years off the initial deployment of this technology.

        • Sanjeev

          Clearly, it is either not reviewed or the reviewer has done a poor job. There are mistakes. The last blog post has some discussion about this. I hope we will see a revised version.

        • Josh G

          What does he mean, “after due peer reviewing”? Arxiv doesn’t do peer reviewing. If he means that he and Cook asked people for critical feedback on their draft — that doesn’t count as peer reviewing, sorry.

  • Bob Greenyer

    There are so many material errors and omissions in this paper, I suspect it is a very early draft or not written by the claimed individuals. I discuss elsewhere on this site.

    • Ged

      Not written by the claimed individuals would be a twist. Guess we need to hear confirmation.

      • Frank Acland

        Andrea Rossi

        April 7th, 2015 at 7:45 AM

        Dear Readers of the JONP:
        After due peer reviewing, has been published on Arxiv the theoretical paper written by Prof. Norman Cook and Andrea Rossi:
        Please find it here:

        http://arxiv.org/abs/1504.01261

        Warm Regards,
        A.R.

        • Ged

          That settles that! Thanks, Frank.

        • Gerrit

          Rossi uses a very interesting definition of peer review.

          As it stands the paper is merely submitted to the preprint service Arxiv.

          Whatever reviewing happened before submission, it failed to catch the Ni vs N typo and mixups in the reference numbering.

          • Obvious

            Not to mention referencing the “Observation of abundant heat production from a reactor device and of isotopic changes in the fuel” report incorrectly as “The Report on the Lugano Test”…

        • Sanjeev

          Clearly, it is either not reviewed or the reviewer has done a poor job. There are mistakes. The last blog post has some discussion about this. I hope we will see a revised version.

        • Josh G

          What does he mean, “after due peer reviewing”? Arxiv doesn’t do peer reviewing. If he means that he and Cook asked people for critical feedback on their draft — that doesn’t count as peer reviewing, sorry.

          • bachcole

            Given that the peer review process is not looked upon with respect here and it seems to have dropped the ball seriously with regard to LENR, your being impressed by the peer review process is not impressive.

          • Josh G

            Not impressed — I just think you shouldn’t say your article has been peer reviewed when it hasn’t been. Doesn’t add to your credibility.

          • bachcole

            You could be right, but what exactly does peer review mean? We are reviewing it now, and some of us (not me) actually are peers, like Axil^2, Pekka, et. al.

  • Mr. Moho

    A-ha, the boiling lithium hypothesis (=> bubble fusion?). This might explain why Parkhomov had better success than other replicators. Higher temperatures, lower pressure, possibly more bubbling occurring. I’m not sure that lithium coming from LiAlH4 would remain in the cell in elemental form, however. Lithium metal has a relatively low boiling point, but its alloyed forms probably don’t.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    7Li + p fusion has been realized for the first time by Cockroft & Walton in 1932. As far as I remember, the problem with this type of reaction was the low probability for a proton to be caught by a Li nucleus. C & W needed to accelerate millions of protons in order to obtain one single fusion event. For that reason, the energy balance of their experiment was abysmal, despite the relatively high gain of the individual reactions.

    Exciting the Li nuclei as Cook & Rossi propose could facilitate the process and increase its probability. But it is not clear if this would be enough to ensure that overall excess energy is produced. In order to reach a sufficient performance, other factors than the local reaction parameters might be as well important. Obviously, the construction and mode of operation of the reactor would be essential with regard to this. It seems that only under these conditions Rossi could publish a paper on the E-Cat without risking to reveal critical IP.

    • Ged

      If this paper is real, and correct, it makes me wonder what would happen if one pre-doped the nickel metal with 7Li, if possible to do easily.

    • bachcole

      I presume that the ‘p’ in your first sentence stands for a proton.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    7Li + p fusion has been realized for the first time by Cockroft & Walton in 1932. As far as I remember, the problem with this type of reaction was the low probability for a proton to be caught by a Li nucleus. C & W needed to accelerate millions of protons in order to obtain one single fusion event. For that reason, the energy balance of their experiment was abysmal, despite the relatively high gain of the individual reactions.

    Exciting the Li nuclei as Cook & Rossi propose could facilitate the process and increase its probability. But it is not clear if this would be enough to ensure that overall excess energy is produced. In order to reach a sufficient performance, other factors than the local reaction parameters might be as well important. Obviously, the construction and mode of operation of the reactor would be essential with regard to this. It seems that only under these conditions Rossi could publish a paper on the E-Cat without risking to reveal critical IP.

    • Ged

      If this paper is real, and correct, it makes me wonder what would happen if one pre-doped the nickel metal with 7Li, if possible to do easily.

    • bachcole

      I presume that the ‘p’ in your first sentence stands for a proton.

  • pg

    Pekka what do you think?

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Some experimental hints,1) LAH confirmed as fuel, 2) powder had disappeared and sintered into walls from which ash sample was taken, 3) Rossi seems to think that melting of nickel does not necessarily stop the reaction when using this fuel.
      Anything that Rossi writes about theory is automatically interesting, but the lithium theory part leaves unexplained the Coulomb barrier crossing as well as how the Li7 is excited to its 0.47 MeV state. The nickel transmutation part (which is not a central topic of the paper) has many shortcomings including how to suppress gammas and radioactive elements from the ash.

      • bkrharold

        That is interesting, because I remember some time Rossi said that a meltdown of the core would stop the reaction, and that made the e-cat safer. Perhaps he was referring to a different setup?

      • pg

        thank you

  • pg

    Pekka what do you think?

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Some experimental hints,1) LAH confirmed as fuel, 2) powder had disappeared and sintered into walls from which ash sample was taken, 3) Rossi seems to think that melting of nickel does not necessarily stop the reaction when using this fuel.
      Anything that Rossi writes about theory is automatically interesting, but the lithium theory part leaves unexplained the Coulomb barrier crossing as well as how the Li7 is excited to its 0.47 MeV state. The nickel transmutation part (which is not a central topic of the paper) has many shortcomings including how to suppress gammas and radioactive elements from the ash.

      • bkrharold

        That is interesting, because I remember some time Rossi said that a meltdown of the core would stop the reaction, and that made the e-cat safer. Perhaps he was referring to a different setup?

      • pg

        thank you

  • bachcole

    This is big.

    Can someone give us the “Nuclear Physics for Dummies Are Us” version?

  • bachcole

    This is big.

    Can someone give us the “Nuclear Physics for Dummies Are Us” version?

  • Hi all

    Sorry everyone, I just can not resist this has any one considered dilithium:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilithium

    Yep it is real and is not just for Star Trek.

    Kind Regards walker

  • Hi all

    Sorry everyone, I just can not resist this has any one considered dilithium:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilithium

    Yep it is real and is not just for Star Trek.

    Kind Regards walker

  • Gerard McEk

    This work gives some clues how LENR may work, especially for Lithium. The explanations for Nickel are not so strong, whereas not only 61Ni transmutes, but also the other isotopes of Ni. The energetic part is left out and unexplained. That is an important part, because that should explain how the coulomb barrier is overcome. Maybe AR knows how that works, but avoided explanation to release too much know-how of the Ecat. Also the absence of measured He while that is the main ‘ash’ of the Li reaction is not explained in this paper and they exclude the possible reaction with Ni. I hope others will corrct my lay-mans view of this paper and give a more positive turn on it.

    • Ged

      Seems you have a good synopsis there. Testing for He is non-trivial as it is hard to contain and somewhat measure. Have to make a good gas flow trap system with some sort of spectrophotometry (standard flame atomic absorption won’t work so well on something that doesn’t burn, but spectral lines would) or other noble gas detector to observe it. I think the MFMP trashcan is set up to do something along those lines.

      It’s very important to all these theories for someone to test for He.

      • GreenWin

        Ged, De Nino did just this at ENEA Frascati back in 2000. Her team reported He4 in electrochemical CF. The paper was refused publication by some 40+ science journals.

        • Ged

          Interesting, thanks for the info. We need that done again on the high temp reactors, too. Hopefully, her paper will make a resurgence.

          • GreenWin

            Ged, I thought this story was well known to LENR community. De Nino’s work was directed by Nobel laureate Carlo Rubio. Since the presence of He in the CF cell essentially confirms “fusion” a low temp — the paper and its important humanitarian implications was buried.

          • Ged

            I had heard of it. Don’t know if it was a nickel system though. Can’t assume the mechanisms are the same, is the issue.

          • GreenWin

            Correct. It is a palladium D2 system in which some D2 transmutes to 4He. Here is the link. http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DeNinnoAexperiment.pdf

            De Ninno writes at another time:
            “In condensed matter, however, the electromagnetic fields acting in the medium can drown away the energy of the excited nucleus and convert it into thermal radiation. It is worthwhile to note that here we are talking about classic electromagnetic fields, not about quantum fields, that is, many low energy photons instead of one high energy photon, such as a gamma ray.”

            The “drowning” mechanism remains a mystery. But this would suggest Ahern’s tube furnace heating concept may not work as it avoids near field EM. Conversely, it follows Hagelstein and others’ contention the EM (phonon) field and or Hz waveform (e.g. spike, square, sawtooth) contributes a cascade reaction.

            Like others here I am less concerned with an absolute theory, than a commercial level product which will kick physics as$ to figure it out .

          • Ged

            Thanks for the link! And yes, I agree :).

      • Bob Greenyer

        And that is what Bob Higgin’s experiment is about.

      • Omega Z

        To test for HE, just stand close & inhale.
        If you then sound like a Alvin the chipmunk, you probably have HE…
        🙂

        • Ged

          Haha! Who knew it could be so easy 😉

    • Omega Z

      On JONP

      Valery Tarasov:
      Thank you for your attention.
      I will answer to all the issues regarding the paper in a next publication.
      Obviously I will not answer to questions that could lead to breach of IP

  • Gerard McEk

    This work gives some clues how LENR may work, especially for Lithium. The explanations for Nickel are not so strong, whereas not only 61Ni transmutes, but also the other isotopes of Ni. The energetic part is left out and unexplained. That is an important part, because that should explain how the coulomb barrier is overcome. Maybe AR knows how that works, but avoided explanation to release too much know-how of the Ecat. Also the absence of measured He while that is the main ‘ash’ of the Li reaction is not explained in this paper and they exclude the possible reaction with Ni. I hope others will corrct my lay-mans view of this paper and give a more positive turn on it.

    • Ged

      Seems you have a good synopsis there. Testing for He is non-trivial as it is hard to contain and somewhat measure. Have to make a good gas flow trap system with some sort of spectrophotometry (standard flame atomic absorption won’t work so well on something that doesn’t burn, but spectral lines would) or other noble gas detector to observe it. I think the MFMP trashcan is set up to do something along those lines.

      It’s very important to all these theories for someone to test for He.

      • GreenWin

        Ged, De Nino did just this at ENEA Frascati back in 2000. Her team reported He4 in electrochemical CF. The paper was refused publication by some 40+ science journals.

        • Ged

          Interesting, thanks for the info. We need that done again on the high temp reactors, too. Hopefully, her paper will make a resurgence.

          • GreenWin

            Ged, I thought this story was well known to LENR community. De Nino’s work was directed by Nobel laureate Carlo Rubio. Since the presence of He in the CF cell essentially confirms “fusion” a low temp — the paper and its important humanitarian implications was buried.

          • Ged

            I had heard of it. Don’t know if it was a nickel system though. Can’t assume the mechanisms are the same, is the issue.

          • GreenWin

            Correct. It is a palladium D2 system in which some D2 transmutes to 4He. Here is the link. http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DeNinnoAexperiment.pdf

            De Ninno writes at another time:
            “In condensed matter, however, the electromagnetic fields acting in the medium can drown away the energy of the excited nucleus and convert it into thermal radiation. It is worthwhile to note that here we are talking about classic electromagnetic fields, not about quantum fields, that is, many low energy photons instead of one high energy photon, such as a gamma ray.”

            The “drowning” mechanism remains a mystery. But this would suggest Ahern’s tube furnace heating concept may not work as it avoids near field EM. Conversely, it follows Hagelstein and others’ contention the EM (phonon) field and or Hz waveform (e.g. spike, square, sawtooth) contributes a cascade reaction.

            Like others here I am less concerned with an absolute theory, than a commercial level product which will kick physics as$ to figure it out .

          • Ged

            Thanks for the link! And yes, I agree :).

      • Bob Greenyer

        And that is what Bob Higgin’s experiment is about.

      • Omega Z

        To test for HE, just stand close & inhale.
        If you then sound like a Alvin the chipmunk, you probably have HE…
        🙂

        • Ged

          Haha! Who knew it could be so easy 😉

    • Omega Z

      On JONP

      Valery Tarasov:
      Thank you for your attention.
      I will answer to all the issues regarding the paper in a next publication.
      Obviously I will not answer to questions that could lead to breach of IP

  • Monty

    Shouldnt the 7 Li4 +p -> 8Be4
    yield gamma rays that should be observable but haven’t been observed?

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0031916365902192

    • Warthog

      The gamma ray energy is most likely distributed and dissipated in the quantum modes of the metal matrix as lower energy photons (x-rays, light, and heat).

  • Monty

    Shouldnt the 7 Li4 +p -> 8Be4
    yield gamma rays that should be observable but haven’t been observed?

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0031916365902192

    • Warthog

      The gamma ray energy is most likely distributed and dissipated in the quantum modes of the metal matrix as lower energy photons (x-rays, light, and heat).

  • Axil Axil

    Like so many LENR theories, the Cook theory of the LENR reaction is not fundamental. Like almost all other LENR theories, it deals with the emergent results of the fundamental LENR reaction without explaining the cause of the observed experimental results.

    If a theory cannot explain EVERY aspect of the experimental results in every dimension, it is not valid.

    In particular, the way energy of these high powered alpha particles are converted to heat is not addressed, even though that part of the LENR theory is central to how the energy of the nuclear reaction is converted to soft x-rays and extreme ultraviolet light.

    I have concluded from the experimental results derived from many LENR systems that the gamma suppression and the basic LENR nuclear reaction is tightly coupled together so that if a LENR based nuclear event occurs, no gamma is ever seen in a environment that has gotten hot enough (500C).

    Gamma suppression is an essential part of the LENR reaction. So Gamma suppression is an essential part of what is going on inside the Nuclear Active Environment. If energy is carried away from the NAE, it cannot be converted to its final moderated form (soft x-rays and extreme ultraviolet light.) by the LENR reaction.

    Cook says that high energy alpha particles exit the NAE at high energy and deliver their energy to the far field at an some indeterminate distance from the NAE that produced the energy. If this were true, there is always a slight chance that the alpha particle could exit the gas envelop and deposit its kinetic energy in the Alumina shell where a gamma ray would result. This gamma ray is never seen. So if an alpha particle is produced it must have little or no kinetic energy that is transferred to the far field.

    All the energy of the nuclear reaction is carried away from the NAE by the LENR reaction itself. The gamma emission or better said, the lack of gamma emissions, is an intrinsic part of the LENR reaction energy transfer mechanism.

    • GreenWin

      …even though that part of the LENR theory is central to how the energy of
      the nuclear reaction is converted to soft x-rays and extreme
      ultraviolet light.”
      This would appear to be within the Blacklight Power domain. Mills suggests energy is transferred indirectly by resonance.

      • Axil Axil

        I have explained how Mills is seeing the results of the LENR reaction and has misidentified the reaction as a chemical only reaction based on a fantasy the he has invented: the hydrino. The wavelength of the black light emission is a result of the size of the circumference of the magnetic soliton that produces it: 10 nn. The magnetic soliton is about 3 nn in diameter.

        • bkrharold

          Thanks for explaining the BLP mechanism, I was unconvinced by the hydrino theory. This is not to say that Mills invention is without merit, and might produce useful energy one day. I think it is nowhere near as advanced as the e-cat, and needs a lot more work.

    • MasterBlaster7

      Wow…you sounded just like Peter Hagelstein just there.

  • Axil Axil

    Like so many LENR theories, the Cook theory of the LENR reaction is not fundamental. Like almost all other LENR theories, it deals with the emergent results of the fundamental LENR reaction without explaining the cause of the observed experimental results.

    If a theory cannot explain EVERY aspect of the experimental results in every dimension, it is not valid.

    In particular, the way energy of these high powered alpha particles are converted to heat is not addressed, even though that part of the LENR theory is central to how the energy of the nuclear reaction is converted to soft x-rays and extreme ultraviolet light.

    I have concluded from the experimental results derived from many LENR systems that the gamma suppression and the basic LENR nuclear reaction is tightly coupled together so that if a LENR based nuclear event occurs, no gamma is ever seen in a environment that has gotten hot enough (500C).

    Gamma suppression is an essential part of the LENR reaction. So Gamma suppression is an essential part of what is going on inside the Nuclear Active Environment. If energy is carried away from the NAE, it cannot be converted to its final moderated form (soft x-rays and extreme ultraviolet light.) by the LENR reaction.

    Cook says that high energy alpha particles exit the NAE at high energy and deliver their energy to the far field at an some indeterminate distance from the NAE that produced the energy. If this were true, there is always a slight chance that the alpha particle could exit the gas envelop and deposit its kinetic energy in the Alumina shell where a gamma ray would result. This gamma ray is never seen. So if an alpha particle is produced it must have little or no kinetic energy that is transferred to the far field.

    All the energy of the nuclear reaction is carried away from the NAE by the LENR reaction itself. The gamma emission or better said, the lack of gamma emissions, is an intrinsic part of the LENR reaction energy transfer mechanism.

    • GreenWin

      …even though that part of the LENR theory is central to how the energy of
      the nuclear reaction is converted to soft x-rays and extreme
      ultraviolet light.”
      This would appear to be within the Blacklight Power domain. Mills suggests energy is transferred indirectly by resonance.

      • Axil Axil

        I have explained how Mills is seeing the results of the LENR reaction and has misidentified the reaction as a chemical only reaction based on a fantasy the he has invented: the hydrino. The wavelength of the black light emission is a result of the size of the circumference of the magnetic soliton that produces it: 10 nn. The magnetic soliton is about 3 nn in diameter.

        • bkrharold

          Thanks for explaining the BLP mechanism, I was unconvinced by the hydrino theory. This is not to say that Mills invention is without merit, and might produce useful energy one day. I think it is nowhere near as advanced as the e-cat, and needs a lot more work.

    • MasterBlaster7

      Wow…you sounded just like Peter Hagelstein just there.

  • Robert Ellefson

    This paper only serves to deepen the ongoing humanitarian travesty that Rossi has created by allowing his greed to overcome his compassion. He has no clue how this system is working, despite all the years of secrecy. His description of one possible lithium reaction, while ignoring the vast bulk of nickel transmutations, is just another version of the proverbial discussion about ‘painting the bicycle shed.’

    He is the ONLY person with access to the entire reactor ash and fuel composition, and rather than use this goldmine of data, he is instead invoking the same ‘magic sample bias’ mechanism/conjecture that most of the peanut gallery started with from the Lugano report. He completely ignores the fact that the ICP analysis showed that the entire bulk of the nickel ash sample grain was nearly-pure Ni-62, and instead issues weak conjecture about surface enrichment of Ni-62 occurring, citing only the ToF-SIMS results. Why has he not analyzed the _entire_ ash composition? This simple step would answer many, many open questions. Instead, he has punted the ball.

    This would be a joke if it wasn’t such a horrific travesty.

    • bachcole

      Wow, and here I thought that the glass as almost full, and you see it as almost empty.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        It is almost empty at least in terms of understanding the reaction. About morale I don’t know, hard to discuss the two at the same time.

        • bachcole

          I was mostly talking about his very negative attitude. Anything that we get from Rossi is pure gratis. Notice that AirBus is replicating and we get exactly zip from them.

        • Mark

          Hmmm…I seem to remember posting, more than once, on this website, that Rossi probably does not really understand what is going on because he keeps getting surprised and is too resistant to alternative theories. I’m glad to see that some others are coming to that conclusion, as well. With this, and his negative comments that he has made about the LENR community, I think that Rossi is showing himself, more and more, to just be a BAD person, on a moral level, if nothing else. Lawyers like to say that sometimes the cause is greater than the individual, or something like that, and here is a good example of that.

          • Omega Z

            Being the lead contender in this particular Ni/H device, he obviously understands it better then most. We shouldn’t assume this is just Rossi’s theory. He has had consultation with others for at least 5 years including nuclear physicists..

            Given Rossi’s results, He obviously has a great deal of control over this effect. And, If one actually listens to what Rossi says or posts on JONP, It Is an on going learning process. It probably will be for many decades to come even after it is in the market.

            As to Rossi’s remarks, He kind of painted this one with a wider brush then usual, But I’m sure it was actually aimed at just a few. The same ones that have attacked him repeatedly on many occasions.
            And sometimes, the cause can prove undeserving.

          • Mark

            HA! I AGREE with everything that you posted, Omega Z, except for the last paragraph. I mean, the last paragraph might be true, but it also might be false. I also stand by what I posted above. I don’t think that there is necessarily any contradiction between what I posted and what you posted.

    • GreenWin

      It is something of a joke. As if the entire exercise was intended to catalyze others to find the answers. As to “horrific travesty” — imagine the benefit to humankind should we make public the sciences at Skunkworks!

      • Freethinker

        A bit harsh. But nevertheless I must agree. If Cook would be the one
        giving credence to theory, Rossi should be the one backing it all up
        with data. There must be a vast amount of fuel and ash from runs both
        ongoing in R&D and those of previous ones. Why would they use a
        subset of what the TIP presented (not just as referring to similar
        results)? Why not use own data?

        • Sanjeev

          Its a big puzzle for me that after 5 years of success with E-Cat, Rossi had to depend on the (mostly unreliable) ash analysis of the 3rd party. Moreover, he had to cite the non-existent ash analysis of Parkhomov as “lending credence to the earlier report” (page 5).
          It looks like, its totally a work of Cook, who somehow managed to convince Rossi to put his name as co-author.

        • GreenWin

          Rossi has always said the IP remains a “secret.” Apparently his deal with IH would insist on this until patents are issued. Just like so many “secrets” in the black science programs. But then, those programs are driven by “believers” like Ben Rich.

        • Omega Z

          Considering the Lugano ash analysis caught even Rossi by surprise, i would suspect that it is the only ash of that composition.
          This is likely due to the 30 day continuous power in the Lugano test. All Rossi’s work has been focused on SSM. Powered only a portion of the time. Thus, The only data Rossi can provide is the Lugano ash analysis.

      • Obvious

        (Since the original comment is now in moderation land, I place my reply here)
        The “horrific travesty” is that Rossi worked for many years to save up for his Lamborghini, and almost everyone just wants him to give them the keys, for nothing. We should just consider ourselves lucky he takes us for a ride around the block every now and then. Even if we just end up at the starting point.

        • Robert Ellefson

          The e-cat is not some toy, like a fancy car. It is desperately-needed medicine for a dying planet. Rossi is withholding information that could be used to save countless lives, from clean water production alone, for one example. Instead, he is choosing to maximize his profits. I don’t want to steal a toy from Rossi, I want him to put his invention to good use NOW.

          • Obvious

            With all due respect to Rossi and you, it has not been adequately demonstrated that he has the medicine.
            The planet is not dying.
            Rossi is making no profits.
            Get building, instead of complaining. Hot air and keystrokes saves no one.

          • Robert Ellefson

            I am building, as a matter of fact, despite being incompetent to be conducting such work. I entirely disagree that discourse such as this is useless. If it serves to inspire competent researchers, then these keystrokes will be useful.

          • Obvious

            Fair comment.
            What I mean is that complaining about Rossi doing or not doing something isn’t helping. We are lucky to have whatever we get. Many inventors hide away, and say nothing until they have a final version, or die with their knowledge undistributed at all. Rossi might never have said anything, or stuck to processing garbage for oil. Or went to work for the skunk works, building stealth jet exhaust TEGs, Hadron Enforcers, or whatever.
            Inspiring others is of course a positive outcome. Rossi, in his own way, is inspiring others to get off their butts. I think we learn more from him by trying to figure out what he is up to than waiting for the recipe on a silver platter. Since he seems to have given up on several garage-built versions already, there should be some low-hanging fruit for those that are working on some answers.

          • Omega Z

            Obvious
            I have considered your thoughts myself.
            Imagine had Rossi just stayed silent, all the guff he wouldn’t have had to put up with. And Imagine the influence he has had that wouldn’t have been.

            One thing no one can really deny. Rossi has had a huge impact on the number of players in play today. Likely the field would still only be around half a dozen if not for Rossi.

            The influence goes beyond the obvious. All these new entities will have a huge impact on readiness. Corporations will already be preparing the way for the introduction of this technology. Their awareness will shave several years off the initial deployment of this technology.

        • GreenWin

          Does anyone really believe Rossi discovered this application of LENR “alone?” Or with Prof Focardi, alone? The Ni+H2 system has been around since 1990.

          • Obvious

            The Go Cart to Model T versions have been around for a while, the engines borrowed from lawnmowers and tractors…

            It is entirely possible that Rossi’s Lamborghini is a just Fierro with a fibreglass body kit. Stand back far enough, and they look about the same.

          • Freethinker

            Nobody believes he discovered this alone. He stands on the shoulders of quite a few good people. However, he is trying to bring it to its fruition with tenacity and vision, like a true entrepreneur would.

          • Omega Z

            Rossi is comparable to Thomas Edison
            Edison didn’t invent the light bulb. But he was very instrumental in making it something of use.

          • bachcole

            Morally, emotionally, spiritual, they are from different planets.

  • Björn

    I understand now that “better living through chemistry” was a reference to cold fusion, and not drugs. Thanks for clearing that up.

  • Björn

    I understand now that “better living through chemistry” was a reference to cold fusion, and not drugs. Thanks for clearing that up.

  • bachcole

    Wow, and here I thought that the glass as almost full, and you see it as almost empty.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      It is almost empty at least in terms of understanding the reaction. About morale I don’t know, hard to discuss the two at the same time.

  • nightcreature3

    I couldn’t help notice the similarity between this proposed reaction and the Boron + Proton one targeted by Lawrenceville Plasma Physics. In both cases, though the initial step clearly involves fusion with a proton, one might be inclined to regard the overall process as one of fission.

  • nightcreature3

    I couldn’t help notice the similarity between this proposed reaction and the Boron + Proton one targeted by Lawrenceville Plasma Physics. In both cases, though the initial step clearly involves fusion with a proton, one might be inclined to regard the overall process as one of fission.

  • GreenWin

    It is something of a joke. As if the entire exercise was intended to catalyze others to find the answers. As to “horrific travesty” — imagine the benefit to humankind should we make public the sciences at Skunkworks!

    • Freethinker

      A bit harsh. But nevertheless I must agree. If Cook would be the one
      giving credence to theory, Rossi should be the one backing it all up
      with data. There must be a vast amount of fuel and ash from runs both
      ongoing in R&D and those of previous ones. Why would they use a
      subset of what the TIP presented (not just as referring to similar
      results)? Why not use own data?

      • Sanjeev

        Its a big puzzle for me that after 5 years of success with E-Cat, Rossi had to depend on the (mostly unreliable) ash analysis of the 3rd party. Moreover, he had to cite the non-existent ash analysis of Parkhomov as “lending credence to the earlier report” (page 5).
        It looks like, its totally a work of Cook, who somehow managed to convince Rossi to put his name as co-author.

      • GreenWin

        Rossi has always said the IP remains a “secret.” Apparently his deal with IH would insist on this until patents are issued. Just like so many “secrets” in the black science programs. But then, those programs are driven by “believers” like Ben Rich.

      • Omega Z

        Considering the Lugano ash analysis caught even Rossi by surprise, i would suspect that it is the only ash of that composition.
        This is likely due to the 30 day continuous power in the Lugano test. All Rossi’s work has been focused on SSM. Powered only a portion of the time. Thus, The only data Rossi can provide is the Lugano ash analysis.

    • Obvious

      (Since the original comment is now in moderation land, I place my reply here)
      The horrific travesty is that Rossi worked for many years to save up for his Lamborghini, and almost everyone just wants him to give them the keys, for nothing. We should just consider ourselves lucky he takes us for a ride around the block every now and then. Even if we just end up at the starting point.

      • deleo77

        Aside from the science I am a bit surprised to see Leonardo Corporation as Rossi’s affiliation, rather than Chief Scientist of Industrial Heat. If this is a scientific paper where the theories presented will one day back up the patent claims of IH, then I think Darden would absolutely want IH to be at the top of this paper. The whole IH/Leonardo Corp relationship is still a bit murky to me. When BLP or Brillouin publishes papers it is clear who the company is behind it. I thought Rossi sold Leonardo Corp to Industrial Heat, so why is Leonardo Corp still in existence?

        • mcloki

          Maybe IH is just a holding company with many corporations under it’s control.

          • Omega Z

            IH is made up of about 14 entities. Give or take. Entities can be individuals, Corporations or other investment groups. Only 2 of those entities are known. Tom Darden & J.T. Vaughn. The others are not publicly accessible.

        • ecatworld

          No, Leonardo Corp. still exists, and Rossi sold some rights

          • artefact

            I think he said he sold the the old e-cat but not the hotcat.

          • ecatworld

            I don’t think that has ever been specified by Rossi or IH. In the last statement we got from IH they just said: “Industrial Heat acquired certain rights to Andrea Rossi’s LENR technology. ”

            Rossi says they are doing Hot Cat R&D where he’s working right now, so I assume it is an Industrial Heat project.

          • artefact

            I remember Rossi said so but it could well be that it was with an older now obsolete customer.

          • Omega Z

            A couple years ago when Cures often posted on Cobraf, He indicated that Rossi pretty much handed over everything to Industrial Heat. This included all existing knowledge & any future endeavors using metals other then Nickel. Cures was a little put out about this.

            However, We know things can be quite complex in such arrangements.
            If I recall, there is a total of 14 entities give/take that make up Industrial Heat. Leonardo Corp could represent 1 of those entities.

            Rossi is still involved with Leonardo Corp. And from some of Rossi’s statements, Leonardo is likely made up of a separate group of investors. Rossi & they are represented in Industrial Heat by way of the Leonardo stake.

            To add to the confusion, We know that Rossi didn’t cut loose all of his licensees. When that went down, Hydro Fusion was selling shares in their stake to raise a couple million dollars. So Hydro Fusion could either be an investor by way of Leonardo or Industrial Heat directly. And Hydro Fusion is made up of a separate group of investors.

            Oh what a Web Rossi has weaved. It leaves us dazed & confused. Even the NSA is confused. I believe they have asked for congress for additional powers for eaves dropping due to Rossi’s Web. 🙂

      • GreenWin

        Does anyone really believe Rossi discovered this application of LENR “alone?” Or with Prof Focardi, alone? The Ni+H2 system has been around since 1990.

        • Obvious

          The Go Cart to Model T versions have been around for a while, the engines borrowed from lawnmowers and tractors…

        • Freethinker

          Nobody believes he discovered this alone. He stands on the shoulders of quite a few good people. However, he is trying to bring it to its fruition with tenacity and vision, like a true entrepreneur would.

        • Omega Z

          Rossi is comparable to Thomas Edison
          Edison didn’t invent the light bulb. But he was very instrumental in making it something of use.

          • bachcole

            Morally, emotionally, spiritual, they are from different planets.

  • Mats002

    I suggest that MFMP mass produce the glowstick including filling it up with different compositions of Ni and LiAlH4. Then coordinate an Edisonian test program with volentair institutions and garage tinkerers, running the device at heat cycles, all data sent back to MFMP for analysis in open science community. Including ash analysis when something of interest happens.

    • GreenWin

      Mats002, while this sounds reasonable, it opens each data set to viperous critique. It would however potentially identify systems worthy of further investigation.

      • Mats002

        I would say it is the same system but what is tested is the procedure for triggering and maintain the effect.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Sounds a very good idea to me, Mats002. Making and loading the reactors requires skill, but running them only calls for persistence. I don’t think GW’s critique issue is serious because if someone finds something, repetition to check the result would anyway soon at the “headquarters”.

  • Axil Axil

    The Cook theory is based upon an assumption that has not been experimentally verified. That assumption si that the amount of lithium going into the LENR reaction is the same as the amount of lithium that is coming out of the reaction.

    There is a possibility the Lithium 6 that Cook is trying to explain was produced in some other way beyond the transmutation of lithium 7. Maybe from the proton/proton nuclear reaction. The 6Li might be NEW lithium produced by hydrogen transmutation such that the total amount of lithium in the Hot cat was increased under that influence of the LENR reaction beyond the amount provided in the fuel charge.

    In order for the Cook theory to be taken seriously, the Lagano experimenters should have measured the amount of lithium in both the fuel charge and the ash produced by the experimental run.

    • Ged

      That is a serious criticism. Shouldn’t be hard to design experiments to test those assumptions though. If lithium is mostly a byproduct, that could imply it is a red herring distracting from the main players. Nickel by itself doesn’t appear all that active from all the replication attempts, so there is more to the story at least.

  • Axil Axil

    The Cook theory is based upon an assumption that has not been experimentally verified. That assumption si that the amount of lithium going into the LENR reaction is the same as the amount of lithium that is coming out of the reaction.

    There is a possibility the Lithium 6 that Cook is trying to explain was produced in some other way beyond the transmutation of lithium 7. Maybe from the proton/proton nuclear reaction. The 6Li might be NEW lithium produced by hydrogen transmutation such that the total amount of lithium in the Hot cat was increased under that influence of the LENR reaction beyond the amount provided in the fuel charge.

    In order for the Cook theory to be taken seriously, the Lagano experimenters should have measured the amount of lithium in both the fuel charge and the ash produced by the experimental run.

    • Ged

      That is a serious criticism. Shouldn’t be hard to design experiments to test those assumptions though. If lithium is mostly a byproduct, that could imply it is a red herring distracting from the main players. Nickel by itself doesn’t appear all that active from all the replication attempts, so there is more to the story at least.

  • MontagueWithnail

    For this layman the proposed involvement of Li as a main reactant is disturbing. What about all the other excess heat experiments with nickel – Swartz, Celani, Mckubre, Piantelli and several Japanese researchers? Do all of their experiments with Ni involve Li? I certainly didn’t think so and if not then surely Li is a poor candidate?

    • Axil Axil

      I said below that the Cook theory is not a fundamental theory of LENR.

      • MontagueWithnail

        Unfortunately I started writing mine before yours appeared so I didn’t read it first. It was a good post though, and could be the answer. It certainly seems one way to square the Lugano results with other reports, but for me there are so many difficult questions related to the ash analysis of the Lugano tests that I tend to discount them for now in my thinking.

        • Axil Axil

          Whenever a experiment talks about transmutation results of an impure mixture of elements, the experimenters must first measure the amount of each element in the fuel and the amount of each element in the ash to keep the accounting correct. This was not done in the Lagano experiment.

          • Mats002

            Did you just dismiss your argument for no raney nickel in ash?

          • Axil Axil

            THe generation of raney nickel is a chemical process not seen in the Lagano experimental results. Transmutation is a nuclear process that must be described by precise measurements of reactants.

          • Mats002

            Yes but since the trigger of the nuclear effect still is a mystery that could be the first step to achieve?

      • Obvious

        Fundamental theories will fail until the phenomena are studied in intense detail.
        The effect is an emergent effect, so empirical emergent descriptions are required for now, IMO.

        • Axil Axil

          In my opinion, the fundamental LENR reaction was seen in experiments with the DGT reactor and described by Dr. Kim. Kim talks about magnetic solitons and bosenovas if you remember.

          • Obvious

            I have heard nothing since about it, nor ever has the data been released as far as I know. Has Dr. Kim any updates on his work, other than the now old summary?

          • Axil Axil

            These ideas where presented by Kim at ICCF-18. Dr Kim is not active in LENR right now due to sickness.

          • Obvious

            The ICCF presentation is what I was referring to.
            That is unfortunate about his illness.

        • Josh G

          Not impressed — I just think you shouldn’t say your article has been peer reviewed when it hasn’t been. Doesn’t add to your credibility.

          • bachcole

            You could be right, but what exactly does peer review mean? We are reviewing it now, and some of us (not me) actually are peers, like Axil^2, Pekka, et. al.

        • Omega Z

          Being the lead contender in this particular Ni/H device, he obviously understands it better then most. We shouldn’t assume this is just Rossi’s theory. He has had consultation with others for at least 5 years including nuclear physicists..

          Given Rossi’s results, He obviously has a great deal of control over this effect. And, If one actually listens to what Rossi says or posts on JONP, It Is an on going learning process. It probably will be for many decades to come even after it is in the market.

          As to Rossi’s remarks, He kind of painted this one with a wider brush then usual, But I’m sure it was actually aimed at just a few. The same ones that have attacked him repeatedly on many occasions.
          And sometimes, the cause can prove undeserving.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Agreed. I would think that it’s also possible that there is some genuine underlying proton-nickel cold fusion reaction which produces its energy output as fast protons, some of which then cause ordinary hot fusion reactions within the liquid lithium surrounding the nickel particles. Another role for lithium might be chemical. Possibly, ionisation trails caused by the alfas emitted by the lithium-proton reaction might somehow boost the cold fusion reaction inside the nickel. This is all speculation. But so is Rossi’s paper, almost.

      • GreenWin

        Sounds a bit like Ikegami’s work with pyconulcear reactions aka “chemonuclear.” A curious combine of chemical, cold and “hot” fusion.

      • Omega Z

        Probably the phenomenon takes place without lithium, But is greatly enhanced with it.

        • Obvious

          That would be my best guess also. Consider the huge difference in power levels reported in the other experiments compared to Rossi.

    • Ged

      One interesting observation has been that the Celani experiments and MFMP replications that worked used a borosilicate shell that had some lithium in it, while failed experiments did not. This was noticed in hindsight, and I don’t think experiments specifically with lithium has been done. But it’s possible in all those cases that lithium was present at some ammounts. Doesn’t seem like much lithium is needed to start the transmutation cascade, just the occaisional Li+p fusion.

      A lot of this is up in the air. We need clear experiments with Li and without once we have a reliable test bed.

  • Montague Withnail

    For this layman the proposed involvement of Li as a main reactant is disturbing. What about all the other excess heat experiments with nickel – Swartz, Celani, Mckubre, Piantelli and several Japanese researchers? Do all of their experiments with Ni involve Li? I certainly didn’t think so and if not then surely Li is a poor candidate?

    • Axil Axil

      I said below that the Cook theory is not a fundamental theory of LENR.

      • Montague Withnail

        Unfortunately I started writing mine before yours appeared so I didn’t read it first. It was a good post though, and could be the answer. It certainly seems one way to square the Lugano results with other reports, but for me there are so many difficult questions related to the ash analysis of the Lugano tests that I tend to discount them for now in my thinking.

        • Axil Axil

          Whenever a experiment talks about transmutation results of an impure mixture of elements, the experimenters must first measure the amount of each element in the fuel and the amount of each element in the ash to keep the accounting correct. This was not done in the Lagano experiment.

          • Mats002

            Did you just dismiss your argument for no raney nickel in ash?

          • Axil Axil

            THe generation of raney nickel is a chemical process not seen in the Lagano experimental results. Transmutation is a nuclear process that must be described by precise measurements of reactants.

          • Mats002

            Yes but since the trigger of the nuclear effect still is a mystery that could be the first step to achieve?

      • Obvious

        Fundamental theories will fail until the phenomena are studied in intense detail.
        The effect is an emergent effect, so empirical emergent descriptions are required for now, IMO.

        • Axil Axil

          In my opinion, the fundamental LENR reaction was seen in experiments with the DGT reactor and described by Dr. Kim. Kim talks about magnetic solitons and bosenovas if you remember.

          • Obvious

            I have heard nothing since about it, nor ever has the data been released as far as I know. Has Dr. Kim any updates on his work, other than the now old summary?

          • Axil Axil

            These ideas where presented by Kim at ICCF-18. Dr Kim is not active in LENR right now due to sickness.

          • Obvious

            The ICCF presentation is what I was referring to.
            That is unfortunate about his illness.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Agreed. I would think that it’s also possible that there is some genuine underlying proton-nickel cold fusion reaction which produces its energy output as fast protons, some of which then cause ordinary hot fusion reactions within the liquid lithium surrounding the nickel particles. Another role for lithium might be chemical. Possibly, ionisation trails caused by the alfas emitted by the lithium-proton reaction might somehow boost the cold fusion reaction inside the nickel. This is all speculation. But so is Rossi’s paper, almost.

      • GreenWin

        Sounds a bit like Ikegami’s work with pyconulcear reactions aka “chemonuclear.” A curious combine of chemical, cold and “hot” fusion.

      • Omega Z

        Probably the phenomenon takes place without lithium, But is greatly enhanced with it.

        • Obvious

          That would be my best guess also. Consider the huge difference in power levels reported in the other experiments compared to Rossi.

    • Ged

      One interesting observation has been that the Celani experiments and MFMP replications that worked used a borosilicate shell that had some lithium in it, while failed experiments did not. This was noticed in hindsight, and I don’t think experiments specifically with lithium have been done. But it’s possible in all those cases that lithium was present at some ammounts. Doesn’t seem like much lithium is needed to start the transmutation cascade, just the occaisional Li+p fusion.

      A lot of this is up in the air. We need clear experiments with Li and without once we have a reliable test bed.

    • bachcole

      I am a layman (at least my wife thinks that I lay around all day long), and I think that lithium is perfect. It is #3 on the periodic table, exactly the sort of thing in crystalline form that mainstream physicists would have missed.

      • Obvious

        Another possibly related factoid is that stars do not have lithium and nickel at the same time, and neither do they occur together geologically on Earth, and probably nowhere else in normal circumstances. They have to be put together on purpose. Natural equivalents do not occur.

        • bachcole

          Interesting.

  • Hank Mills

    Combine this with Ikegami’s chemonuclear reactions that explain how the likely hood of nuclear reactions between protons and lithium go up millions of times when the lithium is molten, and I think we have a good explanation of how the E-Cat works. Maybe the likely hood goes up even more when the lithium is a vapor!

    • Mats002

      And getting those s-electrons up and dancing right 😉

  • tobalt

    It is good to see some kind of official theoretical statement from Rossi. I hope Cook is going to confirm authorship too.

    I would say it is not suprising that Li7 (the prototypical borderline stable nucleus which even leads the standard model to the Li7 problem) and Hydrogen are the “fuel”.

    What I find surpring is that no explaination for the side effects of LENR are given, ie:

    1) a lot of baryonic “tunneling” which leeds to the breeding of Ni62
    2) even though a lot of baryon exchange happens, there is no radiation.

    The whole process is only explicable though vague if it is highly collective to achieve the necessary energy scale and highly resonant to achieve the necessary crosssections. The resulting quasiparticle also needs to interact strongly, weakly and electrodynamically. While the standard model makes no predictions regarding quasiparticles, I dont think that such a quasiparticle has been proposed. From Rossis paper i would have expected such a quasiparticle description or reference to one.

  • deleo77

    Aside from the science I am a bit surprised to see Leonardo Corporation as Rossi’s affiliation, rather than Chief Scientist of Industrial Heat. If this is a scientific paper where the theories presented will one day back up the patent claims of IH, then I think Darden would absolutely want IH to be at the top of this paper. The whole IH/Leonardo Corp relationship is still a bit murky to me. When BLP or Brillouin publishes papers it is clear who the company is behind it. I thought Rossi sold Leonardo Corp to Industrial Heat, so why is Leonardo Corp still in existence?

    • mcloki

      Maybe IH is just a holding company with many corporations under it’s control.

      • Omega Z

        IH is made up of about 14 entities. Give or take. Entities can be individuals, Corporations or other investment groups. Only 2 of those entities are known. Tom Darden & J.T. Vaughn. The others are not publicly accessible.

    • Frank Acland

      No, Leonardo Corp. still exists, and Rossi sold some rights

      • artefact

        I think he said he sold the the old e-cat but not the hotcat.

        • Frank Acland

          I don’t think that has ever been specified by Rossi or IH. In the last statement we got from IH they just said: “Industrial Heat acquired certain rights to Andrea Rossi’s LENR technology. ”

          Rossi says they are doing Hot Cat R&D where he’s working right now, so I assume it is an Industrial Heat project.

          • artefact

            I remember Rossi said so but it could well be that it was with an older now obsolete partner.

          • Omega Z

            A couple years ago when Cures often posted on Cobraf, He indicated that Rossi pretty much handed over everything to Industrial Heat. This included all existing knowledge & any future endeavors using metals other then Nickel. Cures was a little put out about this.

            However, We know things can be quite complex in such arrangements.
            If I recall, there is a total of 14 entities give/take that make up Industrial Heat. Leonardo Corp could represent 1 of those entities.

            Rossi is still involved with Leonardo Corp. And from some of Rossi’s statements, Leonardo is likely made up of a separate group of investors. Rossi & they are represented in Industrial Heat by way of the Leonardo stake.

            To add to the confusion, We know that Rossi didn’t cut loose all of his licensees. When that went down, Hydro Fusion was selling shares in their stake to raise a couple million dollars. So Hydro Fusion could either be an investor by way of Leonardo or Industrial Heat directly. And Hydro Fusion is made up of a separate group of investors.

            Oh what a Web Rossi has weaved. It leaves us dazed & confused. Even the NSA is confused. I believe they have asked for congress for additional powers for eaves dropping due to Rossi’s Web. 🙂

  • Alex Ruiz

    I have read the Cook’s book. Excellent regarding history and exposition of existing theories of atomic nucleous but very poor and inconsistent explanation of his own one. Reading the article you can recognize the authorship. The article does not apport anything new, only hypotheses about supposed reactions which have not been replicated. Cook applies his own theory to the always ambiguous Rossi´s experimental results which in turn have not been confirmed.

  • Valeriy Tarasov

    LENR with lithium is more or less clear. Only problem 🙂 is unknown source of energy for proton interacting with lithium followed by alpha particles generation. For me, the more fundamental question, needs to be addressed, is what is going on in the simpler and older system used by Focardi, system consisted of nickel rod and hydrogen. Why they had found additional heat in this system. Which kind of fission is there, fission
    of nickel or hydrogen?

    • artefact

      Also in the older reators Rossi told us there was a secret ingredience. (probably an alkali metal)

      • Valeriy Tarasov

        I have the pdf of Focardi paper on my web site (link below), and there was nothing except of nickel rod and hydrogen according to this paper.
        http://h-theory.narod.ru/AnomalousHeatNi-H-NuovoCimento.pdf

        • artefact

          I thought you ment the Focardi/Rossi paper.

          • Valeriy Tarasov

            I agree that alkali metal are also have similar function as Li. There are publications with potassium as electrolyte in electrolysis LENR devices. And, according to the reaction – 19-K-39(p,A)18-Ar-36, interaction of protons (1.75 MeV and more) with potassium can lead to the generation of argon and alpha particles too.

    • MontagueWithnail

      Fission of hydrogen?

      • Valeriy Tarasov

        I know, it sounds not as the mainstream physics, but all LENR are not excepted by mainstream physics. How big is the energy of protons when they are comming in and out of nickel rod (or nano-, micro particles of nickel) saturated with hydrogen in LENR is unclear. At least, collision of protons beams in colliders results in breaks of protons and generation of a lot different particles.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          In collisions, protons don’t exactly break, they produce meson/antimeson etc. pairs. The original baryon cannot disappear because baryon number is conserved.

          • Valeriy Tarasov

            Just question to mainstream particle physics. Why collision of positively charged protons can generate both negatively charged electrons and positively charged positrons (besides of other particles) , but collision of high energy electrons produced nothing but electrons and gamma rays?

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Probably because energy of the collision was not high enough. It’s harder to accelerate electrons to the same energy as protons because of their radiation losses in circular accelerators.

          • Valeriy Tarasov

            Why not the same collider which was used to collide electrons and positrons (link below). Instead of positrons only electrons. This collider provided energy up to 209 GeV. Why not this collider ? This is only 4 time less than Large Hadron Collider (proton–proton collisions) in 2009. The explanation of lack of energy for electrons is not convincing if we know this information.

            wiki
            “On November 20, 2009 proton beams were successfully circulated again,[15][16] with the first recorded proton–proton collisions occurring three days later at the injection energy of 450 GeV per beam.[17] ”

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Electron–Positron_Collider

          • Pekka Janhunen

            I’m a bit out of my territory, but I think that in principle they could have collided electrons together as well. There might be some technical reason why they chose positrons and electrons, such as you can have positrons and electrons circulating in the same magnetic fields in opposite directions, while for electrons one might need two separate rings. But it shouldn’t matter much. The only main difference between electron-electron and electron-positron collision is different total lepton number (2 and 0), which is conserved.
            Colliding protons and/or antiprotons produces more messy results than colliding leptons because both particles consist of three quarks.

          • Obvious

            Electrons have very low mass, and mass equals energy, so accelerating larger particles to near the speed of light gets more energy concentrated in one collision. The small mass of electrons puts a smaller limit on the total energy available in the collision. At the same speed, protons, etc. contribute much more energy. There are technical limits on how fast magnets can switch fields in order to accelerate particles. So with larger particles, you get a better bang for your buck within the technical limits, even though it might take more energy to get them up to speed.

          • Valeriy Tarasov

            Energy was enough in case of Large Electron–Positron Collider.

            “LEP collider energy eventually topped at 209 GeV at the end in 2000.”

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Electron–Positron_Collider

          • Pekka Janhunen

            At least LEP’s DELPHI contained a section called Hadron calorimeter, http://delphiwww.cern.ch/offline/physics/delphi-detector.html . Probably they saw some hadrons, then.

          • Valeriy Tarasov

            This is ok. Collision of electrons and positrons can give any sorts of hadrons, no doubts. Problems only if colliding particles are only electron or only positrons. And, I did find any information about such experiments for high energy electrons/positrons like in the Large Electron–Positron Collider. There were experiments only at the beginning of accelerators with electrons of lower energy. Results were – electrons and gamma quants, nothing more. Why is it so important? This is overlooked, or ignored type of experiments, which can disprove standard model. It would be very important to perform such experiments for detection of the hadrons in electrons-electrons collision. Everything was in hands (the Large Electron–Positron Collider) and why was it not conducted is a very good question. I have an explanation according to my theory (h-space theory) why no hadrons were and will be observed, but the experiments will be better.

          • Valeriy Tarasov

            If we have positrons and electrons from proton-proton collision, there is no reason to deny the symmetrical reaction if energy level is enough, but this, i.e. collision of electron-electron or positron-positron producing protons and antiprotons was never observed. Energy was enough.

          • Obvious

            I think it is because electrons are thought to be elementary particles that cannot be broken down further. Or we don’t have the ability to break them yet.

  • Valeriy Tarasov

    LENR with lithium is more or less clear. Only problem 🙂 is unknown source of energy for proton interacting with lithium followed by alpha particles generation. For me, the more fundamental question, needs to be addressed, is what is going on in the simpler and older system used by Focardi, system consisted of nickel rod and hydrogen. Why they had found additional heat in this system. Which kind of fission is there, fission
    of nickel or hydrogen?

    • artefact

      Also in the older reators Rossi told us there was a secret ingredience. (probably an alkali metal)

      • Jamie Sibley

        I think alkali metal has always been present. In the electrolysis cells, there was lithium or potassium salts used at the electrolyte, and in the heated wire experiments, the wire was prepared by etching and baking with alkali metal acids and salts. I think under careful review, all experiments producing anomalous heat will have used alkali metals at some point in the preparation, even possibly as impurities in other experimental components.

      • Valeriy Tarasov

        I have the pdf of Focardi paper on my web site (link below), and there was nothing except of nickel rod and hydrogen according to this paper.
        http://h-theory.narod.ru/AnomalousHeatNi-H-NuovoCimento.pdf

        • artefact

          I thought you ment the Focardi/Rossi paper.

          • Valeriy Tarasov

            I agree that alkali metal are also have similar function as Li. There are publications with potassium as electrolyte in electrolysis LENR devices. And, according to the reaction – 19-K-39(p,A)18-Ar-36, interaction of protons (1.75 MeV and more) with potassium can lead to the generation of argon and alpha particles too.

    • Montague Withnail

      Fission of hydrogen?

      • Valeriy Tarasov

        I know, it sounds not as the mainstream physics, but all LENR are not excepted by mainstream physics. How big is the energy of protons when they are comming in and out of nickel rod (or nano-, micro particles of nickel) saturated with hydrogen in LENR is unclear. At least, collision of protons beams in colliders results in breaks of protons and generation of a lot different particles.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          In collisions, protons don’t exactly break, they produce meson/antimeson etc. pairs. The original baryon cannot disappear because baryon number is conserved.

          • Valeriy Tarasov

            Just question to mainstream particle physics. Why collision of positively charged protons can generate both negatively charged electrons and positively charged positrons (besides of other particles) , but collision of high energy electrons produced nothing but electrons and gamma rays?

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Probably because energy of the collision was not high enough. It’s harder to accelerate electrons to the same energy as protons because of their radiation losses in circular accelerators.

          • Valeriy Tarasov

            Why not the same collider which was used to collide electrons and positrons (link below). Instead of positrons only electrons. This collider provided energy up to 209 GeV. Why not this collider ? This is only 4 time less than Large Hadron Collider (proton–proton collisions) in 2009. The explanation of lack of energy for electrons is not convincing if we know this information.

            wiki
            “On November 20, 2009 proton beams were successfully circulated again,[15][16] with the first recorded proton–proton collisions occurring three days later at the injection energy of 450 GeV per beam.[17] ”

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Electron–Positron_Collider

          • Pekka Janhunen

            I’m a bit out of my territory, but I think that in principle they could have collided electrons together as well. There might be some technical reason why they chose positrons and electrons, such as you can have positrons and electrons circulating in the same magnetic fields in opposite directions, while for electrons one might need two separate rings. But it shouldn’t matter much. The only main difference between electron-electron and electron-positron collision is different total lepton number (2 and 0), which is conserved.
            Colliding protons and/or antiprotons produces more messy results than colliding leptons because both particles consist of three quarks.

          • Obvious

            Electrons have very low mass, and mass equals energy, so accelerating larger particles to near the speed of light gets more energy concentrated in one collision. The small mass of electrons puts a smaller limit on the total energy available in the collision. At the same speed, protons, etc. contribute much more energy. There are technical limits on how fast magnets can switch fields, etc., in order to accelerate particles. So with larger particles, you get a better bang for your buck within the technical limits, even though it might take more energy to get them up to speed.

          • Valeriy Tarasov

            Energy was enough in case of Large Electron–Positron Collider.

            “LEP collider energy eventually topped at 209 GeV at the end in 2000.”

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Electron–Positron_Collider

          • Pekka Janhunen

            At least LEP’s DELPHI contained a section called Hadron calorimeter, http://delphiwww.cern.ch/offline/physics/delphi-detector.html . Probably they saw some hadrons, then.

          • Valeriy Tarasov

            This is ok. Collision of electrons and positrons can give any sorts of hadrons, no doubts. Problems only if colliding particles are only electron or only positrons. And, I did find any information about such experiments for high energy electrons/positrons like in the Large Electron–Positron Collider. There were experiments only at the beginning of accelerators with electrons of lower energy. Results were – electrons and gamma quants, nothing more. Why is it so important? This is overlooked, or ignored type of experiments, which can disprove standard model. It would be very important to perform such experiments for detection of the hadrons in electrons-electrons collision. Everything was in hands (the Large Electron–Positron Collider) and why was it not conducted is a very good question. I have an explanation according to my theory (h-space theory) why no hadrons were and will be observed, but the experiments will be better.

          • bachcole

            And yet this paradigm of more bang for the buck did not allow for the possibility of cold fusion, which we know to be a FACT. So obviously this paradigm is broken.

          • Obvious

            They weren’t looking for cold fusion. Smashing individual particles apart with near light speed velocities and high energies is quite nearly the opposite. CF is all about assembling things at relatively low energies.

          • Obvious

            The properties of atoms have nothing to say about trees that can grow, be cut into boards, and nailed together to make a house.

          • bachcole

            I have rethought this. It is not the paradigm that is broken, but rather the means by which we “see” the atom is (too) limited due to the extremely high speed particles that we are slamming together.

          • Valeriy Tarasov

            If we have positrons and electrons from proton-proton collision, there is no reason to deny the symmetrical reaction if energy level is enough, but this, i.e. collision of electron-electron or positron-positron producing protons and antiprotons was never observed. Energy was enough.

          • Obvious

            I think it is because electrons are thought to be elementary particles that cannot be broken down further. Or we don’t have the ability to break them yet.

      • bachcole

        Yeah, you get two little hydrinos and a ham sandwich with it.

        • Freethinker

          😀

  • LuFong

    Why is Ralph Ellefson’s comment “In Moderation?” I hope this is not a result of the new commenting rules regime.

  • parallelB

    Ellefson, I read your comment before it disappeared. You really enjoy throwing stones. We wouldn’t be having this discussion if Rossi had not persevered with the development of the E-Cat, including selling his house to fund the development, That he had to do that is probably the humanitarian travesty.

    He believes that commercial development of the E-Cat will be the fastest way to bring LENR to the market and he is probably right. Having the correct theory will make little difference to the speed with which this happens. He already has a 1 MW plant under test – a very sensible procedure.

    If you feel so superior to Rossi that you can insult him, how come you have not developed an LENR device and come up with the theory of how it works yourself?

  • Ged

    Might have triggered some automated system. Your post is still visible to read, so not a big issue at least.

  • GreenWin

    It would appear this paper is meant solely to steer investigators toward pyconulcear reactions indicated in Ikegami’s chemonuclear Li fusion studies. http://www.roxit.ax/CN.pdf

    Lo and behold Dr. R. Pettersson (Lugano) has a role in all this!

    • Christina

      GreenWin,

      So you’re saying Rossi and Cook are trying to help the rest of the scientists toward realizing LENR?

      I am sorry, but I’ve read some of the comments above and don’t understand.

      Thank you for your answer.

      Christina

      • GreenWin

        Hi Christina, I think that is a likely direction and intention even of the entire Rossi/IH/Focardi/et al, team. Ikegami’s work appears to address may of the LENR observations to date. Supernova-type energy release from liquid Li infused by fast (energetic) particles. Thanks for your many positive comments here.

    • Freethinker

      Rossi has often said that Ikegami is one of those who knows what he is doing.

      I find this paper to be focusing only on a small piece of the chain, dealing with the lattice IPM solution, treating the nucleus like a lattice and not perceive it like a gas like in normal IPM.

      There are no statements on how one would energetically end up in a situation where these reactions would occur, only that they are probable in the right environment. To me it has nothing to do with Ikegamis paper you refer to.

  • GreenWin

    It would appear this paper is meant solely to steer investigators toward pyconulcear reactions indicated in Ikegami’s chemonuclear Li fusion studies. http://www.roxit.ax/CN.pdf

    Lo and behold Dr. R. Pettersson (Lugano) has a role in all this!

    • Christina

      GreenWin,

      So you’re saying Rossi and Cook are trying to help the rest of the scientists toward realizing LENR?

      I am sorry, but I’ve read some of the comments above and don’t understand.

      Thank you for your answer.

      Christina

      • GreenWin

        Hi Christina, I think that is a likely direction and intention even of the entire Rossi/IH/Focardi/et al, team. Ikegami’s work appears to address may of the LENR observations to date. Supernova-type energy release from liquid Li infused by fast (energetic) particles. Thanks for your many positive comments here.

        • Christina

          You’re all welcome.

          I used to believe the “We’ve discovered all the new science were ever going to discover” and now it’s all new again so it’s a bit like Star Trek: the futuristic stuff, not the aliens.

          I’m eagerly awaiting the developments of the next two to five years.

          Christina

          • GreenWin

            What is fun is not knowing exactly how phenomena happen, but that they do happen — beyond our understanding. This is IMO a form of learning that accepts the unknown, with delight in the potential to be known. More to celebrate. 🙂

    • Hank Mills

      I wonder if anyone here can write up a comparison between Ikegami’s Chemonuclear paper and Rossi’s paper. I’m interested in their similarities and differences. I wonder if lithium in the vapor phase is even more likely to have a nuclear reaction with hydrogen than lithium in the molten phase.

      • GreenWin

        Excellent suggestion Hank. And I think you’re moving correctly, to assume the vapour phase would better enter Storms’ NAEs. I shall take a stab at such comparison later today or tonight (need to reread Ikegami .) However, I am schooled in Fine Arts, not physics!

        • Freethinker

          You will do just fine. I too would like to know what you find.

      • Freethinker

        I think you want to find more than meet the eye in Cook&Rossi’s paper. I do not think there can be much of a comparison.

    • Freethinker

      Rossi has often said that Ikegami is one of those who knows what he is doing.

      I find this paper to be focusing only on a small piece of the chain, dealing with the lattice IPM solution, treating the nucleus like a lattice and not perceive it like a gas like in normal IPM.

      There are no statements on how one would energetically end up in a situation where these reactions would occur, only that they are probable in the right environment. To me it has nothing to do with Ikegamis paper you refer to.

  • hunfgerh

    What we are talking about “e-cat” or “hot-cat”?
    What is the full:Ni, LiH, LiAlH4, etc?
    What is the reactor tube: Al2O3, Ni, Fe, etc.?
    What is the ashes: (burn off) of Ni, LiAlH4, LiH or Ni, LiAlH4 and the reactor tube Al2O3?
    What kind and amount of activation energy was fed into the System?
    Products (ash) depends from the eductes (full) and the reaction conditions (temperature, pressure, time).
    The physical characteristics of products – such as spec. resistance, spec. heat capacity, etc. – depending on these reaction conditions.
    For the energy balance also the reaction enthalpy of the individual reactions must considered. For nuclear reactions this is in the MeV-range, for chemical reactions only in the eV-range.
    Conclusion: “e-cat” and “hot-cat” are different materials with different physical characteristics.
    The e-cat is based on “low-rate-nuclear reactions” in a supercunducting layer.
    The “hot-cat” is probably based on a Change of the spec. heat capacity of the reactor tube in combination with a strong exothermic reaction of the reactor tube with Ni, Li, H to a unknown new material.

  • hunfgerh

    What we are talking about “e-cat” or “hot-cat”?
    What is the full:Ni, LiH, LiAlH4, etc?
    What is the reactor tube: Al2O3, Ni, Fe, etc.?
    What is the ashes: (burn off) of Ni, LiAlH4, LiH or Ni, LiAlH4 and the reactor tube Al2O3?
    What kind and amount of activation energy was fed into the System?
    Products (ash) depends from the eductes (full) and the reaction conditions (temperature, pressure, time).
    The physical characteristics of products – such as spec. resistance, spec. heat capacity, etc. – depending on these reaction conditions.
    For the energy balance also the reaction enthalpy of the individual reactions must considered. For nuclear reactions this is in the MeV-range, for chemical reactions only in the eV-range.
    Conclusion: “e-cat” and “hot-cat” are different materials with different physical characteristics.
    The e-cat is based on “low-rate-nuclear reactions” in a supercunducting layer.
    The “hot-cat” is probably based on a Change of the spec. heat capacity of the reactor tube in combination with a strong exothermic reaction of the reactor tube with Ni, Li, H to a unknown new material.

  • Timar

    I don’t want to sound disrespectful towards Dr. Cook, but I find it a bit disappointing that the “mainstream physics professor” Rossi alluded to in his recents statements turns out a psychologist and system theorist working at an informatics department.

    • Daniel Maris

      Quite. Not really credible – however good the paper itself might be (and few of us here are in a position to judge).

      • Timar

        True, but the judgement of some more qualified people over at vortex-l seems quite damning.

    • parallelB

      Getting a degree is what is required to get a job. What you learn after that is likely more important if you can think and read a lot. eg. Freeman Dyson only got a BA.

      • AlbertNN

        But the thing is that Dr. Cook has mainly published within the field of psychology. It is not only his education, but his profession and expertise. What somewhat puzzles me is that he now is employed as a professor of computer science.

        https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=VJJTciMAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate

        • Omega Z

          You often see people working in fields other then how their labeled.
          And we also don’t know what course were taken. Only the Major.

        • Bernie777

          Please, read what he has written before jumping to conclusions like this.

      • Timar

        Sure, but Dr. Cook has his own fringe theories in physics – they are anything but “mainstream”. That he has no formal education in physics doesn’t help his case.

        • Freethinker

          Timar,

          what with the fringe theories in physics? As far as I see he is not alone, and he is published.

          Like ParallelB point out he has 123 papers. I cannot vouch for the amount, but I see some of his papers at ADS:

          http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/basic_connect?qsearch=%22Cook%2C+Norman+D%22&version=1

          Would it be nice if he was the poster scientist of MS physics?

          Sure.

          • GreenWin

            Free, isn’t it predictable these guys with no formal nuclear training come up with fringe ideas like lattice-based nucleons? Is it possible “educational bias” limits our imagination potential and thereby, empirical knowledge?

          • Bob Greenyer

            I totally agree with this view.

          • Timar

            That’s a good point and certainly true. My point and disappointment however is that this paper won’t be taken seriously by a larger audience, which I was hoping for when Rossi declared that he was working together with a mainstream physicist.

          • psi2u2

            Exactly.

        • parallelB

          Main stream physicists have had had 25 years to come up with a theory. Most, particularly the hot fusion guys, prefer to dismiss LENR without even looking, or feel it threatens their grants. Not the field of candidates most likely to come up with a new solution as they have already demonstrated.

          Rossi was right, it will take the sale of commercial LENRs before they will accept it. No paper is likely to do it. The 1 MW plant might at the end of the year and I will bet there will be those that claim it is still a fraud even then..

          A theory will be useful in the long run, but will make little difference to current progress. Only demonstrations from groups like MFMP will help speed things up.

        • psi2u2

          In my experience, terminology like “fringe theory” is often indicative of an unwillingness to deal in an honest manner with existing evidence.

          • bachcole

            How perfectly well said!!!!! You really are a Shakespearean scholar. Perfect prose aligned with psychological insight. (:->)

          • psi2u2

            Well, I have watched the abuse of such terms at Wikipedia for years now. The people that hide behind them have no business trying to edit a comprehensive encyclopedia, but what can you say, the peter principle is alive and well at Wikipedia and sometimes elsewhere to boot.

        • Donk970

          I have zero formal education in computer science and yet I manage to consistently earn a nice six figure salary writing computer software. A formal education builds your credentials in the academic world but out in the real world where real work is being done it isn’t as important as what you actually know.

          • bachcole

            Likewise exactly, except I didn’t get to the six figure level. And I had a lot of fun being creative.

    • Ged

      I find this diagram very instructive at times like this when trying to discuss any subject: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/grahams-hierarchy-of-disagreement.png

      • Timar

        No name calling here. Only taking Rossi on his words and being concerned about him further damaging his credibility.

        • Guest

          This is purely a terminological quibble combined with insincere posturing.

        • Ged

          Nope. Talking about “credibility” as you are is indeed ad hominem. You aren’t refuting the idea of Cook being “mainstream” yet, or elevated your comment to refutation (and Cook being “mainstream” has nothing to do with this paper or its arguments, so you are light years away from the central point of this news piece), because you have simply failed to defone clearly what “mainstream” is and by which exacting criteria it is determined. Until you do, the argument is stuck in ad hom as we have no material or evidence with which to discuss.

          • Timar

            This is silly quibbling. Dr. Cook is a psychologist and his areas of interest in phsics are certainly not “mainstream”. Or do you consider the E-Cat mainstream?

            Rossi’s introduction of Dr. Cook as a “mainstream physisist” is a blatant misstatement by an meaningful definition. Period.

          • Ged

            You have yet to define “mainstream” , so how can anyone agree or disagree with you? Your argument hardly exists.

            But let’s actually look at Dr. Cook’s record. Other than publishing a book on atomic physics, I count at least 15 peer reviewed non-LENR publications of his in physics journals on atomic physics, such as this one https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=VJJTciMAAAAJ&citation_for_view=VJJTciMAAAAJ:UebtZRa9Y70C

            That number of publications is above the ~10-12 or so papers needed to gain tenure in physics (depending on sub disciplin and institution). Doesn’t mean he would, but it does show that by standard academic advancement metrics he is an accomplished physicist. The fact he is also a psychologist is imaterial, other than showing he has a broad range of interests and flexibility, as well as success in disparate fields.

    • Bernie777

      Please, have you read what he has written?

      • Timar

        It is not about what Dr. Cook has written but what Rossi has written in the past. He said he was writing a paper together with a “mainstream physicist”, to be published under “peer-review”. This is a serious distortion of facts that doesn’t help Rossi’s credibility. Neither is Dr. Cook a physisicst – let alone a mainstream physicist – nor has this paper been peer-reviewed. In fact, in its current form it wouldn’t have any chance to pass the peer-review of a physics journal.

        • Bernie777

          Answer the question have you read what he has written?

          • Timar

            Could you please stop to intentionally misunderstand me? I have never questioned Dr. Cooks credibility nor did I mean to do so.

            Yes, I have read most of the paper. In contains some formal and conceptual errors that would prevent it from passing peer-review in its current form, even if it concerned a much less controversial subject.

          • Bernie777

            You said, “I don’t want to sound disrespectful towards Dr. Cook, but I find it a bit disappointing that the “mainstream physics professor” Rossi alluded to in his recents statements turns out a psychologist and system theorist working at an informatics department.” I simply asked if you had read anything Dr. Cook has written before this paper with Rossi, like, http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/534

  • Timar

    I don’t want to sound disrespectful towards Dr. Cook, but I find it a bit disappointing that the “mainstream physics professor” Rossi alluded to in his recents statements turns out a psychologist and system theorist working at an informatics department.

    • AdrianAshfield

      Getting a degree is what is required to get a job. What you learn after that is likely more important if you can think and read a lot. eg. Freeman Dyson only got a BA.
      Cook has published 123 papers, many on nuclear physics.

      • AlbertNN

        But the thing is that Dr. Cook has mainly published within the field of psychology. It is not only his education, but his profession and expertise. What somewhat puzzles me is that he now is employed as a professor of computer science.

        https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=VJJTciMAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate

        • Omega Z

          You often see people working in fields other then how their labeled.
          And we also don’t know what course were taken. Only the Major.

        • Bernie Koppenhofer

          Please, read what he has written before jumping to conclusions like this.

          • AlbertNN

            I did first read, and then write.

      • Timar

        Sure, but Dr. Cook has his own fringe theories in physics – they are anything but “mainstream”. That he has no formal education in physics doesn’t help his case.

        • Freethinker

          Timar,

          what with the fringe theories in physics? As far as I see he is not alone, and he is published.

          Like ParallelB point out he has 123 papers. I cannot vouch for the amount, but I see some of his papers at ADS:

          http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/basic_connect?qsearch=%22Cook%2C+Norman+D%22&version=1

          Would it be nice if he was the poster scientist of MS physics?

          Sure.

          • GreenWin

            Free, isn’t it predictable these guys with no formal nuclear training come up with fringe ideas like lattice-based nucleons? Is it possible “educational bias” limits our imagination potential and thereby, empirical knowledge?

          • Bob Greenyer

            I totally agree with this view.

          • Timar

            That’s a good point and certainly true. My point and disappointment however is that this paper won’t be taken seriously by a larger audience, which I was hoping for when Rossi declared that he was working together with a mainstream physicist.

          • psi2u2

            Exactly.

        • AdrianAshfield

          Main stream physicists have had had 25 years to come up with a theory. Most, particularly the hot fusion guys, prefer to dismiss LENR without even looking, or feel it threatens their grants. Not the field of candidates most likely to come up with a new solution as they have already demonstrated.

          Rossi was right, it will take the sale of commercial LENRs before they will accept it. No paper is likely to do it. The 1 MW plant might at the end of the year and I will bet there will be those that claim it is still a fraud even then..

          A theory will be useful in the long run, but will make little difference to current progress. Only demonstrations from groups like MFMP will help speed things up.
          Non group-think scientists like Cook, or a very young scientist, are the most likely to crack the problem.

        • psi2u2

          In my experience, terminology like “fringe theory” is often indicative of an unwillingness to deal in an honest manner with existing evidence.

          • bachcole

            How perfectly well said!!!!! You really are a Shakespearean scholar. Perfect prose aligned with psychological insight. (:->)

          • psi2u2

            Well, I have watched the abuse of such terms at Wikipedia for years now. The people that hide behind them have no business trying to edit a comprehensive encyclopedia, but what can you say, the peter principle is alive and well at Wikipedia and sometimes elsewhere to boot.

        • Donk970

          I have zero formal education in computer science and yet I manage to consistently earn a nice six figure salary writing computer software. A formal education builds your credentials in the academic world but out in the real world where real work is being done it isn’t as important as what you actually know.

          • bachcole

            Likewise exactly, except I didn’t get to the six figure level. And I had a lot of fun being creative.

    • bachcole

      Timar, I understand completely.

      For outsiders, this is NOT going to look good. They won’t look deep enough to see what parallelB has to say, that Cook has published more than 100 papers or that Freeman Dyson only had a B.A.

      But for insiders, Cook is good enough for me. But this would definitely be a case of preaching to the choir. I already believe; I don’t really need Cook to convince me of anything, and I don’t give a fig how it works. It is the “outsiders” that need to be convinced.

      • Timar

        Thank you Roger. Many responding to my comment seem to have misunderstood my intentions. Dr. Cook is certainly a very interesting scientist with an unusual breadth of interests and an eclectic list of publications. However, this paper won’t further Rossi’s credibility – particularly not after announcing Cook as a “mainstream physicist”.

        • bachcole

          The day will come and is fast approaching when Andrea Rossi will be defining what is “mainstream” and what is credible.

          • Timar

            I hope so.

    • Ged

      I find this diagram very instructive at times like this when trying to discuss any subject: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/grahams-hierarchy-of-disagreement.png

      • Timar

        No ad hominem here. Only taking Rossi on his words and being concerned about him further damaging his credibility.

        I’m in fact “refuting the central point” of what Rossi recently said: that he would be publishing a paper together with a “mainstream physicist”.

        • Guest

          This is purely a terminological quibble combined with insincere posturing.

        • Ged

          Nope, not quite. Talking about “credibility” as you are is indeed ad hominem. You aren’t refuting the idea of Cook being “mainstream” yet, or elevated your comment to refutation (and Cook being “mainstream” has nothing to do with this paper or its arguments, so you are light years away from the central point of this news piece), because you have simply failed to define clearly what “mainstream” is and by which exacting criteria it is determined. Until you do, the argument is stuck in ad hom as we have no material or evidence with which to discuss the validity of your claim.

          • Timar

            This is silly quibbling. Dr. Cook is a psychologist and his areas of interest in physics are certainly not “mainstream” (Or do you consider LENR mainstream?)

            Rossi’s introduction of Dr. Cook as a “mainstream physicist” is a blatant misstatement by any meaningful definition. Period.

          • Ged

            You have yet to define “mainstream” , so how can anyone agree or disagree with you? Your argument hardly exists.

            But let’s actually look at Dr. Cook’s record. Other than publishing a book on atomic physics, I count at least 15 peer reviewed non-LENR publications of his in physics journals on atomic physics, such as this one https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=VJJTciMAAAAJ&citation_for_view=VJJTciMAAAAJ:UebtZRa9Y70C

            That number of publications is above the ~10-12 or so papers needed to gain tenure in physics (depending on sub disciplin and institution). Doesn’t mean he would, but it does show that by standard academic advancement metrics he is an accomplished physicist. The fact he is also a psychologist is imaterial, other than showing he has a broad range of interests and flexibility, as well as success in disparate fields.

    • Private5

      This guy loves “medal show” but does not like substance or most importantly evidence. Theory must be based on evidence and be testable, not the other way around. Anything that named “mainstream” is good for protected “interests” or resisting change. Is this theory testable and making predictions ? That’s all one should care about.

      • Timar

        This guy loves honest and credible information but does not like exaggerations or most importantly distortion of facts.

        For whom is this paper? For those like us who are already convinced about the reality of the E-Cat? Or is it to be taken seriously by a larger, skeptical audience? If so, it completely fails on its purpose.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      Please, have you read what he has written?

      • Timar

        It is not about what Dr. Cook has written but what Rossi has written in the past. He said he was writing a paper together with a “mainstream physicist”, to be published under “peer-review”. This is a serious distortion of facts that doesn’t help Rossi’s credibility. Neither is Dr. Cook a physicist – let alone a mainstream physicist – nor has this paper been peer-reviewed. In fact, in its current form it wouldn’t have any chance to pass the peer-review of a physics journal.

        • Bernie Koppenhofer

          Answer the question have you read what he has written?

          • Timar

            Could you please stop to intentionally misunderstand me? I have never questioned Dr. Cooks credibility nor did I mean to do so.

            Yes, I have read most of the paper. In contains some formal and conceptual errors that would prevent it from passing peer-review in its current form, even if it concerned a much less controversial subject.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            You said, “I don’t want to sound disrespectful towards Dr. Cook, but I find it a bit disappointing that the “mainstream physics professor” Rossi alluded to in his recents statements turns out a psychologist and system theorist working at an informatics department.” I simply asked you if you have read anything Dr. Cook as written before this paper with Rossi, like: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/534

        • bachcole

          Timar, I take it that you believe that for a person to be qualified in a field they must have academic credentials. Is this true? Please don’t jump away from this. We have already seen that academia has dropped the ball big time on LENR (and a bunch of other subjects, anything that is not popular). So please tell me why Cook needs academic credentials. I am glad that he doesn’t have academic credentials.

          Einstein didn’t have academic credentials; he had the equivalent of a bachelors in mathematical physics. Newton didn’t have academic credentials; they hadn’t been formed yet in 1666. Now we are on the cusp of a major paradigm shift, just like Newton and Einstein, and you still demand academic credentials.

          • Timar

            No, I don’t think so. Not necessarily. I did not mean to question Dr. Cooks qualification on this subject. My point was all about credibility and public perception.

          • bachcole

            You’re right. I agree 100%.

            But I don’t care. If the skeptics and skeptopaths disbelieve, then that will mean a greater overthrow of the established order, which we so desperately need.

    • bachcole

      Read the titles of the papers that he wrote. Then get back to us, unless you have a problem with genius and renaissance men.

  • Guru

    If folks carefully read Rossi’s adds (amendment) into his Patent App, You saw: “and reactor tube must be from Copper, it very important detail is not described in Piantelli/competitors patent app. Simply copper tube of reactor must be”.
    So copper mysteriously missed in all later writings, tests, analyses and also in his theory or it is another disinfo this time in patent app. Another real reason for rejecting Rossi patent app.

    • Omega Z

      If I recall, the Lt E-cat was stainless steel core with a copper outer shell & a thin layer of lead.

  • Mats002

    And getting those s-electrons up and dancing right 😉

  • Omega Z

    Rossi owes the world absolutely squat.
    If at the end of the pilot plant test & if the results are positive, this technology will be turned loose to the world. At that point, the world will owe Rossi everything.

  • GreenWin

    Excellent suggestion Hank. And I think you’re moving correctly, to assume the vapour phase would better enter Storms’ NAEs. I shall take a stab at such comparison later today or tonight (need to reread Ikegami .) However, I am schooled in Fine Arts, not physics!

    • Freethinker

      You will do just fine. I too would like to know what you find.

  • ecatworld
  • Freethinker

    Upon reading it more closely, I find the paper compelling, and they are very careful to isolate the area of the work to one piece of the puzzle, ever so often explaining the bounds of their reasoning. It is a paper exploring an idea, not something intended to settle anything.

    Even though it was not what I expected, I find the paper worth while. How much Rossi (and Focardi in extension) has contributed is not easy to see, although, at the end of the day, that does not matter. I think this can be a good paper, after fixing some minor issues, if they can find any journal willing to step up.

    If you check some of Cooks previous stuff you might recognize some concepts and wordings:

    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/papers/Cook-LENR-and-Nuclear-Structure-ICCF17-ps.pdf
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.3338v2.pdf
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.4251.pdf

    • Omega Z

      “It is a paper exploring an idea, not something intended to settle anything.”

      That was my 1st thought & I only skimmed it.
      It appears to me they are proposing an rough Idea & looking for others to provide some outside input to expand on it..

    • GreenWin

      I agree Free. And thanks for encouragement to read in detail the authors’ work. Next, will look to Ikegami for hints as to how Li isotopes at low excitable states – participate in vast release of energy seen in cosmic supernova.

      • Mats002

        The common concept knitting Ikegami paper to Rossi theory is the s-electron? It will pass through the p and make it an n. That is the new finding. After that transmutation paths by geometry. Still confused why Li s-electrons is the only way to initiate – if so.

        • GreenWin

          Hi Mats, I have to read the Ikegami again. The s-electron is apparently heavy enough to mask the p into a “real” or pseudo-neutron. Frankly, I find IPM to be the “digital” equivalent to an analog model of the atom. Suggesting Schrödinger’s experiment proves an analog universe until annoying humans collapse the river.

          But then, I also tend to think “science” is an infant subset of Art. 🙂

  • Freethinker

    Upon reading it more closely, I find the paper compelling, and they are very careful to isolate the area of the work to one piece of the puzzle, ever so often explaining the bounds of their reasoning. It is a paper exploring an idea, not something intended to settle anything.

    Even though it was not what I expected, I find the paper worth while. How much Rossi (and Focardi in extension) has contributed is not easy to see, although, at the end of the day, that does not matter. I think this can be a good paper, after fixing some minor issues, if they can find any journal willing to step up.

    If you check some of Cooks previous stuff you might recognize some concepts and wordings:

    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/papers/Cook-LENR-and-Nuclear-Structure-ICCF17-ps.pdf
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.3338v2.pdf
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.4251.pdf

    • Omega Z

      “It is a paper exploring an idea, not something intended to settle anything.”

      That was my 1st thought & I only skimmed it.
      It appears to me they are proposing an rough Idea & looking for others to provide some outside input to expand on it..

    • GreenWin

      I agree Free. And thanks for encouragement to read in detail the authors’ work. Next, will look to Ikegami for hints as to how Li isotopes at low excitable states – participate in vast release of energy seen in cosmic supernova.

      • Mats002

        The common concept knitting Ikegami paper to Rossi theory is the s-electron? It will pass through the p and make it an n. That is the new finding. After that transmutation paths by geometry. Still confused why Li s-electrons is the only way to initiate – if so.

        • GreenWin

          Hi Mats, I have to read the Ikegami again. The s-electron is apparently heavy enough to mask the p into a “real” or pseudo-neutron. Frankly, I find IPM to be the “digital” equivalent to an analog model of the atom. Suggesting Schrödinger’s experiment proves an analog universe until annoying humans collapse the river.

          But then, I also tend to think “science” is an infant subset of Art. 🙂

  • Freethinker

    I think you want to find more than meet the eye in Cook&Rossi’s paper. I do not think there can be much of a comparison.

  • Bernie777

    Please, are we returning to the subject of “Rossi should release his secrets to the world”? That was discussed years ago. Rossi believes the free market system is the best and most efficient way to bring LENR into the market, only by subjecting LENR to market forces will it reach its potential for good. You
    have to remember Rossi is a product of his experience with his previous inventions. I believe he thought others would be able to duplicate his results much faster than they have. He is slowly revealing his secrets; he just wants a head start with his commercial E-Cat products. He is Edison with the light bulb, did Edison reveal all his secrets?

    • That was not the point I was making. Theories change, but pragmatic results pay the bills.

      Now that you bring up the topic, as soon as the first E-Cat is sold to consumers and industry on a normal basis, the consumers/owners will have the right to open it up and see how it works. There will be no secrets once it hits the market. Toyota sells allot of Corollas despite the fact that the Corolla’s design is not a secret. When companies all over the world start competing to produce LENR devices and actually have products to sell, that is when the biggest breakthroughs in design and efficiency will be made. LED televisions have become a commodity like pork bellies, and prices have fallen and quality has gone up tremendously. The more minds working on the physics of LENR the better.

      • Bernie777

        Sorry Christopher you misunderstood, I was not replying to you, more to Robert Ellefson.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Please, are we returning to the subject of “Rossi should release his secrets to the world”? That was discussed years ago. Rossi believes the free market system is the best and most efficient way to bring LENR into the market, only by subjecting LENR to market forces will it reach its potential for good. You
    have to remember Rossi is a product of his experience with his previous inventions. I believe he thought others would be able to duplicate his results much faster than they have. He is slowly revealing his secrets; he just wants a head start with his commercial E-Cat products. He is Edison with the light bulb, did Edison reveal all his secrets?

    • Robert Ellefson

      Edison was an awful person with inferior technology. He not only didn’t invent the light bulb, he also didn’t perfect it, despite the common misconception. GE hired Langmuir to improve the light bulb from Edison’s version, and in doing so, Langmuir invented the modern concept of basic applied scientific research. Out of this research came the light bulb design that endured until recently. Similarly, once better scientists and engineers than Rossi are able to improve on the E-cat basis, the world will be much better-off.

      • Omega Z

        Then they should get busy. Why are they waiting on Rossi.

      • bachcole

        He seems pretty sharp to me. Remember that one of his (life’s) job description is to be paradigm shifting nimble, a very rare quality. And he does so without allowing his feet to leave the ground (become a hair-brained unicorn thinker). He also had to have the courage to keep going even when he was out there all alone, outside of the box. He was even courageous enough to sell (or mortgage) his house to make this happen. That is what we call “cojones”. Could you or I do that?

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        Ha, we are debating who invented the light bulb! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Edison

    • That was not the point I was making. Theories change, but pragmatic results pay the bills.

      Now that you bring up the topic, as soon as the first E-Cat is sold to consumers and industry on a normal basis, the consumers/owners will have the right to open it up and see how it works. There will be no secrets once it hits the market. Toyota sells allot of Corollas despite the fact that the Corolla’s design is not a secret. When companies all over the world start competing to produce LENR devices and actually have products to sell, that is when the biggest breakthroughs in design and efficiency will be made. LED televisions have become a commodity like pork bellies, and prices have fallen and quality has gone up tremendously. The more minds working on the physics of LENR the better.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        Sorry Christopher you misunderstood, I was not replying to you, more to Robert Ellefson.

  • What interests me the most is that Andrea Rossi stated that the Lugano test results made him alter his fuel mixture. Rossi claims that alteration improved the E-Cat performance remarkably. So you learn something through testing and then you make an improvement to the design that increases COP, which can be measured in the real world. Theories only really mean something to the human race if they bring tangible results. If we ever get Rossi to tell us what fuel changes he made and why, that would be helpful to everyone in the field.

  • What interests me the most is that Andrea Rossi stated that the Lugano test results made him alter his fuel mixture. Rossi claims that alteration improved the E-Cat performance remarkably. So you learn something through testing and then you make an improvement to the design that increases COP, which can be measured in the real world. Theories only really mean something to the human race if they bring tangible results. If we ever get Rossi to tell us what fuel changes he made and why, that would be helpful to everyone in the field.

  • guga

    I was so excited about these news, but it turns out it is not a good thing. The professor is certainly not a mainstream physicist. And a paper that cites articles from ecatworld.com? Certainly I like ecatworld.com, but it is far from a scientific journal. That won’t do any good to the reputation of LENR science.

    • Freethinker

      It is a preprint, a first revision. Sure, there are two e-catworld links – I reacted on that too – but when you see where they point it is difficult to do otherwise. Parkhomov and Gullström might soon have more relevant homes for their papers. If not, then they will likely be removed. If it is intended for a journal, it will have to be cleaned.

      He has published quite a bit in physics. He is not a nobody.

    • Obvious

      Compared to Rossi, Cook is very mainstream.

    • anotherone
  • guga

    I was so excited about these news, but it turns out it is not a good thing. The professor is certainly not a mainstream physicist. And a paper that cites articles from ecatworld.com? Certainly I like ecatworld.com, but it is far from a scientific journal. That won’t do any good to the reputation of LENR science.

    • Freethinker

      It is a preprint, a first revision. Sure, there are two e-catworld links – I reacted on that too – but when you see where they point it is difficult to do otherwise. Parkhomov and Gullström might soon have more relevant homes for their papers. If not, then they will likely be removed. If it is intended for a journal, it will have to be cleaned.

      He has published quite a bit in physics. He is not a nobody.

      In Edit:
      I read at Rossi’s blog that he considered it to be peer reviewed as when published at ArXiv. He has expressed that view before. It is a preprint database, and not really to be considered a journal with normal peer reviewing. Likely this is the publishing according to Rossi.

      I do hope they/he fix the reference problems, as their reference indices’s does not quite fit the reference list. I do not expect them to correct the web based references to e-catworld in that case.

    • Obvious

      Compared to Rossi, Cook is very mainstream.

    • anotherone
      • bachcole

        Wow. I wouldn’t call Cook mainstream. Looking over just the titles of his papers, I would call him perhaps the reincarnation of Leonardo DaVinci. A genius and a true renaissance man. He seems to have very heavy duty understanding of music, psychology, nuclear physics, and perhaps a few more I didn’t catch.

        • Bob Greenyer

          He is a very fine individual

          • bachcole

            Have you met him, or are you basing that on his articles resume? I cannot see that his articles resume would necessarily mean that he is a very fine individual. My definition of a very fine individual would necessarily require many character virtues.

          • Bob Greenyer

            I met him at ICCF18 and had the pleasure of a jovial conversation with him in the back of a car on the way to the final dinner. We discussed his theory in relation to Carpinteri Piezo Nuclear Fission, my feeling that the earths core heat was LENR and other matters.

        • Curbina

          The kind of people that has a wide point of view and can recognize patterns. The “universal man” which orthodox science tends to scoff at while alive, just to make them demi-gods decades after their demise when others start to find the truth on their publications.

          • bachcole

            The name of Alfred Wegener jumps into my mind. Long before I was an LENR freak, I found it very ironic that there are is an institute in Germany named after him.

  • Freethinker

    😀

  • Obvious

    They weren’t looking for cold fusion. Smashing individual particles apart with near light speed velocities and high energies is quite nearly the opposite. CF is all about assembling things at relatively low energies.

  • bachcole

    So, the date is perhaps 2009 and Rossi has this “fire” but he doesn’t have the money to develop it. That means that he knew that he would not be able to pay himself and a bunch of engineers to work for 4 years without getting anything in return. He thought about giving his technology away, but then realized that he would die a pauper. And he could not expect a bunch of engineers to put in 10 hour days 365 days per year for the sake of charity, so he decided to get some funding. Everyone laughed at him. Finally Industrial Heat offered to help, but when Rossi said that he wanted their help but he wanted to give the technology away, Industrial Heat backed out, walked out, and Rossi had a heart attack and died and the the technology died with him. And the human race died in a swamp of pollution.

    Wait, that didn’t happen. Back up the reel to “Finally Industrial Heat offered to help” and “Rossi realized that we live in an interlocking web of financial need and that it was stupid and unkind to expect Industrial Heat to tolerate his giving the technology away. So the technology thrived and the human race lived happily ever after.” The End.

    • GreenWin

      Your holistic life approach is damned impressive Roger. Thanks for sharing it!

  • Obvious

    The properties of atoms have nothing to say about trees that can grow, be cut into boards, and nailed together to make a house.

    • bachcole

      I have rethought this. It is not the paradigm that is broken, but rather the means by which we “see” the atom is (too) limited due to the extremely high speed particles that we are slamming together.

  • Omega Z

    Then they should get busy. Why are they waiting on Rossi.

  • Omega Z

    If I recall, the Lt E-cat was stainless steel core with a copper outer shell & a thin layer of lead.

  • Axil Axil

    https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/36817/SimulationNuclearTransmutationPresentation.pdf?sequence=2

    Simulation of the Nuclear Transmutation Effects in LENR … the presentation form ICCF-18

    Cook states as follows: Interestingly, Ni61 was not strongly depleted
    – apparently not participating in the LENR

    What Cook has not yet recognized is that each LENR system produces a different pattern of nuclear transmutations that is based of the chemistry associated with that system.

    There is an endless number of transmutation patterns that will be produced by any given LENR system. It is useless to assume that these patterns are meaningful as a cause of the LENR reaction. They are a RESULT of a particular type of reaction happening at any given time in any given system.

  • hempenearth

    Well done Frank, two E-Cat world posts named in the references!

    • Axil Axil

      Besides reading physics for two hours a day , Rossi spends at least some time getting his jollies by watching us struggle to figure out how his systems work both in theory and experimental design, setup, and execution. He deserves a good laugh every now and then because he deserves some comic relief having worked so hard day and night in those lonely shipping containers.

      • GreenWin

        Axil, I think you’re right. Anyone dedicating the time Rossi has to an “Impossible Dream” deserves not only a healthy laugh, but the sound of others joining in.

  • Axil Axil

    https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/36817/SimulationNuclearTransmutationPresentation.pdf?sequence=2

    Simulation of the Nuclear Transmutation Effects in LENR … the presentation form ICCF-18

    Cook states as follows: Interestingly, Ni61 was not strongly depleted
    – apparently not participating in the LENR

    What Cook has not yet recognized is that each LENR system produces a different pattern of nuclear transmutations that is based of the chemistry associated with that system.

    There is an endless number of transmutation patterns that will be produced by any given LENR system. It is useless to assume that these patterns are meaningful as a cause of the LENR reaction. They are a RESULT of a particular type of reaction happening at any given time in any given system.

  • hempenearth

    Well done Frank, two E-Cat world posts named in the references!

    • Axil Axil

      Besides reading physics for two hours a day , Rossi spends at least some time getting his jollies by watching us struggle to figure out how his systems work both in theory and experimental design, setup, and execution. He deserves a good laugh every now and then. Yes, Rossi deserves some comic relief having worked so hard day and night in those lonely shipping containers.

      Then Rossi thinks to himself and smiles…”I know what I can tell them tomorrow on my blog…that will confuse the heck out of them.”

      • GreenWin

        Axil, I think you’re right. Anyone dedicating the time Rossi has to an “Impossible Dream” deserves not only a healthy laugh, but the sound of others joining in.

  • private5

    Speculatively, the warm ecat may have a different nuclear transmutation pathway. The temperature is not high enough to melt lithium.

    • US_Citizen71

      Not necessarily, a large thermal mass surrounding the core can spread the heat and reduce the temperature measured on the exterior.

  • private5

    Speculatively, the warm ecat may have a different nuclear transmutation pathway. The temperature is not high enough to melt lithium.

  • BroKeeper

    This is great news.

    Ever since the conception of nuclear processes it has been expressed in either one of two major events of fusion or fission events. Now it is granularly defined in the field of LENR/E-Cat with the fusion process of a proton with a lower nuclide element of 7Li4 atom followed by a fission splitting process of 8Be4 into two alpha particles. This is a phase process of fusion and fission resulting in high kinetic energized elements (without gamma photons).

    I find either term, fusion or fission, an inadequate singular description for what is occurring in the E-Cat. In fact the longer the E-Cat operates more isotopes are likely to be created and therefore the numerous multifaceted nuclear processes increase under a controlled catalyst of nickel and temperature. Maybe combining the terms fusion and fission into a singular term ‘phasion’ better describes the diverse Rossi Effect nuclear processes. Congrats Andrea Rossi!

    • Mats002

      The reaction can be initiated with 7Li3 only? Is this common for all LENR systems?

      • BroKeeper

        No sir.

  • Brokeeper

    This is great news.

    Ever since the conception of nuclear processes it has been expressed in either one of two major events of fusion or fission events. Now it is granularly defined in the field of LENR/E-Cat with the fusion process of a proton with a lower nuclide element of 7Li3 atom followed by a fission splitting process of 8Be4 into two alpha particles. This is a phase process of fusion and fission resulting in high kinetic energized elements (without gamma radiation).

    I find either term, fusion or fission, an inadequate singular description for what is occurring in the E-Cat. In fact the longer the E-Cat operates more isotopes are likely to be created and therefore the numerous multifaceted nuclear processes increase under a controlled catalyst of nickel and temperature. Maybe combining the terms fusion and fission into a singular term something like ‘phasion’ to better describe the diverse Rossi Effect nuclear processes.

    Congrats Andrea Rossi!

    • Mats002

      The reaction can be initiated with 7Li3 only? Is this common for all LENR systems?

      • Brokeeper

        No sir.

  • bachcole

    He seems pretty sharp to me. Remember that one of his (life’s) job description is to be paradigm shifting nimble, a very rare quality. And he does so without allowing his feet to leave the ground (become a hair-brained unicorn thinker). He also had to have the courage to keep going even when he was out there all alone, outside of the box. He was even courageous enough to sell (or mortgage) his house to make this happen. That is what we call “cojones”. Could you or I do that?

  • parallelB

    Ellefson,
    You specialize in ad hominems and have not added anything useful to the thread.
    You don’t have a clue whether others would do better than Rossi and ignore the fact the various E-Cats are now being developed by Industrial Heat LLC.

    You never answered my previous question.
    As you criticize Rossi, why haven’t you developed a LENR reactor and come up with a theory of how it works yourself?

  • GreenWin

    Apologies to educated physicists. On reading Cook-Rossi paper I first find it refreshingly absent claims to irrefutable fact. A good indicator of open-mindedness in my experience. Two items resonate with me,

    1) The paper suggests a geometric or “lattice” interpretation of IPM currently in vogue. The authors describe a tetrahedron lattice of four nucleons depicting IPM n, j, and m shells and subshells as spherical, cylindrical, and conical, graphic representations. This is IMO a benefit to understanding underlying mathematics as some of us more visually inclined can better “see” the math and structure of a geometric model.

    2) The paper sets out only to suggest ideas that may spark communal thought; the most significant of which is IMO: “The coincidence that both 7Li4 and 61Ni33 are stable J=3/2 isotopes with low lying excited states (<0.4MeV) is suggestive that the unanticipated phenomena of LENR may be a consequence of the detailed substructure of easily excited stable isotopes."

    This appears to be a relevant area in which a minimum of energy is required to (forgive the Emeril analogy) “Kick the isotopes up a notch!”

    Finally, I find it indicative of the confiscatory nature of mainstream science (i.e. skeptics here) to question the authority with which Dr. Cook writes. It seems obvious from the flood of published papers on all manner of sciences – that he deservedly qualifies. Note to Hank, need a bit more time to compare Ikegami. Hopefully an extension is possible. 🙂

    • AlbertNN

      If you refer to me, I would like to clarify that I did not question his authority, but the notion of him being a “mainstream scientist, a University Prof of Physics”, as claimed by Rossi.

    • lepthadrelix

      The most interesting point for me was that the IPM Lattice model offer the possibility of transmutation pathways that were not visible in the “nucleon gas” model of intra-nuclear relationships.

      Page 6, section 2.3:

      —————————————-
      “While the IPM accurately specifies the properties of excited-states (as was illustrated for the level diagram of 15Ni8 , Figure 3), the conventional Fermi-gas-like perspective on nuclear structure explicitly denies the possibility of nuclear substructure (beyond that implied by
      deformations of the nuclear potential well).

      In contrast, the lattice representation of the IPM makes precisely the same predictions concerning the quantal properties of nuclei (Eqs. 1-6), but the lattice structures can also be used to specify the “stereochemical” structure of nuclei.

      In other words, because there are specific, often unique, lattice structures corresponding to each and every ground- and excited-state, the lattice version of the IPM provides candidate structures that are involved in various nuclear reactions.

      If the high temperature, high-pressure conditions within the E-Cat provide sufficient energy to allow Hydrogen nuclei to overcome the Coulomb barrier and to approach Lithium nuclei, then the Lithium nucleus itself may be promoted to lowlying excited states.

      An interaction between Hydrogen and Lithium nuclei within appropriate solid-state environments could then be accompanied by certain types of LENR that depend principally on the detailed substructure of the Lithium isotope.”
      ——————————–

      I can’t follow the math, however, more structure at smaller scales has always been a major way forward in science.

  • GreenWin

    What is fun is not knowing exactly how phenomena happen, but that they do happen — beyond our understanding. This is IMO a form of learning that accepts the unknown, with delight in the potential to be known. More to celebrate. 🙂

  • Bernie777

    Ha, we are debating who invented the light bulb!

  • Obvious

    Another possibly related factoid is that stars do not have lithium and nickel at the same time, and neither do they occur together geologically on Earth, and probably nowhere else in normal circumstances. They have to be put together on purpose. Natural equivalents do not occur.

  • Bob Greenyer

    He is a very fine individual

  • Timar

    This guy loves honest and credible information but does not like exaggerations or most importantly distortion of facts.

    For whom is this paper? For those like us who are already convinced about the reality of the E-Cat? Or is it to be taken seriously by a larger audience? If so, it completely fails on its purpose.

  • Timar

    Thank you Roger. Many responding to my comment seem to have misunderstood my intentions. Dr. Cook is certainly a very interesting scientist with an unusual breadth of interests and an eclectic list of publications. However, this paper won’t further Rossi’s credibility.

  • Curbina

    The kind of people that has a wide point of view and can recognize patterns. The “universal man” which orthodox science tends to scoff at while alive, just to make them demi-gods decades after their demise when others start to find the truth on their publications.

  • Curbina

    I think there’s a cofusion between mainstream and concensus of the majority. The bleeding edge of science has never been a place of consensus.

  • Curbina

    I think there’s a confusion between mainstream and consensus of the majority. The bleeding edge of science has never been a place of consensus.

    • bachcole

      By definition. The problem is the abuse, defunding, and marginalization that these heroes have to endure. I can understand not giving funding to every person with a proposal. But the abuse, castigation, and marginalization is counter productive and cruel.

  • Curbina

    This is the book that, according to Rossi, needs to be read side by side to Cook’s book to be fully understood. http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-642-60970-1

  • Curbina

    This is the book that, according to Rossi, needs to be read side by side to Cook’s book to be fully understood. http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-642-60970-1

  • Bernie777

    I am waiting for the reaction of Storms, McKubre, Hagelstein, Duncan, Swartz, so far the silence has been deafening.

    • Bob Greenyer

      It may be that there are many pieces to the puzzle and they are held by various researchers – but the tendency is to build a new puzzle around their piece rather than allow merit to be accorded to the value in an explanation for other aspects of what is going on.

      Regardless of if the theory as presented is right or not, one thing I like about this paper is that it does not attempt to explain everything by stretching one idea.

      • Bernie777

        Hi Bob: Yes, I agree. I hope they (and you) are taking the Rossi/Cook presentation and building on it. Rossi/Cook is a starting point, it is too complicated for one or two heads, need a lot of them working together. Please add your knowledge and expertise.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    I am waiting for the reaction of Storms, McKubre, Hagelstein, Duncan, Swartz, so far the silence has been deafening.

    • Bob Greenyer

      It may be that there are many pieces to the puzzle and they are held by various researchers – but the tendency is to build a new puzzle around their piece rather than allow merit to be accorded to the value in an explanation for other aspects of what is going on.

      Regardless of if the theory as presented is right or not, one thing I like about this paper is that it does not attempt to explain everything by stretching one idea.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        Hi Bob: Yes, I agree. I hope they (and you) are taking the Rossi/Cook presentation and building on it. Rossi/Cook is a starting point, it is too complicated for one or two heads, need a lot of them working together. Please add your knowledge and expertise.

    • bachcole

      That deafening sound that you hear is your own expectations of those gentlemen reacting according to your timetable. They are probably busy and probably would like to read over the paper carefully and think about it.

  • parallelB

    This book may provide some insights about Lithium for those willing to wade through it.
    http://www.roxit.ax/CN.pdf

    “During the past over one century we have conceived in imagination that any nuclear
    transitions i.e. nuclear reactions and decays are never induced by chemical reactions of
    atoms and molecules surrounding the reactant nuclei. However, in metallic hydrogen and
    lithium liquids consisting of collective mobile s-electrons, nuclear transitions are subjected
    to the thermodynamic activity of the liquids revealed in the spontaneous coupled chemical
    transitions through the coupling between the nuclei and the collective s-electrons.
    Typical examples are chemonuclear fusion in the metallic Li liquids where the slow
    nuclear collisions are coupled with atomic collisions and result in the astronomically
    enhanced nuclear fusion. In the liquids, enormously enhanced nuclear decays are also
    induced. Here, the s-electron density respect to the nuclear positions plays the essential
    role through the coupling between the nuclear transitions and the spontaneous atomic and
    molecular transitions. In the liquids, all these extraordinary enhancement mechanisms are
    strictly subjected to the thermodynamic force specied by the Gibbs energy changes in
    the transitions.
    This conclusion would be an extension of Einstein’s unwavering condence that thermo-
    dynamics is not based on any hypothesis.
    The chemonuclear transitions would provide a great boon to mankind.”

  • AdrianAshfield

    This book may provide some insights about Lithium for those willing to wade through it.
    http://www.roxit.ax/CN.pdf

    “During the past over one century we have conceived in imagination that any nuclear
    transitions i.e. nuclear reactions and decays are never induced by chemical reactions of
    atoms and molecules surrounding the reactant nuclei. However, in metallic hydrogen and
    lithium liquids consisting of collective mobile s-electrons, nuclear transitions are subjected
    to the thermodynamic activity of the liquids revealed in the spontaneous coupled chemical
    transitions through the coupling between the nuclei and the collective s-electrons.
    Typical examples are chemonuclear fusion in the metallic Li liquids where the slow
    nuclear collisions are coupled with atomic collisions and result in the astronomically
    enhanced nuclear fusion. In the liquids, enormously enhanced nuclear decays are also
    induced. Here, the s-electron density respect to the nuclear positions plays the essential
    role through the coupling between the nuclear transitions and the spontaneous atomic and
    molecular transitions. In the liquids, all these extraordinary enhancement mechanisms are
    strictly subjected to the thermodynamic force specied by the Gibbs energy changes in
    the transitions.
    This conclusion would be an extension of Einstein’s unwavering condence that thermo-
    dynamics is not based on any hypothesis.
    The chemonuclear transitions would provide a great boon to mankind.”

  • Timar

    I hope so.

  • Timar

    No, I don’t think so. Not necessarily. I did not mean to question Dr. Cooks qualification on this subject. My point was all about credibility and public perception.

  • Bob Greenyer

    I met him at ICCF18 and had the pleasure of a jovial conversation with him in the back of a car on the way to the final dinner. We discussed his theory in relation to Carpinteri Piezo Nuclear Fission, my feeling that the earths core heat was LENR and other matters.

  • Axil Axil

    The ultimate cause of LENR is rooted in the nuckeus of the atom. Rossi as the most infuencial authourity on LENR has bought into the lattice theory of the nucleus where subatomic particles are immutable and static as cue balls cemented in a block of stone. This view of the nucleus is counterproductive to the ultimate understanding to what is the nuclear mechanics of LENR as will be eventually revealed. Protons and neutrons together with all their subatomic helpers: the pions, mesons, and the various nuclear forces are dynamic and unpredictable in the extreme.

    The nucleus is a Quantum Cheshire Cat living in a zero point virtual particle zoo where its parts change without reason or apparent cause. A fixed and unchanging lattice is counterproductive to the understanding of such a quantium mechanical reality. Cook’s lattice theory will block understanding of how LENR works inside that kind of slippery subatomic world. In my view, LENR is complex and mysterious. Rossi has now bought into a simplistic mental structure that rejects the force driven transmutation of subatomic particles that I believe is at the heart of LENR. The lattice model is at most an engineering aid that predicts some mainline nuclear processes but lacks the conceptual penetration power to look deeply into LENR causation.

  • Axil Axil

    The ultimate cause of LENR is rooted in the nuckeus of the atom. Rossi as the most infuencial authourity on LENR has bought into the lattice theory of the nucleus where subatomic particles are immutable and static as cue balls cemented in a block of stone. This view of the nucleus is counterproductive to the ultimate understanding to what is the nuclear mechanics of LENR as will be eventually revealed. Protons and neutrons together with all their subatomic helpers: the pions, mesons, and the various nuclear forces are dynamic and unpredictable in the extreme.

    The nucleus is a Quantum Cheshire Cat living in a zero point virtual particle zoo where its parts change without reason or apparent cause. A fixed and unchanging lattice is counterproductive to the understanding of such a quantium mechanical reality. Cook’s lattice theory will block understanding of how LENR works inside that kind of slippery subatomic world. In my view, LENR is complex and mysterious. Rossi has now bought into a simplistic mental structure that rejects the force driven transmutation of subatomic particles that I believe is at the heart of LENR. The lattice model is at most an engineering aid that predicts some mainline nuclear processes but lacks the conceptual penetration power to look deeply into LENR causation.

    • jaman73

      Typos: …nucleus of the atom, most influential authority, quantum mechanical reality, …..
      Otherwise great content. 🙂

  • HiggsField

    In reading the paper (http://www.roxit.ax/CN.pdf) I get the impression that the temperature of the reaction could possibly be lowered with the addition of boron (pg 2-9). I know that borax is used to lower the melting point of gold in metal recovery from circuit boards. An I reading this right?

  • Mike Henderson

    Star Trek predicted this: dilithium crystals were the key ingredient in their power supply.

  • Mike Henderson

    Star Trek predicted this: dilithium crystals were the key ingredient in their power supply.

    • lepthadrelxi

      Hopefully the suppliers are not as tempestuous as Elaan

    • ecatworld

      Thanks Christopher.

      I’m not sure that this part is accurate (about the Gates foundation) — anyone know for sure?

      “Next week, the 19{+t}{+h} International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF-19) will take place in Italy. The ICCFs have been generally dismissed as ‘meeting of believers’ but this time around many potential investors, notably the Bill Gates Foundation is taking part in it.”

    • Frank Acland

      Thanks Christopher.

      I’m not sure that this part is accurate (about the Gates foundation) — anyone know for sure?

      “Next week, the 19{+t}{+h} International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF-19) will take place in Italy. The ICCFs have been generally dismissed as ‘meeting of believers’ but this time around many potential investors, notably the Bill Gates Foundation is taking part in it.”

  • Stephen

    I enjoyed reading the paper. It was a nice collaboration between Andrea Rossi and Norman Cook. I’m looking forward to reading their next papers especially as they develope their theory to explain more parts of LENR.

    If I understood right the Li 7 needed to be in a low excited state to absorb the proton in order to decay from Be 8 into 2 alpha particles. I was wondering how this nucleus was excited to this state. Is it the case that there are always some nuclei in excited States?

    I also noticed that the Ni reaction produced beta + emission. If this interacted with an electron then it would produce 2 gama with 512 keV. This is higher than the first excited energy level of the Li 7 nucleus 477 keV. So I’m wondering if these 2 gamma are what cause the excited state in the Li 7? I suppose the remaining 35 keV would be absorbed in recoil and may also contribute in some way to the heat?

    Does this make sense? And would it be worth mentioning to Andrea Rossi? I suppose if it is a real effect he would already have considered it.