The blog covered the topic for awhile, but moved on.
There seems to be an interest in the topic, so here's what GAB AI had to say about it.
GAB AI chat about cold fusion
There was a sensational claim in the eighties about "cold fusion". What
happened to that? Were there new developments? Please give the history
of this topic up until this very day.
Answer:
The story of "cold fusion" is one of the most famous controversies in modern
science, beginning as a global sensation and settling into a long-standing
stalemate that persists even today.
The 1989 Sensation
In March 1989, two reputable electrochemists, Martin Fleischmann (University of
Southampton) and Stanley Pons (University of Utah), announced in a press
conference that they had achieved nuclear fusion at room temperature.
They claimed their "tabletop" apparatus—a glass cell filled with heavy water and
a palladium electrode—produced more heat than could be explained by any known
chemical reaction. They hypothesized that deuterium nuclei from the heavy water
were being forced together within the palladium lattice, releasing energy.
Because fusion (as seen in stars and hydrogen bombs) typically requires millions
of degrees of heat, the scientific community was initially stunned and then
deeply skeptical.
The Immediate Backlash (1989–1990s)
The global attempt to replicate the results yielded a series of failures. Within
months, independent laboratories—including MIT and Caltech—reported that they
could not detect the "excess heat" or the nuclear byproducts (such as neutrons)
that should accompany fusion.
- Methodological Flaws: Critics identified significant errors in the duo's
calorimetry (heat measurement) and nuclear monitoring.
- DOE Review: In November 1989, a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) panel
concluded there was no convincing evidence for the phenomenon, effectively
halting federal funding and labeling the research as "pathological science."
- Academic Isolation: Fleischmann and Pons left the University of Utah for
France in 1992, and the field largely disappeared from mainstream academic
journals.
The "LENR" Transition and Continued Research
Despite the scientific consensus, a small, dedicated group of researchers
continued the work, often renaming the field Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR),
Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (CMNS), or Lattice-Assisted Nuclear Reactions
(LANR) to move away from the stigma of "cold fusion."
Throughout the 1990s and 2000s, this community continued to publish in niche
journals and advocate for funding, claiming they had identified repeatable
experiments, though none achieved the level of rigorous validation required for
acceptance by mainstream physics.
Developments and Current Status
The scientific establishment has revisited the topic periodically, but rarely
with a change in outcome:
- 2004 DOE Review: A second DOE review, which looked at new data, again found
that the evidence was not compelling. The panel was evenly split on whether
"excess heat" occurred, but the majority remained unconvinced that a nuclear
reaction was taking place.
- The "Break the Stalemate" Effort: As of August 2026, the field has seen a
notable, if cautious, injection of interest. In February 2026, the U.S.
Department of Energy’s ARPA-E (Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy)
announced $10 million in funding for eight new projects. The specific goal of
this initiative is not to "prove" cold fusion, but to finally "break the
stalemate" and determine—once and for all—whether LENR holds any scientific
merit or if it can be definitively debunked using modern, state-of-the-art
materials science and diagnostic tools.
Summary
Today, cold fusion remains a fringe subject. While it is no longer considered a
"hot" topic for mainstream physics, it has not been fully extinguished. The
current scientific position remains that there is no accepted theoretical model
for how such a reaction could occur at room temperature, and historical claims
have not been robustly replicated. The ongoing ARPA-E projects represent the
most significant formal scientific engagement with the topic in two decades,
reflecting a desire to move beyond the 1989 controversy toward a final, data-driven
conclusion.
Comment:
Some things never change. However, one thing that does puzzle me... Why didn't Fleischman and Pons not get any neutrons? There should've been neutrons in that reaction.
I'll ask GAB AI again as a follow-up.
I understand the scientific position, but what did Fleishman and Pons have to say about the absence of neutrons in their original experiment?
Answer:
Fleischmann and Pons were aware that the lack of detected neutrons was a major problem, as conventional fusion theory dictates that deuterium-deuterium (D-D) fusion should produce neutrons as a primary byproduct. Their response to this discrepancy evolved as they faced increasing scrutiny:
1. Initial Claims of Detection
In their initial March 1989 announcement, they claimed to have observed neutron emission. However, this was almost immediately challenged by the scientific community. When MIT researchers analyzed the data Fleischmann and Pons had published, they found the "neutron peak" in their data was statistically indistinguishable from background noise and that the detector used had been calibrated incorrectly.
By May 1989, as reported by the Washington Post, Fleischmann openly admitted that the neutron graph in their published work was inaccurate due to a malfunctioning detector, though he insisted the fundamental phenomenon (excess heat) remained real.
2. The "Nuclear Transmutation" Hypothesis
Once it became clear that the expected neutron flux was not present (or was at best several orders of magnitude too low), Fleischmann and Pons were forced to hypothesize a different, non-standard mechanism for their results. They suggested that the fusion occurring in the palladium lattice was fundamentally different from the fusion occurring in high-energy plasma (like in stars or tokamaks).
Their primary arguments included:
- Alternative Channels: They proposed that the reaction might be proceeding via a "neutroless" path. They speculated that the energy was being transferred directly into the palladium lattice as heat through a process they could not fully explain, rather than being released as high-energy particles (neutrons or gamma rays).
- Helium-4 Production: Because they were not seeing the expected neutrons, they hypothesized that the product was not a neutron and Helium-3, but rather Helium-4. They suggested that the extra energy was being carried away by the lattice itself in a "multi-body" reaction. This was highly controversial because, in standard physics, Helium-4 production requires the emission of a high-energy gamma ray, which they also did not observe.
- Screening Effects: They speculated that the dense electron cloud within the metallic lattice of the palladium might "screen" the positive charges of the deuterium nuclei, allowing them to approach one another more easily, though this theory never gained traction among nuclear theorists who pointed out the massive energetic barriers still involved.
3. The Shift to "New Physics"
Ultimately, to justify the absence of radiation, the pair and their subsequent supporters moved away from standard nuclear physics. They argued that the lattice environment was a unique "condensed matter" system that altered the behavior of the nuclei, essentially creating a "black box" where traditional conservation laws of radiation were bypassed by the metal's structure.
The critical issue remained:
The scientific community viewed these explanations as post-hoc justifications designed to save a failing hypothesis. If the reaction did not produce the energetic particles predicted by known physics, critics argued it was more likely that the "excess heat" was simply the result of flawed calorimetry (e.g., uneven temperatures within the electrolysis cell or chemical energy being mistaken for nuclear energy) rather than a novel, unknown type of nuclear reaction.
In short, Fleischmann and Pons' pivot to "neutroless" fusion was the point at which their work moved from being a "controversial physics claim" to being viewed by most of the scientific establishment as a "pseudoscientific error."
Final comment:
It appears to me that a concerted effort was made to discredit the two scientists who came up with this theory.
If Cold Fusion ever does make it to scientific orthodoxy, it wouldn't be the first time that a scientist was treated as being wrong, but eventually confirmed as being right.
Just human nature, I suppose.
Showing posts with label Major Topic --- Energy --- Rossi Focardi E-cat. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Major Topic --- Energy --- Rossi Focardi E-cat. Show all posts
Saturday, August 22, 2026
Thursday, August 13, 2026
"Cold Fusion" Facts Page
8/13/26:
Pretty good summary of what is known. However, it hasn't been updated since 2009.
Obviously, I haven't kept up on the news in this topic. Since nothing really big happened in the news, I suspect that not much is going on.
The website linked to is still good, by the way. I haven't reviewed the info. Perhaps it has been updated in the last decade. It's a little hard to tell.
A bit of speculation: It may well be the case that the reactions do not produce enough energy to make electricity. If it does produce heat, and is economical to run, then perhaps the problem is in extracting what value that there may be in it. The production of heat for climate control may be a possible application.
Quick update: Some of the old sites are still up. It isn't dead. Rossi is still out there.
Frequently Asked Questions About Low Energy Nuclear Reactions(part of the field of condensed matter nuclear science historically known as "cold fusion")
Pretty good summary of what is known. However, it hasn't been updated since 2009.
Thursday, August 6, 2026
The human factor in research
8/6/26:
Today is an oldies kind of day. I'm reviewing posts for those which gathered the most attention. This one and the one previously posted this morning caught my eye. So I wrote an update for each.
What could be more human than finding something and then forgetting it? Then finding it again? The same is true on the historic scale as it is on the personal. I'm thinking of the Roman era, which was more advanced than some may have thought. Roman life may have been like living in nineteenth century, but it was a very long time ago--in ancient times. When Roman civilization collapsed in the Western half of Europe, there was an era called the Dark Ages. Life became primitive for centuries. It took a long time to recover.
There are lessons in history if you bother to notice. It is a lot like studying this blog and rediscovering posts like these. A question comes to mind: what does the future hold? As of now, there is no solution to the energy problem. There seems to be a war in Iran that is closely related to the problem of energy. If the energy problem were solved, would that help bring about world peace? It's a thought.
5/20/11:
Not too long ago, I did a number of posts on the subject of Rossi Focardi fusion research. Then, yesterday, I came across the energy from Thorium proposition. Both are attempting to do the same thing: generate energy from the atom. The difference between the two is that one is fusion while the other is fission. The similarities are that both had a lot of promise at one point, but seemed to fall by the wayside and recently rediscovered.
There has been a great deal of fear about nuclear energy. Not to mention the worry about the wastes. This did not concern me as much as others may have been because of what I read in Dixy Lee Ray
's book Trashing the Planet
. I suspect that a lot of the fear has to do with a lack of understanding which is exacerbated by the way that mishaps get reported in the news. Hence, the Three Mile Island incident effectively shuts down the nuclear industry here. A few years later, Chernobyl reinforced that fear. Now Fukishima just adds to the climate of fear of things nuclear- these things just don't seem safe. Now, Germany abandons nuclear power. All of this is an overreaction. Sadly, it may be unavoidable. People will fear something they don't understand. What to do?
The star crossed history of fission has been the impetus for fusion research. But fusion is much harder. After all these decades, we still don't have a fusion reactor which is net energy. But people are looking and looking hard. As for me, I've been looking closely at the energy issue for several years now. I came across Dr. Bussard's Polywell concept. It was one of the first things I wrote about on this blog. Lately, two other concepts have caught my attention- Focus Fusion and Rossi Focardi's "cold fusion". My own experience studying these ideas has brought something else to my attention- the human factor. People fall in love with their ideas. It is entirely human, but it is also hazardous in its own way. It may blind us to other paths that we may take. That's because to fall in love means the exclusion of all other choices.
To fear and to love are all too human. But it is also possible to learn and keep an open mind. Unfortunately, when emotions take over, the mind tends to close down. Reason and logic go overboard and big mistakes can be made. The reaction to this may draw the reaction- who do you think you are, Spock? Yeah, maybe you weren't thinking that at all, and the Spock reference turns you off. I've described times when I got turned off by something only to reconsider. Sometimes to reconsider can be helpful. Jumping to conclusions can't be good. But it is easy to fall into that trap. I try to avoid that as well as avoiding "drinking the Kool Aid." I wrote about this Kool Aid stuff on this blog too. I won't be drinking anybody's Kool Aid. I'm keeping an open mind.
I haven't fallen in love with any one way of solving the energy problem. It may turn out that the best way will get overlooked when something else is found. Such has been the case of fission. Just looking at the way we generate electricity now may look foolish in the future in comparison to how it might be done better with Thorium reactors. Thorium reactors are smaller, cheaper and safer. That is not a mere theoretical possibility. They have already been built. They weren't commercialized because it was thought better to be able to make bombs. Thorium is not useful for making bombs.
However, Rossi Focardi may be right around the corner. This idea may get the lead on Thorium and it may be back to the sidelines for Thorium. Frankly, it doesn't make any difference to me who wins. I think we all win when we solve the energy problem. If it gets solved by fission or fusion- who cares, as long as it works.
I'll take this opportunity to disclose that I've increased my position in Focus Fusion. This took place more than a month ago, but I've kept it quiet. Not sure about what to say about it. Let's say it's a hope and a prayer that this ship comes in soon.
4/16/26:Today is an oldies kind of day. I'm reviewing posts for those which gathered the most attention. This one and the one previously posted this morning caught my eye. So I wrote an update for each.
What could be more human than finding something and then forgetting it? Then finding it again? The same is true on the historic scale as it is on the personal. I'm thinking of the Roman era, which was more advanced than some may have thought. Roman life may have been like living in nineteenth century, but it was a very long time ago--in ancient times. When Roman civilization collapsed in the Western half of Europe, there was an era called the Dark Ages. Life became primitive for centuries. It took a long time to recover.
There are lessons in history if you bother to notice. It is a lot like studying this blog and rediscovering posts like these. A question comes to mind: what does the future hold? As of now, there is no solution to the energy problem. There seems to be a war in Iran that is closely related to the problem of energy. If the energy problem were solved, would that help bring about world peace? It's a thought.
5/20/11:
Not too long ago, I did a number of posts on the subject of Rossi Focardi fusion research. Then, yesterday, I came across the energy from Thorium proposition. Both are attempting to do the same thing: generate energy from the atom. The difference between the two is that one is fusion while the other is fission. The similarities are that both had a lot of promise at one point, but seemed to fall by the wayside and recently rediscovered.
There has been a great deal of fear about nuclear energy. Not to mention the worry about the wastes. This did not concern me as much as others may have been because of what I read in Dixy Lee Ray
's book Trashing the Planet. I suspect that a lot of the fear has to do with a lack of understanding which is exacerbated by the way that mishaps get reported in the news. Hence, the Three Mile Island incident effectively shuts down the nuclear industry here. A few years later, Chernobyl reinforced that fear. Now Fukishima just adds to the climate of fear of things nuclear- these things just don't seem safe. Now, Germany abandons nuclear power. All of this is an overreaction. Sadly, it may be unavoidable. People will fear something they don't understand. What to do? The star crossed history of fission has been the impetus for fusion research. But fusion is much harder. After all these decades, we still don't have a fusion reactor which is net energy. But people are looking and looking hard. As for me, I've been looking closely at the energy issue for several years now. I came across Dr. Bussard's Polywell concept. It was one of the first things I wrote about on this blog. Lately, two other concepts have caught my attention- Focus Fusion and Rossi Focardi's "cold fusion". My own experience studying these ideas has brought something else to my attention- the human factor. People fall in love with their ideas. It is entirely human, but it is also hazardous in its own way. It may blind us to other paths that we may take. That's because to fall in love means the exclusion of all other choices.
To fear and to love are all too human. But it is also possible to learn and keep an open mind. Unfortunately, when emotions take over, the mind tends to close down. Reason and logic go overboard and big mistakes can be made. The reaction to this may draw the reaction- who do you think you are, Spock? Yeah, maybe you weren't thinking that at all, and the Spock reference turns you off. I've described times when I got turned off by something only to reconsider. Sometimes to reconsider can be helpful. Jumping to conclusions can't be good. But it is easy to fall into that trap. I try to avoid that as well as avoiding "drinking the Kool Aid." I wrote about this Kool Aid stuff on this blog too. I won't be drinking anybody's Kool Aid. I'm keeping an open mind.
I haven't fallen in love with any one way of solving the energy problem. It may turn out that the best way will get overlooked when something else is found. Such has been the case of fission. Just looking at the way we generate electricity now may look foolish in the future in comparison to how it might be done better with Thorium reactors. Thorium reactors are smaller, cheaper and safer. That is not a mere theoretical possibility. They have already been built. They weren't commercialized because it was thought better to be able to make bombs. Thorium is not useful for making bombs.
However, Rossi Focardi may be right around the corner. This idea may get the lead on Thorium and it may be back to the sidelines for Thorium. Frankly, it doesn't make any difference to me who wins. I think we all win when we solve the energy problem. If it gets solved by fission or fusion- who cares, as long as it works.
Monday, June 29, 2026
Seven Skinny E-Cats Eating Seven Fat Cats
6/29/26:
The Biblical reference got my attention. Ah! Here's another of the blasts from the past. From the blog EGO OUT. It seems that the gentleman may have died(?) during that time to this. How unfortunate. It comes to us all, eventually. I do not wish to be morbid here, but I have my own situation.
Anyway, his wife(?) is continuing the blog. Time does not permit me to spend much time on things these days. It is another unfortunate fact of life. Today will be yet another busy day. Hopefully good news will come of it. Hard to say at this point.
Long ago I noticed a pattern of behavior in this world, which ignores developments that have some promise to them. There are many examples of this. I attributed this pattern to something I called the Tiberius Syndrome. This is relation to what Peter Diamandis once related about the Roman Emperor Tiberius. It seems that someone brought the discovery of the new metal (aluminum) to Tiberius' attention. Tiberius was so impressed that he had the man killed. Why? Tiberius' interests were threatened by this new metal. As it has been said, history repeats. First as tragedy, then as farce.
Things may never change, but there's always the hope that it can.
Sunday, October 16, 2011: The original post follows:
EGO OUT: (comments regarding the Oct.6 Fat Cat experiment) Quoting from Ni-H LENR Genesis 40:21 (a chapter of the Transition Metal LENR Great B...
Comment: Not a good review of the e-cat demo of Oct 6th. Quote:
He may have a point, there. Anything good could get lost in a maze if improperly executed. People will get hung up on the process, not the product.
The Biblical reference got my attention. Ah! Here's another of the blasts from the past. From the blog EGO OUT. It seems that the gentleman may have died(?) during that time to this. How unfortunate. It comes to us all, eventually. I do not wish to be morbid here, but I have my own situation.
Anyway, his wife(?) is continuing the blog. Time does not permit me to spend much time on things these days. It is another unfortunate fact of life. Today will be yet another busy day. Hopefully good news will come of it. Hard to say at this point.
Long ago I noticed a pattern of behavior in this world, which ignores developments that have some promise to them. There are many examples of this. I attributed this pattern to something I called the Tiberius Syndrome. This is relation to what Peter Diamandis once related about the Roman Emperor Tiberius. It seems that someone brought the discovery of the new metal (aluminum) to Tiberius' attention. Tiberius was so impressed that he had the man killed. Why? Tiberius' interests were threatened by this new metal. As it has been said, history repeats. First as tragedy, then as farce.
Things may never change, but there's always the hope that it can.
Sunday, October 16, 2011: The original post follows:
EGO OUT: (comments regarding the Oct.6 Fat Cat experiment) Quoting from Ni-H LENR Genesis 40:21 (a chapter of the Transition Metal LENR Great B...
Comment: Not a good review of the e-cat demo of Oct 6th. Quote:
It has happened again- not the ugly facts were slaying beautiful hypotheses but bad experiments have ruined good ideas.
He may have a point, there. Anything good could get lost in a maze if improperly executed. People will get hung up on the process, not the product.
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Rossi: Ecat now capable of Continuous Generation of Steam
quote:
Comment:
If this is true, it is a very, very big deal.
In posts at his blog Andrea Ross is now claiming that his ecat low energy nuclear reaction device is now capable of continuously generating temperatures of around 600 degrees Celsius for long periods of time. Specifically on May 17 Rossi stated that his 600 degree reactor had been up and running for up twenty days.
Comment:
If this is true, it is a very, very big deal.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Advanced Concepts: LENR, Anti-Matter, and New Physics of the Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space conference
Cold Fusion Now h/t Next Big Future
quote ( Ruby Carat of CFN)
Sounds exciting. Especially the BECNF ( Bose Einsten Condensates) stuff by Y E Kim.
quote ( Ruby Carat of CFN)
On Friday, March 23 I attended Session 462 Advanced Concepts: LENR, Anti-Matter, and New Physics of the Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space conference, one day after speaking with George H. Miley who would be presenting A Game-Changing Power Source for Spacecraft at the session.
Sounds exciting. Especially the BECNF ( Bose Einsten Condensates) stuff by Y E Kim.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
The Limitless Potential of the E-Cat: An Interview with Andrea Rossi
OilPrice.com
quote:
A unusually interesting answer:
quote:
Some of the questions we asked Mr. Rossi take a look at:
• Why it took so long for him to go public with his discovery.
• How the E-Cat will produce energy costing $10/megawatt hour.
• When he will release more detailed information on the E-Cat.
• Why he believes international media coverage of the E-Cat has been so muted.
• His feelings towards critics and the scientific community.
• His manufacturing and distribution goals.
• How the E-cat will help reduce mankind’s dependency on fossil fuels.
• + Many more details on the e-cat, LENR and Rossi himself.
A unusually interesting answer:
Andrea Rossi: Yes, of course I questioned my discovery. It was hard to believe that I had finally produced a working example of LENR. I paid Sergio Focardi, the physicist and emeritus professor at the University of Bologna, to try and convince me that I was wrong, and relieve me of my obsession with LENR. In the end I ended up convincing him, and he decided to work with me in developing the E-Cat machine. [emphasis added]
Cold Fusion Now: Rossi E-cat a Bargain compared to Nuclear
March 12, 2012 / Brad Arnold h/t pesn
Rossi made the following comment on his blog:
Dear Dr Joseph Fine:
- In a 45 MW plant, if Siemens gives us 30% of efficiency, the COP is not 6, is infinite: the energy to drive the resistances will be made by the E-Cat: if we make 45 thermal MWh/h, 15 electric MWh/h will be made, of which 7.5 will be consumed by the plant, 7.5 will be sold, together with30 thermal MWh/h.
- The price of a 45 MW plant will be in the order of 30 millions.
- the price of the energy made by our industrial plants will be made by the owners and by the market.
Warm Regards,
A.R
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Billionaire Sidney Kimmel to Donate $5.5 to Fund University of Missouri Cold Fusion Research
h/t Free Republic , E-cat Now! , E-Cat World
excerpt:
Comment:
I think Duncan is an honest scientist. That implies something, which may offend some folks. I call 'em the way I see 'em.
excerpt:
Rob Duncan, vice chancellor for research at the university, has been a leading proponent for trying to fully understand the phenomenon of cold fusion. He featured in the 2009 60 Minutes TV program in which he expressed surprise at evidence he examined in favor of cold fusion in experimental results he examined.Here's the video of Duncan:
Comment:
I think Duncan is an honest scientist. That implies something, which may offend some folks. I call 'em the way I see 'em.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Rossi Says E-Cat is Absolutely Safe — “There Will Never Be” Gamma Rays Emitted
E-Cat World h/t E-Cat Weekly
excerpts:
The issue of gamma rays is a difficult one to reconcile with theory. It is one of the main reasons for skepticism of the device. It will end up changing theories if the device works.
Incidentally, if he can show the 511 kev gamma rays, that would be a significant finding in itself. How else do you get from nickel to copper, but by a beta decay? If there's a beta decay, there must be some type of fusion. The reason why this doesn't produce significant amounts of gamma radiation would be quite a puzzle to solve.
excerpts:
- Rossi has said that his Leonardo Corporation is in the process of seeking certification for from Underwriters Laboratories in the US and are in the process of submitting the E-Cat for safety testing.
- “we have found traces of fusion because we have found 511 kev gamma rays at the output, which is the emission of a positron and an electron, and a positron is the product of a proton turning into a neutron, so we have some kind of fusion inside, but I do not think this is the main energy source.”
The issue of gamma rays is a difficult one to reconcile with theory. It is one of the main reasons for skepticism of the device. It will end up changing theories if the device works.
Incidentally, if he can show the 511 kev gamma rays, that would be a significant finding in itself. How else do you get from nickel to copper, but by a beta decay? If there's a beta decay, there must be some type of fusion. The reason why this doesn't produce significant amounts of gamma radiation would be quite a puzzle to solve.
Friday, February 3, 2012
Saturday, January 28, 2012
E-Cat Weekly -- January 26, 2012
pesn.com
- Defkalion offers testing of cold fusion reactors
- Rossi told Ny Teknik that "the work of the University of Bologna has already started with meetings together with National Instruments to prepare the whole system analysis."
- University of Bologna Terminates Relationship With Rossi by Steven Krivit. Krivit and Rossi do not see eye to eye, as the saying goes. The death of the E-cat has been greatly exaggerated. The work at Bologna continues.
Monday, January 23, 2012
ECAT.com interviews Andrea Rossi in Bologna
ECAT.com h/t PESN.com
excerpts and comments
excerpts and comments
- not more than a couple years until electricity can be produced from e-cats, he says. [comment: Electricity would be a significant milestone]
- Rossi says it will work as easily as installing software on your computer-- [comment: user friendly]
- not an alternative ( energy system) but an integrative system-- save fossil fuels for other purposes [comment: It appears that Rossi is not claiming a solution for carbon emissions.]
Saturday, January 21, 2012
E-Cat Weekly January 19
pesn.com
This story caught my eye:
excerpts:
I wonder if the author ever really thought about this very deeply. It isn't about letting someone else do your thinking for you. This could be easy money if Rossi's device works. But who gets the money?
Smith isn't being as careful his money as this article suggests. It looks to me like he's decided that Rossi's E-cat is some kook device being pushed by kook. I suppose that is possible, but it is also possible that Rossi is on to something.
Conventional wisdom is easy because you don't have to think.
This story caught my eye:
Oz skeptic offers prize if Rossi’s E-cat works
excerpts:
- Australian entrepreneur, philanthropist, skeptic, aviator and eccentric Dick Smith has offered $AU200,000 for proof that the Andrea Rossi “energy catalyzer” actually works.
- As a general rule, physicists would say that the production of an atom as heavy as copper is the kind of reaction that’s best done if you happen to have a supernova handy. The low-energy claims made for the E-Cat are the main source of skepticism about Rossi’s claims.
- Smith has a record of being careful with his prizemoney: as patron of the Australian Skeptics, he is also joint backer of an unclaimed prize for anyone who can demonstrate paranormal abilities
- Since the Herald won't say it, The Register will: do not invest any money in E-cat until someone can reproduce the experiment and explain the mechanism by which the fusion takes place, to the satisfaction of the scientific journals. Or until Smith signs a cheque for his $AU200k.
I wonder if the author ever really thought about this very deeply. It isn't about letting someone else do your thinking for you. This could be easy money if Rossi's device works. But who gets the money?
Smith isn't being as careful his money as this article suggests. It looks to me like he's decided that Rossi's E-cat is some kook device being pushed by kook. I suppose that is possible, but it is also possible that Rossi is on to something.
Conventional wisdom is easy because you don't have to think.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
20120114 Live interview with Andrea Rossi
h/t Next Big Future
Highlights
Highlights
- The Smart Scarecrow Show hosts the interview
- Sterling Allan of pesn.com does the honors
- Introduction of Andrea Rossi
- History of the E-cat
- Short intro to the E-cat
- Mentions gamma rays-- is turned into heat. First time I heard of this, but not that I was looking for it.
- Safe operation-- automatic shutoff feature
- Track record of long term operation
- Just heating with E-cat, not electricity yet
- Insignificant amount of material necessary for "fuel" due to it being a nuclear process
- Make tests every day, he says. Certification process with UL. Production will be in Florida USA
- Wants to push prices down to $500 ( for small E-cat?)
- Concerns about reverse engineering-- low prices will defend against this
- Size of device, 10 kw unit, 5% of price for comparable system
- Catalysts-- essential to operation Comment: this may be why the ash is inconsistent with expectations
- Frequency used? Rossi declines to comment on this. Oriental martial arts comparison? maybe jiu jitsu principle use the energy of the opponent to your advantage
- operating temperature, higher temperatures can cause problems
- don't give fish, but teach how to fish
- UL stamp is final stamp before distributing to customer
- No time to lose, he says
- 1 million home ecat plans--- details, looks like a pc in dimensions, compatible with any heater in world
- refuel every 6 months, turning on and off and being controlled by thermostat. Will heat water, but not like a central heating system--- language problem not clear
- E-cat used to preheat the water for electricity production-- Ecat not hot enough, but can do this much
- Refueling paradigm. 180 operational days as opposed, fuel charge is proportional to actual use, turn ecat off and no fuel is consumed
- indicator shows when it needs to be recharged, fuel cartridges exchanged, and used ones recycled
- cartridge only $10, plus installation charges if necessary
- logistical issues are being worked on
- says big surprise that need no hydrogen canisters-- picograms of hydrogen, 10 gms last 6 months
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Pesn: E-Cat Weekly January 12 : Edmund Storms
TheSpaceShow (mp3 link): January 8, 2011
Comment:
As is usually the case, whenever there is a bit of controversy, there'll be some challenging calls. Such was the case for this show as well.
The one that stuck out for me was when Charles called and mentioned the gamma ray issue. There is one thing that's very clear now. There aren't any gamma rays being produced by Rossi's device. The reason that you know this is because of the demonstrations shown on video. If there were any gamma rays, there'd be a lot more caution about being in the room with this device. The amount of gamma rays expected should be enough to make everyone sick, or worse.
Dr. Storms mentioned that there would be a Nobel Prize waiting for anyone who could figure out how the energy gets out of the system. How then energy gets out indeed!
The question encourages me to think about E-cat again, which I haven't been doing recently.
The idea that sticks with me is that the phenomenon could be about waves. A gamma ray is just a wave. All matter and energy in the universe is particles and waves. And there is this phenomenon known as as wave particle duality:
Particles can act as waves, waves can act as particles.
So, as a bit of speculation, I wonder if the explanation could be related to that. Both of the explanations necessary- one for overcoming the coulomb barrier and the other for the lack of gamma rays- could be explained by wave particle duality. For the former, I favor the BECNF Theory of Y. Kim of Purdue. But Kim doesn't provide any theory for the lack of gamma rays, only for overcoming the coulomb barrier. Bose-Einstein condensates overcome the coulomb barrier by the quantum effects of waves. Could the wave particle duality explain the lack of gamma rays?
Gamma rays are a problem because of the need for shielding. Neutrons and alpha particles can be shielded more easily. Gamma rays- not so easy. In the case of Rossi's device, the main problem is the lack of gamma rays. There should be some if fusion is taking place. This is the crux of the problem, or controversy.
It isn't just a matter of shielding in the case of the E-cat. It is the most probable situation that there are no gamma rays being produced at all. But how can there be any fusion if there are no gamma rays?
Let me repeat here that BECNF explains the coulomb barrier and some other type of wave explains the lack of gamma rays. The latter speculation may be preposterous, but who knows? I haven't gotten any further ideas on the matter. Perhaps someone else could.
Update:
Not much to add because I don't know anything about the subject. I've been educating myself as much as is feasible by reading Wikipedia articles on the subject. Below is the list:
Still reading about waves. It is an education, as I mentioned above. Here's what I'm reading now in Wikipedia: (Starting from #4 above)
By the way, none of this may tell anything about the E-cat, but it may be useful to know.
Update:
A question has arisen. In the video below, two light bulbs are said not to have interference because they are out of phase. But what would happen if they were?
In a BEC, could they be considered from the same source, and therefore in phase?
Comment:
As is usually the case, whenever there is a bit of controversy, there'll be some challenging calls. Such was the case for this show as well.
The one that stuck out for me was when Charles called and mentioned the gamma ray issue. There is one thing that's very clear now. There aren't any gamma rays being produced by Rossi's device. The reason that you know this is because of the demonstrations shown on video. If there were any gamma rays, there'd be a lot more caution about being in the room with this device. The amount of gamma rays expected should be enough to make everyone sick, or worse.
Dr. Storms mentioned that there would be a Nobel Prize waiting for anyone who could figure out how the energy gets out of the system. How then energy gets out indeed!
The question encourages me to think about E-cat again, which I haven't been doing recently.
The idea that sticks with me is that the phenomenon could be about waves. A gamma ray is just a wave. All matter and energy in the universe is particles and waves. And there is this phenomenon known as as wave particle duality:
Wave–particle duality postulates that all particles exhibit both wave and particle properties.
Particles can act as waves, waves can act as particles.
So, as a bit of speculation, I wonder if the explanation could be related to that. Both of the explanations necessary- one for overcoming the coulomb barrier and the other for the lack of gamma rays- could be explained by wave particle duality. For the former, I favor the BECNF Theory of Y. Kim of Purdue. But Kim doesn't provide any theory for the lack of gamma rays, only for overcoming the coulomb barrier. Bose-Einstein condensates overcome the coulomb barrier by the quantum effects of waves. Could the wave particle duality explain the lack of gamma rays?
Gamma rays are a problem because of the need for shielding. Neutrons and alpha particles can be shielded more easily. Gamma rays- not so easy. In the case of Rossi's device, the main problem is the lack of gamma rays. There should be some if fusion is taking place. This is the crux of the problem, or controversy.
It isn't just a matter of shielding in the case of the E-cat. It is the most probable situation that there are no gamma rays being produced at all. But how can there be any fusion if there are no gamma rays?
Let me repeat here that BECNF explains the coulomb barrier and some other type of wave explains the lack of gamma rays. The latter speculation may be preposterous, but who knows? I haven't gotten any further ideas on the matter. Perhaps someone else could.
Update:
Not much to add because I don't know anything about the subject. I've been educating myself as much as is feasible by reading Wikipedia articles on the subject. Below is the list:
- Black-body radiation
- Photon
- Interference (wave_propagation)
- Diffraction grating Comment: I got this brainstorm that it may be possible to attenuate harmful radiation through this means. But it now seems like a long shot. Also, an idea occurred to me that waves may be interfering with each other and therefore maybe attenuating the gamma rays. But that is also a long shot.
Still reading about waves. It is an education, as I mentioned above. Here's what I'm reading now in Wikipedia: (Starting from #4 above)
By the way, none of this may tell anything about the E-cat, but it may be useful to know.
Update:
A question has arisen. In the video below, two light bulbs are said not to have interference because they are out of phase. But what would happen if they were?
In a BEC, could they be considered from the same source, and therefore in phase?
 |
| not in phase if two separate sources |
 |
| but will interfere if it is in phase ( one source or two identical sources) |
Friday, January 6, 2012
Rossi Get E-cat Patent Approval This Year?
ecatpatent.com
I've written computer software for the market under my own brand. Now, I may not be a legal expert, but my impression is that if you want protection for your intellectual property, it's better to have a patent. If it isn't protected, somebody can reproduce it and claim it as their own.
Furthermore, putting a million e-cats on the market could backfire if the product doesn't meet expectations. The odds are that there are going to be a lot of people who won't be satisfied. This will not be good PR, especially if you don't have a patent. Bad in any case, but even worse if you have no patent.
Rossi’s e-cat patent would be very helpful especially when the technology is already out in the marketplace. It would strengthen its marketing strategy to produce 1 millions devices at a very low price.Comment:
I've written computer software for the market under my own brand. Now, I may not be a legal expert, but my impression is that if you want protection for your intellectual property, it's better to have a patent. If it isn't protected, somebody can reproduce it and claim it as their own.
Furthermore, putting a million e-cats on the market could backfire if the product doesn't meet expectations. The odds are that there are going to be a lot of people who won't be satisfied. This will not be good PR, especially if you don't have a patent. Bad in any case, but even worse if you have no patent.
Friday, December 30, 2011
E-Cat Weekly -- December 29, 2011
pesn.com
Comment:
I checked out one of the articles here, titled "Could Starships Use Cold Fusion Propulsion?" Personally, I didn't think so when I started reading, so that is not what I'm posting about here.
No, it is that the article is quite skeptical about the E-cat, and actually does a good job of debunking it. Yes, it is a good job, the best I've seen so far. Actually, the article doesn't do the heavy lifting, but only links to it here. A concerted effort to read through it all should leave some significant questions for Rossi to answer.
But I am not totally convinced. I'll tell you what gave me pause, and that is the protection from gamma rays. Not being well trained in this area, I can see why this got past me before. It doesn't seem likely that Rossi's device is doing what he claims unless he has more shielding than what he has. But the reaction chamber is really small ( only a little over 3 cubic inches (50 cm3)). Shielding that shouldn't be too difficult, but how do you know that Rossi actually did that? That something that could lead to a quick dismissal of Rossi's claims. But it could also lead to a confirmation.
The other part that may be significant is the copper ash of the claimed reaction. I worked through these myself. Now, I can see getting to copper 63, but not to copper 65 in the amounts claimed. I think this is a significant point, and it is another thing that got by me. But I never claimed to be an expert.
No, I'm not totally convinced one way or the other. But Rossi has to prove his point. He has done so yet.
Comment:
I checked out one of the articles here, titled "Could Starships Use Cold Fusion Propulsion?" Personally, I didn't think so when I started reading, so that is not what I'm posting about here.
No, it is that the article is quite skeptical about the E-cat, and actually does a good job of debunking it. Yes, it is a good job, the best I've seen so far. Actually, the article doesn't do the heavy lifting, but only links to it here. A concerted effort to read through it all should leave some significant questions for Rossi to answer.
But I am not totally convinced. I'll tell you what gave me pause, and that is the protection from gamma rays. Not being well trained in this area, I can see why this got past me before. It doesn't seem likely that Rossi's device is doing what he claims unless he has more shielding than what he has. But the reaction chamber is really small ( only a little over 3 cubic inches (50 cm3)). Shielding that shouldn't be too difficult, but how do you know that Rossi actually did that? That something that could lead to a quick dismissal of Rossi's claims. But it could also lead to a confirmation.
The other part that may be significant is the copper ash of the claimed reaction. I worked through these myself. Now, I can see getting to copper 63, but not to copper 65 in the amounts claimed. I think this is a significant point, and it is another thing that got by me. But I never claimed to be an expert.
No, I'm not totally convinced one way or the other. But Rossi has to prove his point. He has done so yet.
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
E-Cat Weekly--- Source for E-cat news
My last post about the E-cat was on the 13th. That's two weeks, my, how the time flies. The last bunch of news came from the PESN site, so I went back there and found a weekly compilation of E-cat news. It is dated on the 22nd of December, and the one before it was dated on the 15th. That means the next should be dated in a couple days from today, which will be the 29th.
Looks like a good source of information. I'll keep up with it. Call it a New Year's Resolution. Here's something interesting that I just found:
Update:
Cold Fusion Now has the interview where Romney says "cold fusion"--- note the time
Looks like a good source of information. I'll keep up with it. Call it a New Year's Resolution. Here's something interesting that I just found:
I do believe in basic science. I believe in participating in space. I believe in analysis of new sources of energy. I believe in laboratories, looking at ways to conduct electricity with -- with cold fusion, if we can come up with it. It was the University of Utah that solved that. We somehow can’t figure out how to duplicate it. ---- Mitt Romney, Republican candidate for President [ emphasis mine. Comment: If he's talking about Fleischmann and Pons, he needs to catch up a little bit on the news.]I scanned through all the stories and there's enough reading material to keep anyone busy for a long time.
Update:
Cold Fusion Now has the interview where Romney says "cold fusion"--- note the time
 |
| "cold fusion, if we can come up with it" |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)