LENR LANR Cold Fusion You Can Trust

It Looks Like It Is Proven To Work

Some time ago a couple of different Cold Fusion / LENR folks said they would be going commercial about now. E-Cat has supposedly completed the acceptance trial, but the results are only reported by “insiders” informally; no open inspection of the “product”. The other folks have been mum more or less too.

Yet I ran into an interesting link to a link to a paper… It looks like published sciency stuff and it is from M.I.T. (Yes, that MIT). Now it is remotely possible that this is a grand hoax of some sort. But I don’t think so. There’s been a lot of various coverage of the MIT folks and their Cold Fusion / LENR class and experiments.

So, for me, until proven otherwise, this is acceptable “proof” that there is in fact a path to cold fusion / LENR / LANR energy production. This, then, gives weight to the “other folks” despite their occasionally less than stellar reputations, that they just might have something too.

Here’s the link:

http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/108/04/0595.pdf

I note in passing that they use Zirconium Oxide with Palladium and that both of those first two atoms have very small “barns” of nuclear cross section so tend not to absorb neutrons. In another page about a different process from different folks, they used hydrogen with a Ni / Ag alloy. Seems that a Nickle Silver alloy will absorb many times more hydrogen than straight Ni. I would also speculate that the insertion of misc. odd atoms into the crystal structure causes various strain and active regions with different ranges of energies and likely more chance of the ‘sweet spot’ that causes things to happen. Some time back I’d speculated that maybe using too pure of a material in too pure of an environment was why P&F reproductions often failed. One site claims a NiCu alloy works, and even that a stack of US Nickles can be made to “go” (they are a NiCu alloy). Since it looks like some kind of driving energy is needed to set the crystal lattice moving and cause activity, and that can be light, EM fields, and more including high temperatures, it is also possible that being near an airport and / or speed trap could allow in some radar to stimulate some to work, others not so much.

In any case, these folks use a “nanostructured” material, and external excitation to get a “reproducible” and “controllable” reaction. Looks to me like anyone ought to be able to reproduce it based on the existence of patents and published papers. The “Basics” are just the right crystal type, plenty of H or D loading, and an excitation (field, electrons, heat, something…) to get things vibrating.

Dry, preloaded NANOR®-type CF/LANR component

Mitchell R. Swartz 1,*, Gayle M. Verner 1, Jeffrey W. Tolleson 1 and Peter L. Hagelstein 2
1 JET Energy, Inc., Wellesley, MA 02481, USA
2 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA02139, USA

Dry, preloaded NANOR®-type technology makes LANR reactions more accessible. These self-contained, two terminal nanocomposite ZrO2–PdNiD CF/LANR components have at their core ZrO2–PdD nanostructured material. The excess energy gain compared to driving input energy is up to 20 times the input; characterized by reasonable reproducibility and controllability. The CF/LANR/CF activation is separated from its loading. Although small in size, the LANR excess power density is more than 19,500 W/kg of nanostructured material, with zero carbon footprint.

Keywords: Cold fusion, excess energy, nanomaterial, preloading.

Aqueous cold fusion augmented by nanomaterials

LATTICE assisted nuclear reactions [LANR, also known as cold fusion (CF) and LENR] use hydrogen-loaded alloys to generate heat and other products1–3 by enabling deuterium fusion to form an excited de novo helium nucleus at near-room temperature under difficult-to achieve conditions. The ‘excess heat’ observed is thought due to energy derived from coherent de-excitation of molecule D2 to ground state 4He, with the large 24 MeV quantum fractionated into optical phonon vibrations near 65 meV. Usually, in the past, successful LANR required engineering of multiple factors including loading, adequate confinement time, loading rate and prehistory (with careful avoidance of contamination and materials and operational protocols which quench performance). Today, dry, preloaded NANOR®-type technology makes LANR more accessible.

Nanostructured materials are important in LANR and are also produced in codeposition structures, observed producing non-thermal near-infrared emissions when active, and exhibit typical CF/LANR excess heat correlated with the size of the Pd–D nanostructures2. These
self-contained, two-terminal nanocomposite ZrO2–PdNiD CF/LANR components feature new composition, structure and superior handling properties enabling portability and transportability and are capable of significant reproducible energy gain4,5 (Figure 1). The NANOR® components are smaller than 2 cm in length, and with 30–200 mg of active LANR material. Their ‘core’ contains active ZrO2–PdD nanostructured material6, loaded with additional D to loadings (ratio of D to Pd) of more than 130%, but shallow traps are not ruled out because palladium nanoparticles often have a vacancy in their centre7 and vacancies within them. Bulk PdD is one of the most studied metal deuterides, with deuterium in the octahedral sites at high D/Pd loading near unity. Nano-scale Pd occurs in the Fm3m space group, while bulk Pd is FCC; the miscibility gap for nano PdD is narrower than for bulk PdD; and the solubility is a bit lower for the nano PdD. In some crystals, Pd2+ ion is observed and is paramagnetic.
[…]
The NANOR®-type preloaded LANR component openly demonstrated energy gain (COP) which ranged generally from 5 to 16 (e.g. 14.1 (~1412%) while the MIT IAP course was ongoing5). It had a much higher energy gain compared to the 2003 demonstration unit (energy gain 14.1 in 2012 vs ~2.7 in 2003). The input powers were below 100 mW4,5, because the set-up was designed to run at low power input levels to increase safety for its multi month-long stay at MIT. There were daily calibrations using input current and voltage standards. In this case, low power was used for several reasons, including to facilitate the rapid time constant and because this is for demonstration and teaching purposes. More recently, these NANOR®-type components have been driven up to the 2 W level.
[…]
Conclusion – utility and performance of NANOR®-type CF/LANR components

Dry, preloaded ZrO2–PdNiD NANOR®-type CF/LANR components are capable of significant energy gain over long periods of time with reasonable reproducibility and controllability. The CF/LANR/CF activation is separated from its loading. One such preloaded NANOR®-type CF/LANR component (a series VI type) was openly demonstrated at MIT, during and after, the IAP course on 30 and 31 January
2012. It demonstrated reproducible and controllable energy gain which ranged generally from 5 to 16+ (energy gain of ~14.1 during the course demonstration; higher later) with energy and incremental power gains confirmed by three methods and time integration. It had an improved controlling/driving system which provided a reliable low power, high-efficiency, energy production component for demonstration and teaching purposes of size smaller than a centimetre, with an active site weight of less than 50 mg. Although small in size, this is actually not de minimus because the LANR excess power density is more than 19,500 W/kg of nanostructured material4,5.

The carbon footprint is zero, and the next generation will have higher power and ultimately produce electricity. Possible future of clean, high performance energy production components It is clear that these preloaded nanostructured NANOR®-type CF/LANR quantum electronic components are useful. They have shown significant improvement over theirs predecessors, including the highly successful metamaterial PHUSOR®-type of LANR component. This can be used as an effective, clean, highly efficient, energy production system, apparatus and process. Could these dry, preloaded, ready-to-be-activated, NANOR®-type LANR components/systems/materials, including in preassembled IC components and systems, be the future of clean and efficient energy production?

1. Swartz, M. Survey of the observed excess energy and emissions in
lattice assisted nuclear reactions. J. Sci. Exp., 2009, 23(4), 419–436.

2. Swartz, M., LANR nanostructures and metamaterials driven at their
optimal operating point. J. Condens. Matter Nucl. Sci., 2012, 6, 149;
http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol6.pdf

3. Miles, M. et al., Correlation of excess power and helium production
during D2O and H2O electrolysis using palladium cathodes. J. Electroanal.
Chem., 1993, 346, 99–117.

4. Swartz, M., Verner, G. and Tolleson, J., Energy gain from preloaded
ZrO2–PdNi–D nanostructured CF/LANR quantum electronic components.
J. Condens. Matter Nucl. Sci., 2014, 13, 528; www.
iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol13.pdf

5. Swartz, M. and Hagelstein, P. L., Demonstration of energy gain
from a preloaded ZrO2–PdD nanostructured CF/LANR quantum
electronic component at MIT. J. Condens. Matter Nucl. Sci., 2014,
13, 516; http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol13.pdf

6. Arata, Y. and Zhang, Y. C., Observation of anomalous heat release
and helium-4 production from highly deuterated palladium fine particles.
Jpn. J. Appl. Phys., 1999, 38, L774-L776, Part 2, No. 7A.

7. Allard, L. F., Voelkl, E., Kalakkad, D. S. and Datye, A. K., Electron
holography reveals the internal structure of palladium nanoparticles.
J. Mater. Sci., 1994, 29(21), 5612–5614.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. We thank Alex Frank, Alan Weinberg, Allen Swartz, Larry Forsley, Frank Gordon, Brian Ahern, Jeff Driscoll, Linda Hammond, Charles Entenmann and Andrew Meulenberg for their suggestions. This effort was supported by JET Energy Inc. and New Energy Foundation. NANOR® and PHUSOR® are registered trademarks of JET Energy, Incorporated. NANOR®-technology and PHUSOR®-technology are protected by US Patents D596724, D413659 and several other patents pending

Jet Energy have a home page at a hosting site:

http://world.std.com/~mica/jet.html

From their “tech” tab:

NANOR�-type Clean Energy Technology depends on lattice assisted nuclear reactions (LANR) which use hydrogen-loaded alloys to create heat. LANR offers new hope for energy production. There is now a visible bright horizon for energy production using the extraction of deuterium from water, with the formation of a very tiny amount of helium, which is already natural in the atmosphere. The reaction is extremely efficient with no CO or CO2 emission and no radioactivity generated. The NANOR�-type LANR Clean Energy Device is thus safer, more efficient, and cleaner than any other competing commercially available energy source.

The recent MIT demonstration of the JET NANOR� showed an energy gain of 1400 to 1600%+ output beyond input. Without JET’s LANR technologies, reproducible lattice assisted nuclear reactions LANR systems are extremely difficult to achieve. Those who have been successful usually have demonstrated energy gains of much lower magnitude (e.g. 50% to 200% at the recent ICCF-17).

Lattice assisted nuclear reactions [LANR] use hydrogen-loaded alloys to create heat and other products. LANR will be an important source of energy for this planet, for artificial internal organs, and for interstellar probes. LANR is an energy multiplier because the energy density of LANR reactions is ten million times that of gasoline. LANR will play a critical role in all future technologies with potential revolutionary applications to all energy issues – robotics, transportation, electricity production, space travel.

With LANR we also get to transfer the use of petrochemicals and gasoline into making useful pharmaceuticals and plastics and perhaps even nanomaterials. In the case of LANR, there can rarely occur, in a lattice under special conditions, the fusion of two heavy hydrogen nuclei to form a helium nucleus at near room temperature. The product helium-4, or simply helium, is de novo meaning that this helium-4 is created new and fresh, generated directly from stwo, driven by more, deuterons physically located within the loaded palladium, nickel or one of their nanostructured materials. Most importantly, the product with LANR, helium, is environmentally safe and does not produce global contamination or warming.

And there is more. JET Energy is offering possible technology transfer through NRG Products operations licenses and CHERRY Technology(R)-type analytic licenses and, if when available, lease of sterling energy production products and accompanying technologies and equipment.

Building on more than two decades of careful science and engineering and diligent, steadfast work, JET Energy’s accomplishments include: Energy Gains to ~1600%, NANOR� technology preloading LANR the future, several types of codeposition, regarded by many to be the fastest LANR method, Proprietary metamaterial shapes [4-14 dB gain ], Optimum Operating Point technology [8-25 dB gain], Hyperdrive-TM technology, Empirical System Identification (ESID) control [~10 dB], Higher-power (High-Z) systems exceeding codeposition outputs, Dual ohmic controls, Time integration with waveform reconstruction and noise measurement, Control and exploitation of tardive thermal power for increased thermal output, LANR-driven motors, and Electric generating systems.

Today, JET Energy high quality quantum electronic devices, calorimetric equipment, unique driving systems, metamaterial shapes such as Phusor�-type LANR device, and the just demonstrated, preloaded NANOR-type LANR device enable revolutionary energy system: institutional research.

So looks like they are getting ready to sell stuff.

In Other News

Some while back these folks claim to have gotten a Rossi type cell to “go”.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/191754-cold-fusion-reactor-verified-by-third-party-researchers-seems-to-have-1-million-times-the-energy-density-of-gasoline

Cold fusion reactor verified by third-party researchers, seems to have 1 million times the energy density of gasoline
By Sebastian Anthony on October 9, 2014

Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat — the device that purports to use cold fusion to generate massive amounts of cheap, green energy — has been verified by third-party researchers, according to a new 54-page report. The researchers observed a small E-Cat over 32 days, where it produced net energy of 1.5 megawatt-hours, or “far more than can be obtained from any known chemical sources in the small reactor volume.” The researchers were also allowed to analyze the fuel before and after the 32-day run, noting that the isotopes in the spent fuel could only have been obtained by “nuclear reactions” — a conclusion that boggles the researchers: “… It is of course very hard to comprehend how these fusion processes can take place in the fuel compound at low energies.”

This new report [PDF] on the E-Cat was carried out by six (reputable) researchers from Italy and Sweden. While the new E-Cat looks very different from previous iterations, the researchers say that it uses the same “hydrogen-loaded nickel” and additives (most notably lithium) as a fuel. The device’s inventor, Andrea Rossi, claims that the E-Cat uses cold fusion — low-energy nuclear reactions, LENR — to fuse nickel and hydrogen atoms into copper, releasing oodles of energy. The researchers, analyzing the fuel before and after the 32-day burn, note that there is an isotope shift from a “natural” mix of Nickel-58/Nickel-60 to almost entirely Nickel-62 — a reaction that, the researchers say, cannot occur without nuclear reactions (i.e. fusion). The researchers say there is just 1 gram of fuel inside the E-Cat.

But I’d like to see one running on open display somewhere… Still, it is a claim of a reproduction of the E-Cat.

http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf

Observation of abundant heat production from a reactor device and of isotopic changes in the fuel

Giuseppe Levi
Bologna University, Bologna, Italy
Evelyn Foschi
Bologna, Italy
Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson and Lars Tegnér
Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
Hanno Essén
Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

ABSTRACT

New results are presented from an extended experimental investigation of anomalous heat production in a special type of reactor tube operating at high temperatures. The reactor, named E-Cat, is charged with a small amount of hydrogen-loaded nickel powder plus some additives, mainly Lithium. The reaction is primarily initiated by heat from resistor coils around the reactor tube. Measurements of the radiated power from the reactor were performed with high-resolution thermal imaging cameras. The measurements of electrical power input were performed with a large bandwidth three-phase power analyzer. Data were collected during 32 days of running in March 2014. The reactor operating point was set to about 1260 ºC in the first half of the run, and at about 1400 °C in the second half. The measured energy balance between input and output heat yielded a COP factor of about 3.2 and 3.6 for the 1260 ºC and 1400 ºC runs, respectively. The total net energy obtained during the 32 days run was about 1.5 MWh. This amount of energy is far more than can be obtained from any known chemical sources in the small reactor volume.

A sample of the fuel was carefully examined with respect to its isotopic composition before the run and after the run, using several standard methods: XPS, EDS, SIMS, ICP-MS and ICP-AES. The isotope composition in Lithium and Nickel was found to agree with the natural composition before the run, while after the run it was found to have changed substantially. Nuclear reactions are therefore indicated to be present in the run process, which however is hard to reconcile with the fact that no radioactivity was detected outside the reactor during the run.

One researcher at one University might have it wrong. A dozen at a few places using different materials and getting results is hard to just ignore, especially when one of them is just trying to do a “verification” and has no monetary interest in selling the idea.

At this point it looks to me like the balance of evidence is for “it is real” and that ought to be used for long range planning until proven otherwise, but not a lot of money tossed at the idea until it is quite clearly confirmed and stated as such by “mainstream” outlets (or as soon as you can buy one and folks start doing this all over the place…)

Update

Here’s a link to the Russian duplication of the E-Cat:

http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/01/28/parkhomov-updates-report-with-some-new-data-images/

That more “independent” reproduction as Rossi was not around for it.

Parkhomov Updates Report with Some New Data, Images
[UPDATE: Video of Reactor Posted]

Posted on January 28, 2015 by Frank Acland • 51 Comments

Thanks to David Nygren for posting a link to an updated report by Alexander Parkhomov, expanding on his previous work. It’s in Russian, so non-Russian speakers will need to translate it.

There’s some more data in this report, along with some pictures. Here are the most interesting parts from my point of view. Parkhmov writes:

“The tables show results in the experiments. In addition to the experiments with reactors loaded a mixture of Ni + Li [AlH4], Carried out experiments with models of the reactor without fuel. In cases with models reactor, as well as with reactors with fuel a temperature below 1000 ° C, the ratio of the released heat to absorbed power close to 1.”

But above 1000 C it goes to positive COP:

Subscribe to feed

About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in Energy, Science Bits and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to LENR LANR Cold Fusion You Can Trust

  1. E.M.Smith says:

    Looks like Brillouin claims a validation as well:

    http://brillouinenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Brillouin-Press-Release-Technical-Validation-Report-12-1-15.pdf

    And they’ve been to Congress. Though one wonders why… perhaps to get them to lean on the Patent Office? Or supply money in copious amounts?

    http://brillouinenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Brillouin-Energy-Meets-Congress-News-Release.pdf

    As Dr. Michael McKubre said, “it is very
    clear that something on the order of four
    times (4x) and potentially more gain in
    power (and therefore ultimately energy)
    was achieved at an impressive and
    industrially significant operating
    temperature of around 640°C. To my
    knowledge this had not been achieved
    before in the LENR field. That the Brillouin
    Energy Q-Pulse™ control system is capable
    of triggering the excess power on and off is
    also highly significant.”

    Dr. Michael McKubre discusses Stanford
    Research International’s latest tests of Brillouin
    Energy’s LENR technologies.

    Maybe they need some regulatory barriers removed from anything with “nuclear” in the name?

    One hopes one of these folks starts selling something somewhere, sometime soon. I’m getting real tired of endless vapor…

  2. gallopingcamel says:

    Andrea Rossi is a scam artist who uses funds extracted from naive LENR investors to boost his minor real estate empire in Boca Raton. That is truly a “High Rent District” so his investors may get some something.

    I was rooting for Fleischman & Pons in the hope they would humble the arrogant and humourless “Respectable Physicists” physics pilloried by Douglas Adams:
    “It startled him even more when just after he was awarded the Galactic Institute’s Prize for Extreme Cleverness he got lynched by a rampaging mob of respectable physicists who had finally realized that the one thing they really couldn’t stand was a smart-ass. ”

    Thank you “Great Chiefio” for drawing attention to LANR. This looks legit given the laboratories involved but we have been disappointed before so give me time to kick the tires.

  3. omanuel says:

    Is that news another concession to the public anger toward politicians and pseudo-scientists that deceived us after WWII? In my opinion, scientists were paid to misrepresent nuclear energy out of fear of nuclear annihilation from unreported events at Konan, Korea in AUG – SEPT 1945. That is why nations were united on 24 OCT 1945.

    Whether or not Nature Climate Change finally publishes our paper on “Solar energy,”

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Solar_Energy.pdf

    I hope the next President will adopt the recommendation in the conclusions:

    Forgive those who deceived us for the past sixty-nine years for being human and move as quickly as possible to restore integrity to government science and constitutional limits on governments.”

    Resentments and anger are luxeries societt cannot afford in recover from seven decades of government deceit.

  4. E.M.Smith says:

    Hmmm…. NAVSEA seems to have “cracked the code” of what works and what doesn’t. Interesting to me to note that they find too pure of a Pd doesn’t work… Now where did I hear that speculated? ;-)

    Also they note the need to have an input energy to get things moving (and that it can be any of several kinds… I’m liking that stray radar idea even more ;-)

    http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/10/06/louis-dechario-of-us-naval-sea-systems-command-navsea-on-replicating-pons-and-fleischmann/

    Louis DeChiaro of US Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) on Replicating Pons and Fleischmann
    Posted on October 6, 2015 by Frank Acland • 221 Comments
    Thanks to Adrian Ashfield for sharing this information with me who tells me this information comes from the research notes of Louis F. DeChiaro, Ph.D, a physicist with the US Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA), Dahlgren Warfare Center. I am told this text has been cleared for public dissemination.

    As for duplicating the Pons and Fleischmann results, we now have a much better understanding of the phenomenon, and the list of prerequisite conditions is rather lengthy. Failure to meet even one of those conditions results in zero excess energy output. The data suggest that there may be more than one initiation mechanism, so I’m most qualified to comment upon what is known as the atomic vibrational LENR initiation mechanism (because my formal background is in Condensed Matter Physics). If one had to summarize the list in a fairly brief manner, I would write it as follows:

    1. It is necessary to set up conditions favoring the formation of molecular hydrogen (H2 or D2) inside the solid lattice for a certain range of possible values of lattice constant and for some fraction of the allowed values for electron momentum. This condition alone rules out almost ALL the elemental , because the electron density is just too large to permit molecules to form, except near vacancies in the lattice where a metal atom is absent.

    2. The overall hydrogen loading fraction (ratio of hydrogen to palladium atoms, for example) must exceed the minimum threshold of about 0.88, otherwise the “party” never even gets started. Achieving this level of loading in Pd is not trivial.

    3. Conditions must be set up (by appropriate choice of materials parameters and achieved by the right kind of alloying) so that these hydrogen molecules can be caused to break up and then re-assemble very rapidly in a periodic time sequence when an appropriate physical quantity such as background electric charge, magnetic field, etc. is made to oscillate periodically over a small range.

    4. The critical value of lattice constant at which this break up and reassembly occurs must lie very close to the nominal value of lattice constant for which the ground state energy of the lattice is minimal. This requirement alone rules out essentially all of the elemental lattices and about 99% of the binary and ternary alloys.

    5. A departure from equilibrium must be established that will permit an external energy source (eg. the DC power supply in an electrolysis experiment and/or a pair of low power lasers as in the Letts/Hagelstein two laser experiment) to feed energy into the H-H or D-D stretching mode vibrations. The difference in chemical potential that is established in gas loading experiments can also serve very nicely; in this case the flux feeds energy into the stretching mode vibrations.

    6. The nature of the lattice must permit these stretching mode vibrations to grow so large (over a period of perhaps many nanoseconds) that their amplitude becomes comparable to the lattice constant. When this occurs, the H atoms oscillate so violently that at the instants of closest approach, the curvature of the parabolic energy wells in which the atomic nuclei vibrate will become perturbed. Thus the curvature of the well oscillates as a periodic function of time. These very large amplitude vibrations are known as superoscillations in the Western literature and as “discrete breathers” in the Ukrainian literature. Under the right conditions, these oscillations can grow without impacting the atoms, which are much more massive than the hydrogens. We explored this computationally via Density Functional Molecular Dynamics runs.

    7. When the curvatures of the parabolic energy wells of the nuclei are modulated at a frequency very near the natural resonant frequency, the quantum expectation value of the nuclear wave function spatial spread will oscillate with time in such a way that the positive-going peaks grow exponentially with time. Originally, I found this idea in the Ukrainian literature and was skeptical. So, we verified it by doing a direct numerical solution of the time-dependent Schrodinger Equation for a single nuclear particle in a parabolic energy well. These oscillations in spatial spread will periodically delocalize the nucleus and facilitate the tunneling of adjacent nuclei into the Strong Force attractive nuclear potential well, giving rise to nuclear fusion at rates that are several tens of orders of magnitude larger than what one calculates via the usual Gamow Factor integral relationship.

    Almost none of this material was obvious back in 1989. Without knowing what one is doing and why it works, the probability of achieving successful results via the so-called Edisonian method of trial and error is disappointingly low. Reasonable scientists and engineers can be forgiven for their difficulty in believing that there might exist ANY circumstances under which such things could be possible. And to be blunt, it was only in the last few months that the causal chain finally became clear.

    An old saying holds that it is easy to appear tall when standing on the shoulders of giants. My colleagues and I are most humbly grateful to have been given the opportunity to stand on the shoulders of such giants, however briefly.

    I would also suggest that some praise might be due to people like Andrea Rossi, who (by and large) had little alternative but to employ the Edisonian method and nevertheless appear to have obtained positive results. We have run materials simulations (also known as Density Functional Theory simulations) on our best guess of Rossi’s alloy material. It satisfies all the conditions given above, while pure Nickel does not.

    In like manner, the Naval Research Labs (NRL) ran over 300 experiments using pure Pd cathodes, all of them yielding negative results. Then somebody suggested that NRL should try an alloy of 90% Pd and 10% Rh. The very first such alloy cathode they tried yielded over 10,000 Joules of excess thermal energy – all from less than 1 gram of cathode material. I ran Density Functional Theory simulations on that alloy, and it, too, satisfies all the conditions given above, while pure Pd and pure Rh do not.

    NRL christened this cathode with the name Eve, after the obvious Biblical analogy. I’m pleased to share the news that Eve had a number of “sisters” who produced equal and even greater excess thermal energy, among a number of other more interesting effects. Finally, I can observe that the materials simulations now make it fairly easy to evaluate any given solid lattice material and estimate its level of LENR activity. We have good correlations between the simulation results and the known levels of experimentally-determined LENR activity in a number of different alloys whose dominant elements come from the Transition Metal Group of the Periodic Table. Hopefully, we will be able to get all the details of this material released for publication to the general public over the next few weeks.

    Looks like LOTS of metals in specific alloys can “go”. IFF that can be confirmed, it’s a huge deal.

    Guess I have a “Dig Here!” to go looking to see if it was released…

    https://www.academia.edu/17964553/Condensed_Matter_Nuclear_Science_October_2015

    has an interesting bit or two in it:

    Condensed Matter Nuclear Reactions
    P.A. Mosier-Boss US Navy SPAWAR-Pacific, San Diego, CA L.P. Forsley
    JWK Corporation, Annandale, VA Global Energy Corporation, San Diego, CA University of Texas, Austin, Austin, TX

    […]
    . Neutrons are not easily produced, nor, are they produced by purely chemical means. Hence, neutrons are the hallmark of nuclear reactions. Although neutron production isn’t commensurate with measured heat, several of our papers discuss neutron production. There is an abundance of contradictory theories, and hence, we’ve shied away from theory until we had data. Although the mantra, “theory guides, data decides”, doesn’t preclude experimental data, several voices outside the field refuse to recognize the phenomena unless there is a theory. However, our modeling has provided guidance and suggests previously unrecognized magnetic and nuclear effects that clearly enable condensed matter nuclear reactions. The major “cold fusion” criticism has been the need to overcome the Coulomb Barrier between two positively charged deuterons at room temperature, 0.025 eV, as opposed to the hot fusion ion temperature of 5 keV (55 million K). However, low energy accelerator experiments with metal deuteride targets demonstrate enhanced electron screening that significantly raises the Gamow Factor thereby increasing the low temperature deuterium fusion cross-section. Other nuclear theories have been suggested to lower the Coulomb Barrier, though few of these are consistent with our data.

    Most important, the co-deposition protocol discussed in these papers has shown independent repro-ducibility and replication across multiple laboratories in four countries negating two primary criticisms of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (CMNS): irreproducibility and lack of independent replication.

    The significance of condensed matter nuclear reactions cannot be overstated. The successful commercialization of the technology would be paradigm shifting, to say the least.
    Our research and implementation is a few years ahead of what we have published. Contact us regarding our current work in hybrid fusion-fission reactors, energetics and compact power generation.

    That’s a rather interesting statement. They’ve run a few years out ahead, and are soliciting interest from folks about power generation.

    However, a patent is the most technologically significant publication. It provides the means to capitalize upon a discovery and commercially exploit its impact. The first US co-deposition patent was published in 1999, but the second, in 2013, explicitly teaches the palladium co-deposition method as a means to generate energetic particles: condensed matter nuclear reactions!
    Synopsis
    This synopsis begins with two patents: #5,928,483, “Electrochemical Cell Having a Beryllium Com- pound Coated Electrode” and US #8,419,919, “System and Method for Generating Particles”

    Then these abstracts fairly clearly show something is going on:

    Abstracts

    S. Szpak, P.A. Mosier-Boss, and J.J. Smith, “On the Behavior of Pd Deposited in the Presence of Evolving Deuterium,”
    J. Electroanal. Chem
    .,
    302
    (1991) 255-260 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/002207289185044P This was a preliminary note introducing the Pd/D co-deposition protocol as an alternative experimental approach to initiate LENR. Temperature measurements using thermocouples placed in the cathode and solution show that the cathode was hotter than the solution. This indicates that the observed heat is not due to Joule heating. A ten-fold increase in tritium content in the solution was observed. Experiments were conducted with photographic film in close proximity of the cathode. After development, the film showed a grid pattern due to the Ni screen cathode and was attributable to the emission of soft X-rays.

    […]
    S. Szpak, P.A. Mosier-Boss, S.R. Scharber, and J.J. Smith, “Charging of the Pd/nH System: Role of the Interphase,”
    J. Electroanal. Chem,337
    (1992) 147-163. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/002207289280534B Slow scan cyclic voltammetric studies of Au/Pd/nH were conducted to examine the dynamics of transport of electrochemically deuterium/hydrogen across the electrode/electrolyte interphase. It was found that a coupled, two-layer model of the interphase describes the observed behavior as a function of scan rate and electrolyte composition. The effect of chemisorbing species, thiourea, and pH on the transport across the interphase was also investigated.

    Hodko, D. and Bockris, J.O.M., “Possible excess tritium production on Pd codeposited with deute-rium”,
    J. Electroanal. Chem.
    ,353, Issues 1–2, (1993) 33-41.
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/002207289380284O Tritium production was measured in the liquid and gas phases on Pd codeposited with deuterium from PdCl2+ LiCl + D2O solutions. During two weeks of electrolysis, in four out of six cells, average excess tritium levels of 1.9 times in the gas phase and 1.6 times in the liquid phase were found over those expected from the separation factor. The largest excess of tritium found was three times that calculated theoretically from the separation factor. The excess tritium observed exhibited a ‘burst’ nature, both in the gas and liquid phases. On two occasions, where tritium production was within classical limits, no bursts were observed. A separation factor of 1.6 was measured in these two cells. This method has the advantage that the tritium concentration in the bulk of Pd was measured in solution before the Pd was deposited on an Au substrate.

    Ohhh… and new elements formed:

    17.
    S. Szpak, P.A. Mosier-Boss, C. Young, and F.E. Gordon, “Evidence of Nuclear Reactions in the Pd Lattice,”
    Naturwissenschaften, 92 (2005) 394-397.

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00114-005-0008-7

    When a cathode prepared by Pd/D co-deposition is subjected to an external electrostatic field, SEM analysis of the deposit shows discrete sites exhibiting molten-like features. Such features require substan-tial energy expenditure in order to form. EDX analysis of these features shows the presence of new ele-ments (Al, Mg, Ca, Si, Zn,…) that could not be extracted from cell components.

    and

    32.
    P.A. Mosier-Boss, J.Y. Dea, F.E. Gordon, L.P. Forsley, M.H. Miles, “Review of Twenty Years of LENR Research Using Pd/D Co-deposition”,
    J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci.

    4 (2011) 173–187. http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol4.pdf
    In the Pd/D co-deposition process, working and counter electrodes are immersed in a solution of palladium chloride and lithium chloride in deuterated water. Palladium is then electrochemically reduced onto the surface of the working electrode in the presence of evolving deuterium gas. Electrodes prepared by Pd/D co-deposition exhibit highly expanded surfaces consisting of small spherical nodules. Because of this high surface area and electroplating in the presence of deuterium gas, the incubation time to achieve high D/Pd loadings necessary to initiate LENR is orders of magnitude less than required for bulk electrodes. Besides heat, the following nuclear emanations have been detected using Pd/D co-deposition: X-ray emission, tritium production, transmutation, and particle emission. Experimental details and results obtained over a twenty year period of research are discussed.

    There’s a whole lot of stuff in there, I’ve only pulled out a tiny bit. The upshot of it all, to me, is that these folks in the Navy have clearly got a repeatable nuclear reaction of some kind going on and they have reasonable control of it and a workable theory for what works and why.

    48.
    L. F. DeChiaro, L. P. Forsley, and P.A. Mosier-Boss, “Strained Layer Ferromagnetism in Transition Metals and its Impact Upon Low Energy Nuclear Reactions”,
    J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci.

    17,pp. 1-26. (2015)

    http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol17.pdf

    Spin-polarized Density Functional Theory (DFT) calculations have been performed to model the lattice structures for the Transition Metal Group, Columns I and II, and a number of sp elements in the Periodic Table. Our results suggest that most of the transition metals can exhibit ferromagnetic ordering if the lattice is placed in sufficiently high tensile stress. These results are applied to the study of some layered structures employed by a number of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) research teams and may help to explain some of the anomalous results and the difficulty in reproduction of those results

  5. Larry Ledwick says:

    Definitely sounds like this at least gets filed under “where there is smoke there is fire”.
    Let’s assume it is a real energy gain, then the next questions become things like:
    Is it cost effective (ie is the energy produced worth more than all the capital investment and labor involved in building a useful device?

    Is the reaction stable, reproducible and do the active materials remain active (ie catalysts do not poison) before you get to payoff.

    If this is real, it is really going to flatten the long term prospects of all the major oil producing countries.

    Are there critical materials needed for the production — ie who has control of the worlds nickle etc.
    Since this is only the first round of workable experiments, can they increase productivity and reduce costs with doping of the active materials.

    Most importantly — if it works and once they understand the process, what new discoveries will spin out of that new under standing?

    Keeping fingers crossed that this is real.

    Last question is what happens to the world economy and society if there is essentially unlimited energy at affordable prices?

    Will someone be able to “lock up this process” via patent or some such regulatory method, and who would that impact?

    Final question that must be asked, what is the risk of an uncontrolled release of energy, does this process have a “no go” zone where it goes super critical?

    So many questions and so little time.

  6. E.M.Smith says:

    That last paper is a gold mine…
    http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol17.pdf

    9. Summary

    In summary, spin-polarized DFT computations have been useful in providing insight into the magnetic behavior of many of the transition metals on the Periodic Table in their elemental lattices. Most of the transition metals and a number of sp elements (including diamond, aluminum, silicon, germanium, selenium, tellurium, lead, and polonium) are predicted to exhibit ferromagnetic ordering when their lattices are placed in sufficiently high tensile stress. At the threshold lattice constant for the onset of this ferromagnetic ordering, we predict that the energy surface for the elemental lattice bifurcates into two stable solutions, one paramagnetic with a higher energy and one ferromagnetic with a lower energy. The paramagnetic sheet for the energy surface above threshold joins smoothly with the paramagnetic sheet below threshold, however the ferromagnetic sheet joins with the paramagnetic sheet in such a way that the energy is continuous, but its derivatives may exhibit jump discontinuities at the threshold. Most of the elements exhibit magnetization curves that rise very rapidly with lattice constant above threshold and then saturate at higher values, approaching well-defined asymptotes as the lattice constant grows. In most cases, the normalized values of these asymptotic magnetizations lie close to 1.0 Bohr Magneton per unpaired p or d electron spin, which is the expected limiting case for isolated atoms. Interestingly, we find that (with the possible exceptions of the Lanthanide and Actinide series) the atoms whose outermost electron shells contain only s electrons do not exhibit ferromagnetic ordering at any practical value of lattice constant. This specifically includes all the Columns I and II elements and several elements on the right-hand edge of the Transition Metal Group such as zinc, cadmium, silver, and gold.

    The results summarized above may now be applied to a variety of multilayer structures whose LENR results have been published during the past 15 years. The Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) team under Yasuhiro Iwamura reported successful observation of several different types of nuclear transmutations when using a structure consisting of alternating layers of CaO and Pd, both of which crystallize in the face-centered cubic (FCC) structure. The CaO unit cell lattice constant is about 4.815 Å, placing it above the threshold for the onset of spontaneous ferromagnetic ordering of Pd (4.50 Å when tensile stress is applied in all three dimensions, 4.69 Å when stress is applied in only two dimensions). By contrast, they reported negative experimental results when MgO was substituted for the CaO. The lattice constant for MgO is only 4.211 Å, placing it well below the thresholds for magnetization in Pd. Similarly, the Osaka University team under Yoshiaki Arata reported high LENR rates and 4He production rates when their Pd nanoparticles were grown in intimate contact with ZrO2, which also has an FCC lattice and a lattice constant of about 5.07 Å. They reported much lower LENR rates when bulk Pd or even finely divided Pd powder was used in the same experimental apparatus.

    The search to identify the experimental parameters that most directly control LENR phenomena has posed and continues to pose difficult challenges for the community. The effect of magnetic fields upon measured LENR rates has been known for some time but is not yet well understood. Our results suggest the possible existence of an underlying order involving spontaneous magnetization that may tie together the work of several different teams and materials systems. It is hoped that these results will provide a number of mechanistic clues for the theoretical community as well as guidance for LENR materials specialists seeking to optimize reactor structures for various LENR applications of the future.

    Acknowledgements

    The DFT studies documented in this work are a direct outgrowth of US Navy research that was funded under the In-house Laboratory Independent Research (ILIR) Program, and we wish to gratefully acknowledge the strong support of Jeff Solka (the ILIR sponsor) and the Department Q management over the past 5 years. In addition, we wish to thank a number of dear colleagues for their inspiration, including Peter Hagelstein of the MIT Electronics Research Laboratory, the LENR teams at the NASA Langley and Glenn facilities, and especially Olga Dmitriyeva and Rick Cantwell of Coolescence, who were instrumental in suggesting the potential value of spin polarized calculations in elemental metal systems.

    Looks to me like there’s a very workable thesis for searching the metals and even compound layers spaces for things that are active. It also looks like folks have some very repeatable and cleanly understood working devices.

    IMHO Rossi may have accidentally stumbled onto one that works (as noted in the theoretical ‘nod’ to him above from the Navy lab folks) but his commercial success may be limited (even IF it works as advertised and gets commercialized “soon”…) due to many potential competitor reactions from many different fronts, and with a theoretical framework for finding more fairly rapidly.

    I’d also note that Rossi has been showing “weight loss” of unknown cause. IMHO he ought to take a nice little X-ray detector with him when he goes to work inside his container sized reactors. Several of these citations have listed “soft X-rays” as detected products. Being slowly cooked by low level X-rays for a few years is likely not very good for ones health…

  7. Mac T says:

    The 60-year old promise of nuclear fusion driven power stations is the bigger scam. How many billions of honest tax-money have we sacrificed for nothing. Those scientists who commenced the first research have been dead and gone for decades, others have been pensioned off while new ones have picked up where the older ones left off, that is, NOTHING TO DECLARE, NOTHING TO SHOW, after 60 years of ‘research’.

    I would really laugh my head off if Rossi had to roll out his promised e-cat during this decade.

    Until then, give me oil, coal and gas.

  8. Mac T says:

    The man who produced the first flames of a bonfire did not need a scientific theory to do it. The theory came millennia of years later: C+O2=CO2 + Energy

  9. gallopingcamel says:

    @Chiefio,
    “I’d also note that Rossi has been showing “weight loss” of unknown cause. IMHO he ought to take a nice little X-ray detector with him when he goes to work inside his container sized reactors. Several of these citations have listed “soft X-rays” as detected products. Being slowly cooked by low level X-rays for a few years is likely not very good for ones health…”

    It ain’t the X-rays! Nuclear reactions such as those involving nickel and hydrogen involve the emission of gamma rays. If Rossi’s Bologna “Demonstration” was real, everyone within a few feet would have received a lethal dose of gamma rays within a matter of minutes.

    The LD50 (50% chance of Lethal Dose) for gamma rays is in the range 3.5 to 5 Sieverts. Taking the higher figure, the lethal dose is 500 Joules of gamma rays per kilo. 50,000 Joules for a person weighing 100 kilos. A real 10 kW LENR would emit 36,000,000 Joules per hour.

    Until I see gamma ray shielding around a 10 kW (thermal) LENR machine I will continue to say SCAM!

  10. A C Osborn says:

    As Larry says, it is now all about Costs.
    I don’t think the initial cost will be an eventual problem, it is the Cost, Ease and Periodicity of the re-fuelling that will will probably decide it’s future.
    If a charge only lasts a week and you have to replace it at a greater cost than Gas usage or it is difficult to do will it is likely to kill it off for home use.

  11. A C Osborn says:

    gallopingcamel says 17 March 2016 at 11:42 am You may say SCAM for Rossi’s but what about the US Navy?

  12. Brent Buckner says:

    These folks (MFMP) claim a replication of Rossi:
    http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/

    SKINR (Sidney Kimmel Institute for Nuclear Renaissance at the University of Missouri) is presently (March 17th) trying a run much along the MFMP lines (c.f. https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject/photos/a.587293604634676.1073741827.466698113360893/1135334186497279/?type=3&theater )

    Reports of some successes in China:
    http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/03/02/new-songsheng-jiang-lenr-tests-excess-heat-for-7-days/

  13. Lionell says:

    Until I can go to the local Ace Hardware and buy a 5KW cold fusion generator, color me skeptical.

  14. Graeme No.3 says:

    The USN picked up the patented work on thermo-electric generation at 17% efficiency, double any previous results. That was based on a lead tellurium alloy with added silver.

  15. p.g.sharrow says:

    Plasma fusion people have spent many $billions of taxpayer money and 60 years of effort and they claim 96% energy return! This is the way to go? “Send more Money” we will have a positive outcome in 20 to 100 years.
    LENR only achieves 1200% return and it has to be a scam because that kind of Plasma fusion would KILL everyone in the area because of the HARD radiation released. It has been known from the start that LENR does not create hard radiation. The energy created and released is a much different species then that involved in the usual atom smashers engineering. Atom smasher engineering yields energy through Neutron Destruction under HIGH energy conditions. Small wonder there is the creation of hard energy radiation that damages everything around it. LENR releases energy through Neutron Creation. Little in the way of radiation escapes the device as it operates in a relatively low energy condition.
    Theory follows the tinkers, It does not lead. After the Inventors demonstrate the facts then the Educated Elite create their Theories, write up their papers and collect their rewards for their new understandings.
    LENR type energy creation is the wave of the future for the human race and it reduces the amount of radioactive waste from energy creation rather the increasing it…pg

  16. A C Osborn says:

    p.g.sharrow says: 17 March 2016 at 3:49 pm

    Well said, more unsettled “settled science”.

  17. kuhnkat says:

    Y’all might want to take a look at Brilliant Light Power (new name a few months ago):

    http://www.blacklightpower.com/

    The site has video of demos and a theory section etc. Seems that the underlying physics of their effect and Lenr/Lanr have similarities…

  18. gallopingcamel says:

    @p,g.sharrow,
    “LENR releases energy through Neutron Creation. Little in the way of radiation escapes the device as it operates in a relatively low energy condition.”

    There is at least one Nobel prizewinner who agrees with you.

    Brian Josephson is kin in the sense that he was born in Wales and studied at Cambridge university. Much as I would like to agree with him, I think he has lost his marbles.

  19. Mac T says:

    The invention of fire predated it’s scientific explanation by thousands of years. At that time nobody said that it was a scam, not even the tribe’s shaman I would imagine, but today’s ‘shamans’ would want to kill any attempt of somebody steering science into unknown territory. They shout “Here be dragons”, as of old. If they had treated Columbus with the same stick as they beat LENR with, history would be different. To say that LENR is a scam should be considered on the same lines as Galileo’s condemnation by the Pope (and his scientific peers, because it was Galileo’s peers who pushed the Pope to condemn Galileo.)

    If LENR leads to nowhere let it lead to nowhere, but if it works it will change the face of the world, and from what’s being seen and measured, there’s something to it.

    The scam is the 60 years of money-guzzling hot fusion project. It’s said that it is the energy of the future, and it seems that it will always be.

  20. EMS, I was glad to see that you have given LENR extensive coverage.
    Rossi’s weight is back up to normal and he passed his recent physical.
    Mats Lewan’s webinar is a good introduction for people who have not been following LENR

    The independent report on Industrial Heat’s 1 MW plant is expected shortly. Rossi has been asked if it could be released on Mar 23rd as that is a F & P anniversary and he said he would try. I much doubt the trial would have gone on for a year if it didn’t work.
    A statement from Industrial Heat (the only one) says they are evaluating results to determine future plans. I speculate this means the new E-Cat X is so much improved over the regular low temperature E-Cats ( 4 x 250 kW units) that it will be the future. Rossi says he hopes to have an E-Cat X plant in a customer’s site in April and will be talking about it at Mats Lewan’s planned symposium in June.
    We only have information about the E-Cat quarkX from Rossi. He says that it works up to 1400C, it can produce at least 50% of the output as electricity directly, the standard unit will be 100W and these will be combined to make any power required. They are tiny. A volume of a 20 cigarette pack could produce 20kW. It has given him insight into a new theory that he is working on with Prof. Cook, that he thinks now answers the puzzle how the effect works.

    My letter to Energy Secretary Moniz of 7/7/2015 about the LENR is still unanswered. DOE’s Office of Science also know about it but are determined to keep their eyes firmly closed. They say they are not interested in looking until Rossi requests them to do so. (And pays them for it.)
    The next three months will be very interesting.

  21. gallopingcamel says:

    @Adrian Ashfield,
    “The next three months will be very interesting.”

    We have been saying that for quite a while:
    https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/06/03/can-a-definition-shuffle-steal-cold-fusion/

    That was published in June 2011 at which time Rossi predicted that his first commercial scale plant would be working within 3 months (September 2011).

    Now he has you panting with anticipation for a similar “Milestone” to be reached in three months. How long before you wake up?

  22. Pingback: LANR Laves metals fusion | Musings from the Chiefio

  23. E.M.Smith says:

    @GallopingCamel:

    I presume the “he” in “he has you” is talking about Rossi, not me…

  24. gallopingcamel says:

    @Chiefio,
    I am awestruck by your ability to keep up with what is going on in so many technical fields. While I am a sucker for LENR/LANR, I would not have a clue about recent developments absent your posts.

    You tell us where to look but you don’t tell us who to believe so I don’t hold you responsible for Rossi or any of the other believers. IMHO everything Rossi does screams “SCAM”.

    If it turns out there is new physics underlying Rossi’s “E-Cat” that explains how to overcome the Coulomb barrier and how nuclear reactions can take place without generating lethal gamma ray fluxes I will humbly embrace it and apologise to him.

    Until then……..may the force be with you!

  25. EMS,
    Your new piece on LENR caused me to revisit this thread. I was surprised it is still active.
    Don’t know why people like gallopingcamel are so pessimistic. Progress with the E-Cat has been as fast as one could hope for with an entirely new technology. There is no doubt the 1MW plant exists and I’m optimistic about the ERV’s report. I gather mid April is now more likely than March 23rd.
    I have rather given up on the theory. There are too many of them and I don’t know enough about atomic physics to be about to judge them well without a lot of effort. . Rossi thinks he has finally solved it as a result of current work with the E-Cat quarkX. He say he is working with Prof. Cook to put it in a paper.
    There has to be a clue in the E-Cat x being so small – 100 Watts. This is supposed to be able to give >50% of its output as electricity. Conventional control for a large plant using quark Xs, that Rossi says would be used, would make conventional control excessive. I speculated the control maybe entirely electrical, for both input and output power, after it is started up.
    He says he hopes to have a 1 MW plant installed at a customer by the end of April. Also that a1 MW would fit into a cubic meter. He is also working with others to use the quark X for a turbine.
    I wrote to him recently to tell him about the UK government competition for a small modular reactor, for which they have budgeted £250 million.
    The Russians, Chinese & US are planning to spend megabucks on getting to Mars. The Russians are looking at a nuclear power plant to do the trip in six weeks. An ion engine powered by quarkXs sounds like a better way to me..

  26. gallopingcamel says:

    @Adrian Ashfield,
    “Don’t know why people like gallopingcamel are so pessimistic.”

    I built “Streak Cameras” and femto-second pulsed lasers in the early 1970s when the primary applications were in fusion research. On the one hand weapons and on the other hand inertial confinement experiments for the generation of electricity..

    Back in the 1972 it was widely believed that commercial electrical generation based on fusion power would be available in 40 years. Fast forward to 2012 to find that commercial fusion power is at least 40 years away so the “Pot of Gold at the End of the Rainbow” is no closer. Even so I am a sucker for “Weird Science” such as LENR/LANR.

    From 1990 to 2002 I worked with relativistic electrons and helped to build the world’s brightest gamma ray source based on Inverse Compton Scattering:
    http://www.tunl.duke/edu/web.tunl.2011a.howhigsworks.php

    Given my experience in cutting edge physics projects my “Bullshit Detector” is pretty reliable and it tells me that Rossi is a scam artist. Although some “respectable physicists” such as Brian Josephson respect Rossi’s work I will remain unconvinced unless he delivers what he promised over four years ago.

    As “Project Manager” of the “Duke University Free Electron Laser” my task was to deliver a functional machine by November 1, 1994. Sadly I (we) failed so the milestone was achieved at 0130 hours on November 2. We were 90 minutes late! Fortunately my excuses were accepted.

    Rossi will be five years late in September 2016. I might take him seriously if he could explain his poor performance.

  27. gallopingcamel says:

    @Adrian Ashfield,
    As you seem to appreciate weird science, so I hope you will like this:
    https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2013/06/17/bussard-revisited/

    According to Einstein’s “General Theory of Relativity” you can get to the center of the “Milky Way” galaxy in less than 11 years even though it is 27,002 light years away. What “Warp Factor” is that?

  28. gallopingcamel says:

    @Adrian Ashfield,
    “The Russians are looking at a nuclear power plant to do the trip in six weeks.”

    Space travel is going to be unimpressive until we have nuclear rockets. Nuclear fission produces about 3,000,000 times more energy than the same weight of chemical reactants. With a rocket that provides one “g” acceleration it takes only three days to reach Mars even when it is at apogee relative to Earth.

    Light element fusion (hydrogen, helium and lithium) is at least one order of magnitude more effective that nuclear fission. Matter/anti-matter reactions and proton annihilation processes generate almost two orders of magnitude more energy than light element fusion.

  29. Wayne Job says:

    Hi Chief, After reading all this I wondered if what we are playing with might be a trigger for these reactions?

  30. E.M.Smith says:

    @Wayne:

    I don’t know. Maybe? I suspect not, though.

    The ‘trigger’ for LENR can be anything that makes “plasmons” wobble on the surface of a crystal. That is, blobs of electrons or the vibrating of the atoms themselves, depending on the particular reaction (H-H, D-D, H-Ni, etc.) involved. Your Stuff looks like something else to me, but might be related to the whole plasmon polaron etc etc. space. Maybe just a very long wavelength version of it.

    As you didn’t report excess heat, I think the LENR aspect is being mute…

    @GallopingCamel:

    I have essentially the same reaction to Rossi. HOWEVER, my reaction to M.I.T., The US Navy, and Mitsubishi are very different. IMHO the NAVSEA folks have “nailed it”. I’d speculate that Rossi stumbled on one of the ‘working mixes’ by accident and then spent a 1/2 decade trying to control it (with mediocre success) having little idea what it was or how it worked. “Even a blind squirrel finds a nut some times.”.

    I think the best “control” will turn out to be pulsed magnetic / electrical driving. There’s evidence for folks getting this to ‘go’ via exciting the atoms ( that whole plasmon polaron etc etc on thing) with a variety of energies. Rossi took the “high temperature” route. That works at about 1000 C, but is prone to unstable regeneration (i.e. going “POOF!” as a spot in the rod melts). Others (Brillouin?) use pulsed electricity (Mhz) and other (mixed lasers making beat frequencies as I understand it) use Thz em fields. I suspect Rossi just discovered the non-heat control path for the eCat-X / quark…

    The key bits seem to be:

    Select an alloy that holds a LOT of Hydrogen.

    Tune it for an atomic spacing between the atoms that is molecular H sized for H-H fusion, or atomic H sized for H-Metal fusion.

    Load it to as close to 100% H as possible (may need to deoxidize and dewater the metal first).

    Stimulate it to atomic vibrations with any of:

    Direct heat.

    EM fields (i.e. microwaves to laser beams, and sometimes down in the 10 kHz pulsed current for direct electrical heated things).

    Impressed modulating magnetic fields (lots of interesting stuff on both static and dynamic magnetic fields increasing reaction rates in other systems).

    Sound (sonofusion approach with ultrasonic transducers in liquids).

    Electrical flow in electrochemical cells. ( I suspect the rapid oscillation of the current flow as bubbles form and you have rapid gas / liquid transitions is what is actually the driver, and that a non-cavitating electrochemical cell ought to work better with external stimulation via microwaves, lasers, Mhz pulsing of the electrochemical current, etc.)

    Basically, you need to whack the crystal structure and set it vibrating in an energy range / frequency that is suited to making the H-H bang into each other ‘just right’ or the H-M.

    IFF my understanding is correct, you can take any of the alloys with high H absorption, tuned for interatomic distance to favor D-D, H-H, or H-M based on the energy at which their wave function delocalizes enough, and stimulated to “enough energy” to make the vibrating hole the H sits in wobble enough to react via your choice of drivers. I’d heat it to ‘near go’ and then ‘jump it up’ the rest of the way via microwave frequency EM or current flows. Control electronics then just need to modulate the microwave generator faster than the heat runaway cycle can act. Call it resistive heat to about 800 C then microwave from there on up to full operation (just under thermal runaway).

    Or use lasers if you are better with them. Or use more pressure instead of some of the heat (i.e. run the sucker at a few ATM so more H is shoved in more easily). I can also see a potential for a large electromagnet surrounding the reactor to use magnetic oscillations to drive it. Or even a mix of them just for fun. It’s all just “ringing the bell’ of that crystal lattice. Someone with more theoretical experience than me can work out what does that best.

    “The hard bit” is finding that hydrogen absorbing metal alloy and getting the interatomic distances right. Likely a lot easier now, since we have ‘existence proof’ devices (M.I.T. gizmos) and can just measure the distance. Then look for similar interatomic spacing. (Lattice Constant) in the other alloys. Hopefully someone has already measured them and they are all in a nice table of Laves Alloys somewhere…

    So find the cross correlations between a “Hydrogen Absorption of Alloys” chart and a “Lattice Constants of Alloys” chart. Then “load with H2 and stimulate”. Easy! ;-)

    But I won’t be celebrating until I see them being sold (either at Home Depot OR to major industrial facilities managers…) and have the first few “in use” reports published….

  31. gallopingcamel says:

    @Chiefio,
    You point out that prestigious organizations such as MIT are working on LENR/LANR projects using DoD, AFSOR, NRL and DARPA funds. These organizations fund real science such as the Duke Free Electron Laser. They also fund junk science, often on a more lavish scale. For example they fund the Nicholas School of the Environment located only 300 feet from the DFELL. They also fund Michael Mann at Penn State and the Goddard Institute of Space Science.

    Prestigious organizations like Duke, Penn State and MIT will spend government money with great gusto even if the “Research” has no merit. Many “Scientists” at these institutions are whores paid for by politicians. I should know as they kept me for 12 years on the understanding that I would “go along to get along”.

    That said I will try to find the time to read the many papers you have unearthed. I tend to have more respect for research funded by companies such as Mitsubishi as they are spending their own money rather than yours.

Comments are closed.