Low Energy Nuclear Reactions: 2.5 Million Watt-hours from a Nickel?

By Thomas Blakeslee
March 31, 2011  

The information and views expressed in this blog post are solely those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on this Web site and other publications. This blog was posted directly by the author and was not reviewed for accuracy, spelling or grammar.

 

Anonymous
March 31, 2011
Tom writes: "What most people don't know is that the declaration that cold fusion was "junk science" was really "junk criticism", driven by powerful interests."

If an experimentalist cannot provide a plausible theory for a measurement and the measurement cannot be independently verified skepticism won't just come from "powerful interests". 20 years after the initial reports of cold fusion and after considerable research funding, we are still being treated to media spectacles rather than solid evidence independently verified. If the only evidence of a "black swan" is bird poo I'd say anyone who isn't a skeptic isn't rational.
Steven
Comment
2 of 13
March 31, 2011
Countless experiments have produced phenomena that was unexplainable by current theory, but led to very valuable and innovative technologies.

To understand and measure what takes place inside an atom that is unimaginably small and moving at unimaginable speeds must be kinda hard, eh?

Nobody will let him patten his invention, so why would he explain every technical aspect that he has developed over the past 15 years? He is making a commercial product, if it works, we are all going to be scrambling to pick up our jaws and catch the bandwagon.
Comment
3 of 13
March 31, 2011
Hi:

Interesting article...
Stephen writes of "independent" verification.
When the threat to profit and stakes are so high, as in a discovery of this nature, any organization or corporation of any size is really not independent. If they are big enough to be recognized, then they are big enough to bribe and threaten.
No matter who brings out the data and no matter how true, it will immediately be attacked and media discarded. This is just how the world works as we have created it. You stand a much better chance of success if you can "get it out" and disperse it, before you are even on anyone's radar.
Oh and BTW, its not conspiracy theory its simply business....
I wish the persons involved the best of luck...

.....Bill
No image available
Comment
4 of 13
Anonymous
March 31, 2011
The cold fusion crowd attends conferences and submits (with little success) papers to journals. What they don't actually do is offer any credible evidence or a remotely plausible explanation for how their claims could possibly be true--after 20+ years of study. The notion that they have--and are trying to keep--secrets is inconsistent with their actions and apparent cluelessness. If you hint publicly that a device causes fusion because you detect emission of copper atoms but cannot explain your detection mechanism or specify which isotope was observed, it suggests you are either clueless or interested in attracting clueless investors. The usual order of events for serious scientists is to patent (optionally), publish, and only then hold press conferences or other media events. Other "professions" follow different conventions....

Steven
Comment
5 of 13
April 1, 2011
In your comment, you write :
question : do you known a plausible theory for gravitation???
NASA will be happy to known tnat theory
Comment
6 of 13
April 1, 2011
Science depends upon reproducibility, not explanation. Explanations are only niceties which may lead to further discovery. Explanations are never even correct. I have not heard that the E-cat has yet been independently reproduced, but many other experiments in the field have been.

If Rossi delivers by October then the issue will be settled.
Comment
7 of 13
April 1, 2011
My lecture on cold fusion at the University of Maryland USA in March of 2011 enjoy.

http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chaptere.html

Frank Znidarsic
Comment
8 of 13
Dear Mr.Thomas Blakeslee If Nickel can be used to generate nuclear energy,will the spent fuel have the same problems as Uranium or Plutonium.
Secondly, what about powering vehicles with with nuclear energy other than with Uranium.
I eagerly await your reply.
Comment
9 of 13
April 1, 2011
Upali The spent fuel has no radioactivity. Some of the nickel fuel gets changed to copper and even zinc but lots of it ends up as other isotopes of nickel. The radiation during operation produces heat in the lead shielding but no radiation is left a short time after the unit is shut down. The decay during operation involves antineutrinos and other little-understood particles. Someday they will figure it out completely but, in the meantime, we can use it. We don't know how gravity and permanent magnets work atomically either but we go on using them.
It will be a long time before this technology is understood well enough to be used in cars. The nickel has to warmed up to about 400 degrees C using a heating resistor before the reaction can occur, so the best use now is running continuously in a power station with technicians in control. Be patient!
Comment
10 of 13
April 1, 2011
Actually, two of the current devices in series probably could be used in a vehicle. The high pressure steam would drive a turbine/generator that would keep the batteries of an electric vehicle topped up. An adaptation of the Toyota Prius might work.
The devices weigh 30-50 kg each, which is not too much for a car.
Comment
11 of 13
April 2, 2011
Thanks Dr Blakeslee for your good article on this important issue (that has been virtually ignored by the mainstream media).
I want just stress that:
1) in this case they are not searching funds, because the inventor, Andrea Rossi, has put his money on the stakes;
2) the indipendent examination has been made by a University and also by customers;
3) right now, more and more, respected and esteemed scientists are taking seriously the invention of Rossi;
4) in october they will start up in Athens a 1 MW plant (ready for market): you cannot make a 1 MW plant, sell it to a customer that pays you only after successful testing and have a fake product: this should be a way to destroy yourself;
5) Rossi and Focardi published one year ago a scientific hypothesis of how the process works, now the experimental work is refining the theory, and Rossi has announced that the definite structure of the theory - which explains what happens inside the E-Cat - will be published at the presentation of the 1 MW plant (should be normal in science to make a theory based on experimental work - it is called Galilean method - but today it's almost a news!);
6) the inventors made a press conference after 1 year of publication, after 2 years of patent application, after indipendent tests, as correctly you say it has to be done;
7) the next press conference will be after the start up of the 1 MW plant: then I am very curious to know what critics and skeptics will have to say again...

Kind regards
Comment
12 of 13
April 2, 2011
Changing Ni to Cu should be an endothermic reaction becuase the Ni nucleus has a lower binding energy. I think that it is far more likely that they are observing a chemical reaction. I don't really believe a paper that contains only energy blance graphs and no mass spectrometry analyses of thier reaction products.
Comment
13 of 13
April 2, 2011
The Nickle consumes, but the Hydrogen releases. The total reaction would be exothermic.

PESN.com Copyright © 2002-2010, PES Network Inc.