From being regarded as a largely dead science, cold fusion has grabbed the attention of mainstream media and the scientific community when high-profile demonstrations in Italy allegedly showed a cold fusion device generating 470 watts for five hours. The device, called the E-Cat or Energy Catalyzer was developed by Andrea Rossi, Italian inventor and entrepreneur and Sergio Focardi, a physicist at the University of Bologna. The E-Cat reportedly fuses nickel and hydrogen at low temperatures to release heat energy and shows that cold fusions isn’t as dead as many scientists seem to think.
Cold fusion or Low Energy Nuclear Reaction is the process by which energy is produced by nuclear fusion through electrolysis. Cold fusion is largely shunned by mainstream science because fusion only occurs at temperatures of millions of degrees. Rossi’s E-Cat uses a special catalyst to fuse hydrogen with nickel to produce enough heat to boil water. The steam produced is used to turn turbines that will generate electricity. It’s a system that if proven could lead to clean and cheap source of energy. Since this technology could bring about free energy, there are scientists who would brave ridicule to look into this area. Rossi’s method isn’t the only LENR device around. More competitors are looking to unleash cold fusion technology to the world.
Professore emerito del dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università di Bologna, ha contribuito alla costruzione della macchina E-Cat, macchina che produce energia elettrica con un processo fisico-chimico ancora sconosciuto.
Preside fino al 1990 della facoltà di scienze matematiche, fisiche e naturali dell’Alma Mater, ha poi diretto la sezione di Bologna dell’Istituto nazionale di fisica nucleare. Ha concentrato i suoi studi scientifici sulla fusione fredda con reattori Nichel-Idrogeno ed ha collaborato con Andrea Rossi per la realizzazione dell’ E-Cat, un meccanismo per la fusione nucleare a freddo
UPDATED. Half a megawatt thermal power in self sustained mode, for over five hours. That’s what Andrea Rossi obtained with his E-cat plant on Friday, according to his customer. The question now is who the customer was.
Rossi outside the building during the test. In the background the heat plant with pumps and water tanks to the right, additional Ecats on the top and the steam outlet to the left. Photo: Mats LewanThe customer’s controller Domenico Fioravanti. Photo: Mats LewanTwo of the four heat dissipators. Photo: Mats Lewan
Manometer at one of the waterpumps indicating a pressure of almost 4 bars. Photo: Mats Lewan
A water leakage could be observed after the end of the test. Photo: Mats Lewan
At about quarter past ten on Friday October 28, the test of Andrea Rossi’s heat plant, potentially producing one megawatt, was initiated in an industrial hangar in Bologna.
The plant consisted of more than 100 ‘energy catalyzers’ – Rossi’s invention that possibly produces heat from a hitherto unknown nuclear reaction – connected in parallel.
Already in January 2011 when the E-cat was demonstrated publicly for the first time before a group of invited scientists and journalists in Bologna, Rossi promised the launch of a one megawatt plant in October.
The test was supposed to be performed together with the Greek company Defkalion, and later, after a breach of contract in August, in the US. Finally, as the US agreement was never put in place, the test was performed in Bologna under the control of a yet unknown customer to Rossi.
According to the customer’s controller, Domenico Fioravanti, the plant released 2,635 kWh during five and a half hours of self sustained mode, which is equivalent to an average power of 479 kilowatts – just under half the promised power of one megawatt.
Rossi explained this with the customer’s priority to achieve self sustained mode, which supposedly makes the process more difficult to control than when electrical power is supplied to support the reaction.
“We had to decrease the power during self sustained mode as the temperature rose too much”, Rossi said after the test.
Neither Ny Teknik nor any other of the guests had any possibility to check the measurements made. The invitees could only observe the plant in operation for a few brief moments.
Assuming that the report is correct (the report can be downloaded here, the temperature data here), a substantial amount of energy was released, which is difficult to explain by anything other than heat being developed inside the E-cat, even if you subtract the power input during pre-heating.
UPDATE: There are two minor errors in the report. See below.
According to the report the test was approved and the plant would now be transported to the customer where it supposedly will be part of an agreement on further tests in order to develop the technology.
It remains unclear who the customer is. Rossi has only indicated that it belongs to a particular category of organizations. One possibility is that it’s a military organization given that the title of the controller Fioravanti in the report is “colonel”, however, scored out with a pen.
Rossi stated that an agreed contract research at the University of Bologna can now be initiated and that discussions on collaboration with Uppsala University can get started.
There’s still no clear indication of when a test performed by independent experts can be done, although this is still what both readers of Ny Teknik and most experts Ny Teknik has spoken to demand.
- – - -
READ MORE: Our complete coverage on Rossi’s E-cat can be found here.
- – - -
More details on the test here below.
- – - -
UPDATE: David Roberson who made one of three analyses that Ny Teknik published last week on the October 6 test , has made an updated analysis here, which he claims contains proof that the E-cat generated a large amount of excess energy.
Also Horace Heffner’s analysis has been updated.
- – - -
UPDATE 2: There are two minor errors in the customer’s report:
1. The weight of the hydrogen bottle should be in grams, not kg as indicated.
2. The indicated flow rate of the pumps at the end of the report should be 350 kg/hour, not 750 kg/hour, giving a total of 700 kg/h, not 1,500 kg/h, for the two pumps.
(The measured average flow rate of 675.6 l/h in the first part of the report should be correct).
October 28th, 2011
FIRST INFORMATION REGARDING THE 1 MW PLANT TEST:
WE STARTED REGULARLY THE TEST THIS MORNING . EVERYTHING IS GOING WELL SO FAR. THE 1 MW E-CAT IS WORKING IN SELF SUSTAINING.
TONIGHT I WILL PUBLISH THE NON SECRET REPORT THAT THE CUSTOMER WILL RELEASE.
WARM REGARDS, I HAVE TO RETURN TO THE PLANT. SORRY, I CANNOT ANSWER TO THE MANY COMMENTS I AM RECEIVING. I WILL PUBLISH THEM PROBABLY I WILL NEVER FIND THE TIME TO ANSWER.
Three extensive analyses have been made of data from the test of Andrea Rossi’s E-cat on October 6. Two point to a clearly anomalous heat production, while the third leaves the question open.
Interest in the latest test of Andrea Rossi’s energy catalyzer has exceeded that in any previous test. The result has been discussed intensely internationally. Does Rossi’s apparatus generate net energy. If so, how much.
The shortcomings of the test measurement methods were clear, though significant improvements had been made compared to previous ones. Data were retrieved only because Ny Teknik, without being prepared, took responsibility for gathering and recording the readings.
A first, conservative analysis of the measurements was made by Ny Teknik’s reporter immediately after the test (here’s a spread sheet with the data). Three extensive subsequent analyses have been done by the Americans Horace Heffner, David Roberson and Bob Higgins.
All three noted that deficiencies in the measurement methods make the result uncertain. Among the flaws is questionable positioning of the thermocouples for measuring water temperature.
In dialogue with Ny Teknik, however, Heffner, Roberson and Higgins tried to get answers to various questions to reduce uncertainty as much as possible.
The three made different assessments of what conclusions can be drawn.
Most skeptical was Heffner who wrote:
“Due to the locations of the thermocouples, the temperature measurements lack the degree of credibility required to make any reliable assessment of commercial value. The net power output could be anything from negative to positive.”
Roberson agreed on the problem regarding the thermocouples, yet drew a more positive conclusion:
“The long period of relatively constant heat production following deactivation of the E-cat main internal core heater suggests significant excess energy. Accurate determination of that energy cannot be established due to imperfections of the test setup.”
Higgins also believed that the E-cat generated net energy:
“Despite the test’s flaws (and considering the integrity of those involved), the data suggests that substantial excess energy (as heat) was produced. (…) Critical error analysis of the experiment will continue; but the expectation is that errors will be unable to account for the large excess heat output.”
Another person who commented was the American Jed Rothwell, who has followed the area LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions) for many years.
He wrote: “The test produced irrefutable proof of anomalous energy production, in several different ways. After input power was turned off, not only did it remain hot for 4 hours, it twice sharply increased in temperature. This is first-principle proof that large amounts of energy were being generated inside the reactor.”
He also described a simple experiment that those who doubt the conclusion can perform.
(Rothwells conclusion and suggested experiment is here, and a comment by him also on lenr-canr.org).
Currently, there seems to be no way to get further with the data from the test on October 6 (minor updates to these documents will be done though – check for the most recent versions).
Rossi’s sight is now set on a test October 28 of a heat plant supposed to generate one megawatt thermal power. The test will be performed under the control of an unidentified customer who will buy the heat plant, provided that the promised power consumption to heat output ratio can be verified by the customer.
According to most people Ny Teknik spoke to, it is doubtful whether the test of the large heat plant can provide a clearer answer regarding net energy produced than tests of single modules of the energy catalyzer have done so far.
Both independent analysts and Ny Teknik’s readers ask instead for a new test of a module, but with much more accurate measurement methods, preferably conducted by independent persons at a neutral site.
Meanwhile competition seems to build up. The Greek company Defkalion Green Technologies which had a license agreement with Rossi until August when Rossi communicated a breach of contract, recently claimed that it not only has developed a product for the energy market but also its own core technology based on “Rossi’s invention or similar inventions.”
Defkalion’s VP of R&D and board member Prof Christos Stremmenos declared in a letter that this was not true. Alexandros Xanthoulis, representing the owners of Defkalion, then answered that Stremmenos didn’t have knowledge about this as he had been absent for several months.
According to Ny Teknik’s sources, Defkalion continues to meet with companies interested in acquiring licenses for manufacturing and distribution of Defkalion’s products, at a license fee amounting to 40.5 million Euros per factory.
The sources also told Ny Teknik that Defkalion offers interested clients to see its technology and let them verify the validity of it with independent scientists of their choice, after having deposited 500,000 Euros in an escrow account.
UPDATE (Oct 21, 16:45): Defkalion confirms this information with the following statement: “Price for exclusive license is 40.5 million Euros which includes blue prints, transfer of knowledge, and training to establish an operating factory producing up to 300.000 Hyperion [Defkalion's product name] units annually. Potential licensees contact Defkalion with an interest to assume this exclusive license. They are invited to perform independent tests on our products with their own instruments. The 500,000 Euros in an Escrow Account is payable only on the condition that they are satisfied by the results of their measurements and they wish to proceed in the signing of a full contract.” (End of update)
Another researcher who works with LENR between nickel and hydrogen is the Italian Prof Francesco Piantelli who previously conducted research with Rossi’s scientific adviser, Prof Sergio Focardi.
According to Newenergytimes.com NASA shows interest in Piantelli’s work and in the company Nichenergy which is linked to his research.
- – - -
READ MORE: Our complete coverage on Rossi’s E-cat can be found here.
The attitude of the scientist should never be to deny a priori an Event. It should rather be to declare, if that does not have, at present, a scientific explanation. Science, in short, has done less to deny that claim.
From the days of the ill-fated “cold fusion” of Fleischmann and Pons (1989), the scientific community is divided. A minority (which for convenience we will call “the Mad”) insists that something was going to say, in those experiments, and that something, though much lower than initially announced, was worth studying. A large majority (Sani) states, however, the total inconsistency of the phenomenon. In the next two decades, the information channels of Matti have repeatedly shown abnormal energy emissions, under different conditions and are difficult to control with varying degrees of reliability. Only factor common to almost all of these anomalies was that occurred in hydrogenated or deuterated metals: palladium and nickel, for example. These metals act as “sponges” of hydrogen (or deuterium) capture him in the cage formed by their nuclei and absorb the single electron among those that form the structural links of the metal itself (technically, the valence electrons).
Why do we talk about issues “abnormal”? Because the power produced in these events is much higher than expected from chemical reactions. Nuclear reactions, then? No, because simple calculations and experimental evidence on households ‘naked’ (not part of a solid structure) show that such nuclear reactions are so improbable as not to provide any practical effect. A nice dilemma, then. Unless they think of a giant scam trans-national Matti, or their total incompetence in carrying out the measurements. For the benefit of Sani, played until recently that these issues were often elusive and difficult to repeat, very intense, perhaps, but largely unpredictable. Therefore, difficult to categorize as a fact. Facts should be distinguished from events: the former are repeatable and controllable, the second place and nothing else. From Galileo onwards, the scientist takes care of the first and second hesitate to speak of. Throughout history, however, many events have been traced back to the category of events: lightning, meteors, comets, volcanoes, earthquakes. Even the Biblical manna (it seems). For this reason, the attitude of the scientist should never be to deny a priori an Event. It should rather be to declare, if any, that it does not have at present a scientific explanation. Science, in short, has done less to deny that claim.
Turning to the specific situation, until a few years ago, was that the anomalous emission of energy is presented as events (a bit ‘like the Virgin Mary that weep tears of blood), which exposes them to doubt their authenticity ( Without a doubt it is real, an event can be simulated and manipulated) or otherwise practically impossible to ascertain the cause-effect chain, which includes an essential condition, the repeatability of the experiment. Today, the situation is radically changed. Studies by Sergio Focardi (Department of Physics, University of Bologna), first in collaboration with Francis Piantelli (University of Siena), then continued alone have led to an emission of energy from Hydrogenated Nickel, moderate, however, does they can not explain in simple chemical terms. Recent times, a device invented and patented by Andrea Rossi, always based on the nickel hydrogen, has enabled us to produce a much higher heat output, which varies from 25 to 40 Kwatt, compared with a release of electrical power in the order hundreds of watts. To be clear: the power needed to keep burning some incandescent bulbs, you get that absorbed 10 and 20 washing machines. The duration of the emissions over the course of ten hours, and none has yet found a trace of exhaustion. The effect is reproducible and verifiable.
In practice, we have moved from the Event Fact from “is” the “is measured.” A group of researchers from the Department of Physics, University of Bologna (Ennio Bonetti, Enrico Campari, Giuseppe Levi, Mauro Villa and I), as well as Sergio Focardi (retired as Professor Emeritus) can now study the equipment so Rossi continued and deepened. There are offers for the first time, a real opportunity to see clearly. Determine precisely how the phenomenon takes place (hence the importance of repeatability and controllability), it is expected that, sooner or later emerge and also why. Since it is established, what makes it fascinating is that the effect does not exist, to date, a convincing explanation: what is the “fuel” that produces excess energy? How much time will be consumed? Nuclear energy really got to do? This is the curiosity of the scientist, the first and best spring possible toward a serious investigation. Then there is the possibility of a huge economic and environmental impact. What more? For once, I think really the case to listen to Matti.
Loris Ferrari
Associate Professor of Physics
University of Bologna Alma Mater Studiorum
One of the chief scientists at NASA, Dennis Bushnell recently recognized the potential of the Andrea Rossi energy catalyzer to positively impact the energy field. Although there have already been many demonstrations and the opening of Defkalion Green Technology’s 1 megawatt facility in Greece in October 2011, the scientific community and major media is just beginning to acknowledge the light of E-cat.
“I think this will go forward fairly rapidly now.”
“This is capable of, by itself, completely changing geo-economics, geopolitics of solving quite a bit of [the] energy [problem.] – Dennis Bushnell, Chief Scientist of NASA Langley.
Interview of: Dennis Bushnell, Chief Scientist of NASA Langley
Host: J. William Moore Transcribed by: Steven B. Krivit
[Partial Transcript of Podcast, Excerpts on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions]
[This transcript is Copyleft 2011 New Energy Times. Permission is granted to reproduce this text as long as the text, this notice and the publication information are included in their entirety and no changes are made to this text.]
J. William Moore: I’d like to [look at] some of the [energy alternatives] that you think look most promising from your perspective.
Dennis Bushnell: The most interesting, and promising, at this point, in the farther term, but maybe not so far, is low-energy nuclear reactions. This has come out of [22] years of people producing energy but not knowing what it is — and we think we have a theory on it. It’s producing beta decay and heat without radiation. The research on this is very promising and it alone, if it comes to pass, would literally solve both [the] climate and energy [problems.]
MOORE: I find it extremely exciting that there might be something here, so what is it that you think is going on at the atomic level here?
BUSHNELL: Let me back up a little. [Stanley] Pons and [Martin] Fleischmann came out with an experiment that they labeled “cold fusion” about 22 years ago which had replication issues at the time. Also, all of the fusion theorists came out and said absolutely “This is not fusion.” And, of course, they were exactly correct, this is not fusion.
They’ve gone through 20 years of massive experimentation worldwide, in almost every country, where they’ve been able to produce this effect. But all of the energy produced by these “cold fusion” experiments over the last 22 years didn’t produce enough heat to boil water for tea. So people didn’t get too interested in it and nobody knew what it was.
Back in 2005, 2006, [Allen] Widom [and Lewis] Larsen came out with a theory that said, no it’s not “cold fusion,” it’s weak interactions using the Standard Model of quantum mechanics, only the weak interaction part. It says that if you set up one of the cells, and you don’t have to use deuterium, hydrogen works fine, nickel works fine and you don’t need palladium.
If you set this up you produce an electron – proton connection producing ultra-weak neutrons and if you have the right targets out there you produce beta-decay which produces heat.
At that point, in 2006, 2007 we became interested and started setting up a set of experiments that we’re just about ready to start finally, where we’re trying to experimentally validate this Widom-Larsen theory to find out whether or not it explains what’s going on. And in the process, we used quantum theory to optimize the particular surface morphologies to do this.
Then, as you mentioned, in January of this year [Andrea] Rossi, backed by [Sergio] Focardi, who had been working on this for many years, and in fact doing some of the best work worldwide, came out and did a demonstration first in January, they re-did it in February, re-did it in March, where for days they had one of these cells, a small cell, producing in the 10 to 15 kW range which is far more than enough to boil water for tea. And they say this is weak interaction, it’s not fusion.
So I think were almost over the “We don’t understanding it” problem. I think we’re almost over the “This doesn’t produce anything useful” problem. And so I think this will go forward fairly rapidly now. And if it does, this is capable of, by itself, completely changing geo-economics, geopolitics of solving quite a bit of [the] energy [problem.]
MOORE: I think this was either last week or the week before last, I ran a story on this. I went and took a look at it – they were using hydrogen and nickel, I believe, using hydrogen gas and putting that into this device. In looking at the video and photographs, it looks to be about the size of a fist and that thing was running from about 10:45 in the morning till about 4:30 when they finally turned it off — and generating, I forget exactly what it was — but it was a significant amount of energy in the form of steam.
BUSHNELL: It produces heat and did so for days and was in the 12 or 14 kW range and they [will be] producing, with a large number of these devices, a 1 MW power plant.
MOORE: That’s a pretty exciting thing. Do you think that this theory that was developed — are these NASA scientists that were working on that theory?
BUSHNELL: No, the theory was developed by Widom and Larsen. Widom is a faculty member and teacher at Northeastern and Larsen has a company in Chicago.
MOORE: So that looks promising and so you can take and generate steam, and of course, that’s what a nuclear reactor or coal-fired power plant is all about. They’re just there to produce steam and turn a turbine and produce power.
BUSHNELL: Once you’ve got heat, you can do everything. We looked at using LENR to power a space-access rocket and it had better performance conceptually than a conventional nuclear thermal rocket.
MOORE: Wow! Exciting.
Thanks to Steven B. Krivit of New Energy Times for the transcription of this interview.
