Please circulate widely and repost, but you must give the URL of the original and preserve all the links back to articles on our website
The internet has been buzzing with
excitement for months over the possibility that cold fusion will be
commercialized within the year.
not so long ago, “cold fusion” was a general term of derision, and those
scientists who still worked on it were ostracized and condemned as quacks by
the scientific community?
I looked into cold
fusion seriously four years ago (see  From Cold Fusion
to Condensed Matter Nuclear Science and other articles in the series, SiS
36), and became convinced that nuclear fusion reactions can be made to happen
in desk top devices at well below thermonuclear temperatures (millions of
works, and in many different forms  (How Cold Fusion Works,
SiS 36), all dependent on the collective quantum properties of condensed
matter that conventional quantum physics has yet to take into proper account.
So it is appropriate to rename the study of cold fusion “condensed matter
nuclear science”, and perhaps to refer to cold fusion as “condensed matter
nuclear reactions”, instead of “low energy nuclear reactions” as generally done.
There was no question that cold fusion could replace coal and other fossil
fuels, and is an infinitely better alternative to nuclear power; it is inherently
much safer, affordable, and sustainable. Furthermore, it could be exploited for
decommissioning nuclear reactors and cleaning up spent nuclear fuels to make
them safe  LENRs
for Nuclear Waste Disposal (SiS 41). And, the technology is
potentially suitable for distributed generation for local use, even for
powering airplanes  Portable
and Distributed Power Generation from LENRs, SiS 41). We have indeed
recommended governments to support research and development into cold fusion
while phasing out all nuclear power (see  Green Energies - 100%
Renewable by 2050, ISIS 2009 energy report], particularly in view of the 
Nuclear Crisis (SiS 50).
However, the biggest hurdle to
exploiting cold fusion is to get the reaction(s) under control and producing
energy reliably and safely, i.e., to get a steady rate of heat production once
the reactor is turned on, without overheating suddenly and blowing up, and to
be able to turn off when not required.
Andrea Rossi claims to have done just that . His table top device, Energy
Catalyzer, is ready for commercial production, and he says, cold fusion will be
producing energy by the end of 2011. The first units will be used to build a 1
MW plant in Greece to power a factory that will produce 300 000 ten-kilowatt
units of the cold fusion device a year. This would be the world’s first
commercially-ready cold fusion device. Licensees and contracts already exist
for USA and Europe. Mass production should escalate in 2-3 years.
Rossi says that they are now
manufacturing the 1 MW plant by putting hundreds of modular devises together in
series and in parallel. These modules will begin to be shipped by the end of
October. On 31 January, Rossi wrote that the cost to produce the Energy
Catalyzer is 1 cent per MWh generated and the life expectancy of the device is
20 years. It is about 1/2 000 the cost of coal power, the cheapest energy
The Energy Catalyzer works by
putting nanometre to micron sized nickel (Ni) powder in a reactor along with
pressurized hydrogen gas and special undisclosed (proprietary) catalysts. When
the contents of the reactor are heated to about 400 to 500 ºC, nuclear
reactions start. The reaction rate can be controlled by varying the pressure of
the hydrogen in the reactor. The output energy can be up to 400 times the input
energy. Importantly, no precious metals or radioactive substances are used.
After the reactor is turned off, it can be opened and no radioactivity can be
detected. In the process, nickel is transmuted into copper and other elements
such as zinc.
Energy Catalyzer patented
Rossi built the Energy Catalyzer with
support from his scientific consultant physicist and emeritus professor Sergio
Focardi at Bologna University, whose research team had previously described a
similar system for cold fusion that yielded considerably less power .
According to Focardi, the hydrogen is heated with a simple resistor. “When the
ignition temperature is reached, the energy production process starts, the
hydrogen atoms penetrate into the nickel and transform it into copper.”
An application in 2008 to
patent the device received an unfavourable preliminary report from the European
Patent Office, citing serious deficiencies in both the description of the
device and in the evidence provided to support its feasibility. But on 6 April
2011, a patent was granted by the Italian Office of Patents and Trademarks.
nuclear fusion process
description available on Rossi’s nuclear fusion process is a paper published in
the Journal of Nuclear Physics  on Rossi’s blog, co-authored by
Focardi and Rossi. It describes a process, though not in detail “as it is
protected by patent in 90 countries”, whose heat output is up to a hundred
times the electric energy input. It consists of Ni in an atmosphere of H, and
in the presence of additives placed in a sealed container, and heated by a
current passing through a resister.
The container is in thermal contact with an external tank full of water
and thermally insulated. Three methods were used to estimate the output power.
In method A, the water was allowed to boil and the steam pressure set not to
exceed a limit of about 3-6 bar before a valve opens. When the valve opens, new
water, measured by a meter, enters the supply.
method B, warm water was forced through radiators connected in series with the
device, and the energy produced was evaluated by measuring the power needed to
obtain the same radiator temperature with a normal heating system.
In method C, water is pumped through a closed circuit that includes
the device. Two thermocouples placed before and after the device enable the
temperatures to be registered continuously on a computer, and the heat
transferred from the device to the water can be calculated from the temperature
The output energies in a series of 7 experiments performed between
28 May 2008 and 20 October 2009 were typically hundreds of times the input
energies measured by all three methods, thereby ruling out any conventional
chemical reactions. One experiment ran continuously from 5 March to 26 April
2009 and produced a total of 3768 kWh with an input of 18.54 kWh, the output/input
ratio was 203.
Similar results were obtained in the factory of energy company EON
in Bondeno (Ferrara, Italy) 25 June 2009, and another series of tests carried
out in Bedford, New Hampshire USA, with the assistance of the Department of
Energy 19 November 2009, and the Department of Defence 20 November 2009.
Focardi and Rossi proposed that the process involves proton capture
by Ni nuclei to produce Cu. Proton, p, is the atomic nucleus of hydrogen.
+ p → X+1Cu (1)
X is the
atomic mass of the original Ni, which exists in several isotopes, and X+1 the
atomic mass of Cu after proton capture, which also exists in several isotopes. (For
a primer on atoms and nuclei, see  or .) The copper nuclei - with the
exception of 63Cu and 65Cu, which are stable - decay with
the emission of positron e+ and neutrino n.
X+1Ni + e+ + n (2)
the positron annihilates with an electron to produce two gamma-ray photons:
+ e- → g + g (3)
alternative to reaction (2) is electron capture, in which a nucleus captures an
orbital electron resulting in a neutron plus an antineutrino n*.
X+1Ni + n* (4)
two decay processes (positron emission and electron capture) are alternatives;
their relative frequencies for the copper isotopes are largely unknown except
for 64Cu, which decays by electron capture about twice as frequently
as by positron emission.
practice, starting from 58Ni , the most abundant isotope, all the
Cu isotopes can be generated by successive proton capture, up to 63Cu,
which is stable, so the chain should stop at 62Ni (but see below).
into the account the natural abundances of the isotopes, and the reactions
involved, the average theoretical energy yield per Ni nucleus is 35 MeV. For
comparison, the theoretical yield per nucleus of 235U in a conventional
nuclear reactor is 200 MeV, and in the not yet existing hot fusion reactor for
deuterium and tritium, 18 MeV.
tiny reactor (a 4.7 kW reactor demonstrated in public measured 3 cubic inch )
was lead shielded, and monitors for radioactivity were placed close to it: a
gamma ray detector, three neutron bubble detectors, one of which for thermal
neutrons (neutrons with very low energy, about 0.025 eV). No radiation was
observed at levels greater than the natural background. Furthermore, no
radioactivity has been found in the residue after the process (in the spent
fuel). This was verified by the Health Physics Unit at Bologna University. The water drawn from the device was no more radioactive than tap water.
different samples of the spent fuel were analysed at Padua University. In the sample that ran for close to two months, there were three peaks
corresponding to 63Cu, 64Ni and 64Zn. The
ratio of 63Cu/65Cu in the sample was 1.6, quite different
from the value 2.24 in natural samples of copper. 64Ni and 64Zn
both came from 64Cu decay, and requires the existence of 63Ni,
which is absent in nature (and not predicted as part of the sequence of proton
capture), and could only have been created by a cold fusion reaction, such as
neutron capture that the authors have not considered. Focardi and Rossi promised
more details on the analysis in a subsequent paper.
the theoretical interpretation, they favour electron screening in the nickel
lattice which overcomes the strong electrostatic repulsion between the
positively charged Ni nuclei and the protons. When the hydrogen atoms come in
contact with the metal, they deposit their electrons in the delocalized conductive
electron cloud of the metal, which is distributed in energy bands, and free to
move throughout the metal lattice. Being very small, the protons can slip into
defects of the nickel lattice as well as the tetrahedral or octahedral spaces
of the crystal lattice. As heat is supplied, the crystal lattice vibrates,
which may then bring the Ni nuclei and protons close enough together to fuse, with
the delocalized electron cloud shielding out the electrostatic repulsion. A variant
of this mechanism has been proposed for the fusion of deuterons into Helium-4
 and (see ). The possibility of neutron capture should also be
considered (see  Widom-Larsen
Theory Explains Low Energy Nuclear Reactions & Why They Are Safe and Green,
Public demonstrations to gain acceptance
To promote his device and gain acceptance
among other scientists, Andrea Rossi staged a series of public demonstrations, and
also invited other scientists to carry out their own experiments with the
device, and measure the input and output power for themselves .
The first demonstration held in
Bologna 14 January 2011, was monitored by independent scientific
representatives of Bologna University, including a researcher in physics
Ny Teknik, a Swedish technology
magazine, reported: “for about an hour it produced approximately 10 kW of net
power, loaded with one gram of nickel powder pressurized with hydrogen.” A poll
carried out on their readers returned the result that “two-thirds do not
believe in it.”
Levi said it was “impressive”,
and that the Energy Catalyzer might be working as a new type of energy source.
In an interview with Ny Teknik, Levi said what sets the work apart from
everything he’s ever seen is that “we have 10 kW of measured energy output, and
this output is completely repeatable. But what I want to do now is an
experiment with continuous operation for at least one or more days.” He also
ruled out chemical reaction as the energy source.
Discovery Channel analyst
Benjamin Radford cited a Physor.com column: “If this all sounds fishy to you,
it should,” and, “In many ways cold fusion is similar to perpetual motion
machines. The principles defy the laws of physics, but that doesn’t stop people
from periodically claiming to have invented or discovered one.”
The second test, lasting 18
hours, was carried out in Bologna on 10-11 February 2011 by Levi and Rossi, and
was not public. Levi reported that the process was ignited by 1 250 W for five
to ten minutes, and power was then reduced to 80 watts for controlling the
electronics. Cooling was supplied by tap water and flow volume was monitored.
As reported by Ny Teknik, the
temperature of inflow water was 7 ºC and for a while, the outlet temperature was
40 ºC. At the flow rate of about one litre per second, the peak power output
was 130 kW. The power output was later stabilized at 15-20 kW. Levi calculated
the consumption of hydrogen at 0.4 gram. “In my opinion, all chemical sources
are now excluded,” he said.
On 29 March 2011, Hanno Essen,
associate professor of theoretical physics and lecturer at the Swedish Royal
institute of Technology and former chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society,
and Sven Kullander, professor emeritus at Uppsala university and also chairman
of the Royal Swedish Academy of Science Energy Committee, participated as
observers in a test of a smaller version of the Energy Catalyzer. According to
Ny Teknik, the test ran for six hours, with a power output of 4.4 kW, and total
energy output of about 25 kWh. The Swedish physicists reported: “Any chemical process
should be ruled out for producing 25 kWh from whatever is in a 50 cubic
centimetre container. The only alternative explanation is that there is some
kind of a nuclear process that gives rise to the measured energy production.”
On 19 and 28 April 2011, two
more demonstrations were held. The first was covered by the Italian 24-h all
news state-owned television channel Rai News. A Ny Teknik author attended and
tested for some previously noted possibilities of fraud. He calibrated the
ammeter (that measures electric current), measured the water flow by weighing
and calibrated the temperature sensor probe to confirm that all water is
converted to steam. The measurements showed a net power of between 2.3 and 2.6
kW, while the input power was 300 W.
Not everyone convinced but commercial
Rossi has not convinced everyone; far from
it. Chief among the difficulty is that few details about the reactions and none
about the catalysts have been revealed, and no paper has yet been published in
a peer reviewed journal, apart from the one by Focardi and Rossi in Rossi’s self-published
blog, Journal of Nuclear Physics (see Box), and related work published
by Focardi in 1998.
Peter Ekström, lecturer of
nuclear physics at Lund University in Sweden told Ny Teknik: “I am convinced
that the whole story is one big scam, and that it will be revealed in less than
Kjell Aleklett, professor of
physics at Uppsala University in Sweden,
summarized in his blog: “I myself have
nothing against revealing a scam, or joining in and verifying something that no
one could imagine. Both extremes belong to that which makes life as a
researcher incredibly interesting.”
Ny Teknik also reports that,
apart from the Greek project, Rossi has reached an agreement with Ampenergo, a US company, to receive royalties on sales of licenses and products built on the Energy Catalyzer in
the Americas. Three of the founders knew Rossi since 1996 through Leonardo
Technologies, Inc., which Rossi co-found, and sold his interest in the late
1990s, and which has been working on US government contracts. One of the
founders is Robert Gentile, former Assistant Secretary of Energy for Fossil
energy at the US Department of Energy.
would put my money on it too. If Rossi does not succeed, others will.
Governments in both developed and developing world should abandon nuclear and
coal power, and seriously invest taxpayer’s money in cold fusion instead. It is
much more affordable and especially appropriate for distributed local off-grid
generation in developing countries  (see Lighting Africa, SiS
50). It would provide a safe, reliable, and extremely low-carbon steady power supply
to complement already successful renewable options such as solar, wind, and
anaerobic digestion .
Rory Short Comment left 7th June 2011 09:09:54 I can only go by what I read and whether I trust the integrity of the authors. I trust the integrity of I-SIS thus if I was in government I would definitely pursue cold fusion R&D.
Alan Fletcher Comment left 11th June 2011 08:08:25 Dennis M. Bushnell, NASA Langley's chief scientist, was recently interviewed by EV World's Bill Moore : The Future of Energy: Part 1
A transcript (with EV World's approval) is available at http://lenr.qumbu.com/110606_evworld_bushnell_interview_part1_v401.php
[04:34] Bushnell: OK .. THE most interesting and promising at this point .. farther term, but maybe not so far .. is Low Energy Nuclear Reactions. This has come out of twenty 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 climate and energy.
[11:15] So I think were almost over the (you know) "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, geo-politics and of solving quite [?] of energy.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have analyzed all the published experiments to see if it could be one the numerous fakes postulated on the internet :
Proving the Rossi eCat is Real -- Version 4.01 (with index)
Unfortunately the four series of tests didn’t measure everything, or weren’t run for long enough, so although EVERY type of fake was eliminated by ONE experiment, no ONE experiment eliminated ALL possible fakes.
Therefore at present I judge the eCAT to be real by a “preponderance of evidence”, but not yet “beyond all reasonable doubt”.
Rich Murray Comment left 11th June 2011 08:08:17 in Rossi reactor demos, electric input power boils away some of the
cooling water: Rich Murray 2011.05.26 -- while Widom-Larsen hopeful re
work on LENR in "water tree" breakdown with high voltage AC in
Joshua Cude says:
from Joshua Cude email@example.com
date Tue, May 24, 2011 at 1:32 PM
subject Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude at it
May 24 (3 days ago)
.....Let's look at the input power and the temperature in some detail, shall we?
Levi actually plots a graph of the input power in his report, and if
you watch the video, you can get a pretty good picture of the
temperature vs time graph -- better than what's in Levi's report.
Fortunately, the people at
[ 90 references ]
have done so and reconstructed the temperature graph.
Here's what happens:
The power is turned on at 1250 W at time zero.
Then at 29 minutes (more than a few), the temperature reaches boiling
At 30 minutes, one minute after boiling begins, the power is reduced to 400 W.
But oops, they jumped the gun.
The reactor probably produces a little heat, and the system has some
thermal mass, which keeps the outlet water at boiling even after the
power has been reduced, but not long enough, because at 39 minutes (9
minutes after the power reduction), the temperature dips below the
boiling point for 2 minutes.
Someone must have noticed this, because at 40 minutes, the input power
is cranked hard to 1550 W, and the temperature returns to the boiling point.
At 49 minutes, the power is reduced to 700 W.
The reactor was probably not producing much heat by that time, because
almost immediately the temperature begins to drop gradually.
At 56 minutes, the power is turned off, and the temperature continues
dropping to ambient.
> [Jed Rothwell]
The input power, which is initially used to raise the temperature of the
reactor to operating temperature, is scaled back to 400 watts for the
remainder of the demonstration, not "for a few minutes."
and other reports on the January demonstration.
You are wrong.
But you can be forgiven, because the report you cite, and the text of
Levi's report make errors too.
The power was reduced to 400 W for 11 minutes.
That's closer to "a few" than the 29 minutes your reference considers "a few".
The *average* input power was over a kW.
The output was at the bp for 20 minutes, less the two minute dip for 18 total.
Levi claims in the text that the output power was 12.5 kW for about 40 minutes.
That's either deception or incompetence.
And the 12.5 kW assumes dry steam when the temperature is at the bp.
So, he's claiming 12.5 kW at minute 29, but less than 2 kW at minute
28, when the temperature is below the bp.
Does that make sense to you?
An increase of 10 kW in a minute.
But not 10.5 kW, because then the steam would have been hotter.
Or a decrease of 10 kW when it dips below the bp at minute 39?
The shape of that curve -- the fact that it drops below the bp soon
after the power input is decreased (especially at the end) -- suggests
the power never exceeds, by very much, what's necessary to reach the
bp, which means a 6-fold error in the power estimate.
When you throw in the possible error in the flow rate, there is no
excess left to account for.
This is shown graphically at
The temperature is completely consistent with the input power if the
flow rate is wrong......
Clearly, the simple evidence so far made available shows that the
input electric heater power is enough to raise the water flow to
The Rossi reactor is a scam.
I congratulate Joshua Cude on his outstanding clarity and attention to
Presentation on January 14, 2011
Video of an experiment taking several minutes during a public
presentation on January 14, 2011 (Source: Curiosity-Blog)
Temperature curve, with two periods (17 minutes) where 100°C were
reached (reconstructed from video)
Screenshot from a video of the experiment used to estimate its duration
Diagram, which shows the timeline of the electrical heating input
during the experiment
superimposed temperature-curve and curve showing heating power. Note:
there is a time shift (abt. 5 minutes) between the two curves because
the exact time lag between the two curves is not known.
The beginning of temperature rise is simply set to the beginning of
Also, a tecnical error (use of Windows software Excel) produces a
slightly false cut-off curve of heating power at the end.
A better diagram will be shown here in the future
Comparison of the shown probe to a HP474AC probe (Image: www.physicsforums.com)
Specifications of the used pump "LMI P18" (Image: www.physicsforums.com)
Andrea Rossi and Sergio Focardi gave a press conference on January 14,
2011 which was not only attended by Italian public television station
RAI (RAI 3) and numerous journalists, but also by several physicists
Only invited persons were allowed to attend the conference.
The presentation was done in rooms rented from the company "GM System"
in an industrial area of Bologna  and not in rooms of the Bologna
University as claimed on various places in the internet.
During the press conference the function of the reactor was
demonstrated for about an hour (55 minutes) in an adjoining room.
An analysis of the recorded measurements which can be seen on the
screen of a notebook in a Youtube video for a couple of seconds allow
to estimate a duration of 15 to 20 minutes (most probably 17 minutes)
where a water temperature of 100 degrees or more were reached. (see
In the report about the experiment the data which can be seen on the
notebook are omitted (according to the reporting physicist Levi:
It also speaks of a duration of 40 minutes, obviously the whole
duration including heating up is meant.
To calculate the heat output inadvertent or deliberately incorrect
values of the water throughput were made, which was in truth less than
half of the said amount.
The inventors reported about their experiment in their blog , and
published three Youtube videos in Italian language , , .
During the press conference they stated the heat input was 600 Watts,
at a calculated output of 12,000 Watts (12 kW).
But according to a published report (G. Levi), actual mean average
power was 1022 W.
An re-alaysis of published values for heating power shows 1073 W. 
Electrical heating power used was between 400 and 1550 W.
The inventors calculated their estimation of generated heat from the
292 grammes of water per minute were heated from 20 °C to 101 °C (dry
vapour) and evaporated.
The attending physicists were allowed to take some measurements.
They were disappointed, however, as a spectral analysis of the gamma
radiation was denied for secrecy reasons.
A detailed report submitted by independent physicists from Bologna
University stated that no gamma radiation was detected, although the
device was supplied with two openings for measurement purposes.
Excerpt from the report:
[...] no gamma radiation above the background level in the energy
region Eγ > 200 keV has been observed, neither in single counting, not
regardless of the internal details of the reaction chamber, shieldings
and other industrial secrets, the γ rates measured with the NaI
counters seem not compatible with the rates deduced or expected
assuming that the energy production was due to nuclear fusion or decay
reactions, as suggested in .
Observers were allowed to weigh the hydrogen gas container before and
after the experiment (weight: 13.66 kgs).
Even considering possible errors in measurement (duct tape still
attached), hydrogen usage was estimated at less than one gramme. Not
enough to make conventional hydrogen combustion plausible.
Link to the report: 
Alternative calculation explaining the reported values without cold
fusion (Source: unknown author "Ascoli65" from Italian forum
Several incomprehensible pieces of information were given shortly
after the experiment.
Even weeks later the Rossi-Team has not reacted with a correction of
Not only was the duration of the experiment with 17 minutes (where
temperature was close to or above 100 degrees) shorter than claimed
(40 minutes), but there are also reasons to doubt the other claims of
the inventors and operators of the experiment.
The estimation of energy by evaporation of water was criticized in
"www.physicsforums.com" in retrospect, as respective calculations were
made assuming dry vapour without fractions of condensed water, which
was not proven.
The probe shown in the video can only measure the heat but not the dry
condition of the steam.
It was claimed that a combined probe of the type HP474AC (Delta Ohm)
was used, but in the video a different probe, which looks like a SPC
C45 0500 BEX - probe, can be seen.
A HP474AC probe is not visible on any video.
The claimed water throughput of 292 ml/min. (= 17.5 liter/h) was
doubted too, since the used pump has only half of this capacity
according to specification.
A pump of the type "LMI P18" was used, which was confirmed in May 2011
by the Swedish reporter Mats Lewan.
Several previous inquiries about the type of the pump were not answer
by Andrea Rossi. .
The manufacturer gives a maximal flow of 12.1 l/h for the LMI P18. 
Other models (A/B/C) of LMI pumps can be ruled out, as they they look different.
Water throughput of these programmable peristaltic pumps can be regulated.
The number of strokes per minute and the pumped volume can be
The maximal number of strokes is 100 per minute.
At 100 strokes/min maximum throughput is reached.
In one of the YouTube-videos from the presentation on January 14, 2011
pump strokes are clearly audible for 30 seconds. 
Counting them gives 29 or 30 strokes in those thirty seconds.
The pump was regulated to 59 to 60 strokes/minute, which corresponds
to 60% of maximal flow rate.
Thus the heat output calculated by the team is 240% higher than the
actually possible output using the pump shown in the video and
Because of the wrong claim about the mean average power (1.073 W
instead of 600 W) an additional grave error of 78% has to be added.
Assuming just a couple of percent condensed water in the vapour would
allow to explain the steam generation just through the electrical
Professor Sven Kullander writes in his report about the experiment on
March 29, 2011 that the reaction was stopped by switching off the
heater and increasing the cooling water flow to a maximum of 30 litres
This contradicts previous claims that the heater would be turned of
when operating temperature has been reached.
The red wire in the picture to the right(cm 31 - 34) is obviously the
With a cable this thick it is possible to power the heater from a
regular wall outlet with 220 volt/10 amp, which in turn could yield
2200 Watt and explain the steam generation.....
.....Experiment on March 29, 2011
(with claimed working conditions)
Comparison of different heating curves
A six-hours presentation was made on March 29, 2011 in Bologna
attended by the invited Swedish physicists Sven Kullander and Hanno
For "stability reasons" a smaller "energy catalyzer" with lesser
output was used, which is said to have yielded 25 kWh in 6 hours with
a thermal output of 4.4 kW.
The same pump as in January, the LMII P18 was used in this
presentation, but this time the capacity was compatible with the
maximum flow capacity given by the manufacturer and therefore
Water throughput of 6.27 kg/h (104 ml/min) was given.
As in the experiment in January water was evaporated, but without
measurement of the dryness of the vapour errors of up to 600% a
It is also impossible to find out in retrospect if all the water was
evaporated, since a drain for warm water was near the steam port.
The unit was filled with 50 grammes nickel powder.
At startup hydrogen gas was pumped into the device with 25 bar but
without previously pumping air out.
The air of atmospheric pressure was remaining in the container as a
(Remark: If oxygen from the air would have stayed in - as claimed -
water could have been formed since the nickel powder would have acted
as a catalyst).
Heating was done with 300 Watt. 
During the presentation isolation and lead shielding were removed from
some shown Ecats but not from the used Ecat.
The attending Giuseppe Levi made pictures which were published in
Italian and Swedish blogs.
The Swedish observers wrote a report, which was published in Internet blogs.
They write in their report  that a normal chemical reaction can be
Any chemical process should be ruled out for producing 25 kWh from
whatever is in a 50 cubic centimeter container.
The only alternative explanation is that there is some kind of a
nuclear process that gives rise to the measured energy
Rich Murray: These messy demos, poorly described and reported, with
huge loopholes, hardly inspire conviction that anomalous heat is
reactive gas micro and nano bubbles complicate Widom-Larsen theory re
electrolytic cells -- metal isotope anomalies in 'water tree'
corrosion of power cable polyethylene insulation, T Kumazawa et al
2005 -- 2008 Japan: Rich Murray 2011.06.02
Thursday, June 2, 2011
[at end of each long page, click on Older Posts]
[you may have to Copy and Paste URLs into your browser]
self-organizing networks can develop simple test kits for metal
isotope anomalies in 'water tree' corrosion of thin polyethylene
films, re T Kumazawa 2005 -- 2008 Japan: Rich Murray 2011.06.03
Friday, June 3, 2011
[ at end of each long page, click on Older Posts ]
[ you may have to Copy and Paste URLs into your browser ]
Rich Murray, MA
Boston University Graduate School 1967 psychology,
BS MIT 1964, history and physics,
1943 Otowi Road, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505
http://RMForAll.blogspot.com new primary archive
group with 118 members, 1,625 posts in a public archive
group with 1226 members, 24,342 posts in a public archive
Frank Znidarsic Comment left 11th June 2011 17:05:42
Subject: my papers and lectures on cold fusion
Lectures and radio talk linked below
My central papers linked below.
take a minute to review the work and help me get the word out.
Bill Blackburn Comment left 1st July 2011 14:02:33 I believe this to be real.
Pierre Huet Comment left 23rd July 2011 11:11:19 LENR is real: there is too much good data from too many good sources, reporting phenomena that cannot be explained via chemistry (transmutations, tritium, neutrons traces in CR-39, etc.). However, there are some serious concerns about Ross's claims (see Steven B. Krivit's report on his blog http://blog.newenergytimes.com/). I followed the Rossi saga since January 2011, and although I was initially quite stunned but optimistic about the E-cat, as I learned more about Rossi, I became "cautiously optimistic" then "cautiously pessimistic" and now completely pessimistic. I sincerely hope to be proven wrong, but I am afraid Rossi will damage the credibility of the LENR field for years to come. But Steven B. Krivit's report will go a long way to mitigate the damage.
George Wade Comment left 11th September 2011 22:10:48 I would really love to know how to buy a working model for testing; or to get drawings for the purpose of making a working model for testing.
Licensing can come as soon as testing has been done.
I have addresses in whatever part of the world that delivery can be achieved...;~)
Rafi Cottries Comment left 3rd January 2012 16:04:40 If cold fusion is real, why are we still destroying the earth?Are oil and gas lobbyists holding this back? We need to wake up the world. No air, water, or environment; no amount of money can buy it back!
Roger Taylor PhD Comment left 9th March 2014 11:11:53 Having followed new energy for many years, I welcome this article warmly. But it makes light of the decades-long (and still ongoing) suppression by fossil fuel lobbies. These are not seriously worried by nuclear, or even green energy, since these mostly require big investment by governments. And governments are highly susceptible to such powerful interests. What does worry them is the prospect of a "free" energy device in every home. (This,moreover, would also subtract from the power governments have over their people. A big factor - perhaps especially in the 3rd world).
But another breakthrough is on the horizon (and in the US!) with a scooter which recharges its battery overnight. This may have slipped past the radar because (a) it has obviously not required huge funding, and (b)the generating unit, which clips onto the back, is so inefficient (only 127% over-unity) that it cannot run the scooter directly, and so is not seen as a big threat to established interests (http://auroratek.us/, and, for some kind of explanation: http://intalek.com/AuroraTekArticles/SelfSustainableTechnologyUtilizesDarkEnergy_Article.pdf).
The field of new energy is under huge transformation just now, with so many other devices at various stages of development: see Sterling Allen's compendious web-site, www.PESwiki.com.
But this subject is hardly ever discussed - either in the scientific, or popular media. Most people have never heard of it, or if they have, don't believe it works. So what is urgently needed is for more light to be thrown in any way possible. So please can we have more on it in I-SIS?