Month: March 2011

Posted on

Dangers of nuclear fission plants exposed; stand in contrast to cold fusion

Cold fusion is called low-energy nuclear reactions and though it is a nuclear process, cold fusion is nothing like the nuclear fission reaction that powers today’s nuclear plants.

  • Low-energy nuclear reactions describe a 21rst century process of extracting energy from atoms involving fractal superwave phonons, quantum waves, and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
  • In low-energy nuclear reactions, there is no radioactive fuel or toxic metals involved. Energy is created by quantum interactions inside small amounts of nano-sized metals like nickel and palladium infused with hydrogen, the main element in water.
  • Low-energy nuclear reactions do not involve a fission chain reaction.
  • Low-energy nuclear reactions do not produce any of the dangerous fission products seen in current nuclear technology.
  • Low-energy nuclear reactions do not produce radioactive waste. In fact, the effect of transmutations may allow for a process to clean-up existing stockpiles of radioactive waste, “transmuting” them into non-lethal materials.
  • Low-energy nuclear reactions do not require huge power plant infrastructure, but will be scaled small for personal use or large for industrial use. Current prototype cells sit on tabletops, operating at room temperatures.
  • Low-energy nuclear reactions do not have the geo-political impacts of oil and gas. Using a fuel of hydrogen from water, access to water means access to fuel, giving communities around the globe true energy security.
  • Low-energy nuclear reactions do not have a history in weapons research.
  • Low-energy nuclear reactions are being developed by young, new-energy companies concerned about the environment and the future of life on Earth.

    • Choose cold fusion for a peaceful next-generation nuclear power.

    Japanese Red Cross
    Donate to the Japanese Red Cross
    International Red Cross
    Donate to the International Red Cross
    American Red Cross
    Donate to the American Red Cross.

    A natural disaster. A human tragedy.

    A 9.0 magnitude earthquake followed by a wall of water over 3 meters high in the open ocean (and a few times higher upon hitting the coast), moving an astounding 800 kilometers per hour. The shock and trauma defies words. Superimpose a nuclear fission plant disaster and the mind is numbed into an empty and quiet desperation.

    How do you prepare any large-scale power facility for that kind of geological event? The short answer is, you don’t. These events have been statistically rare enough that design costs outweigh the remote probability of an extreme event. In other words, a cost-benefit analysis concludes it is not economically feasible to construct facilities to withstand these kinds of extreme events. In some cases, current technology is not evolved enough to respond to the geological conditions.

    Note that this type of extreme event ”had been” statistically rare enough, based on previous data, which of course doesn’t guarantee any future outcome. At some point, the black swan casts a dark shadow, and from the realm of possibility, a probability of one. Thales said, ”The past is certain, the future obscure” in 600BC.

    There is always risk. Yet the amount of risk one takes should be commensurate with the reward. Space exploration is risky, but the rewards, real or intangible, outweigh those risks, and we agree to take those risks to continue expand our physical reach into the universe.

    But some risks are not worth the price. What are some of the elements of nuclear fission technology that contribute to its high levels of risk?

    FISSION FUEL IS RADIOACTIVE
    Fission is the process of splitting large atoms apart into smaller atoms whose combined mass is smaller than the original atom. The missing mass converts to energy. This process begins when a heavy element, like an uranium atom, for instance, absorbs a neutron. Having an extra neutron, it becomes an isotope of uranium, and even heavier. Now unstable, the atom then falls apart into two smaller atoms, releasing heat energy in the process. It is this heat that turns water into steam, which turns a turbine, creating electricity.

    The fission process uses the heaviest elements that exist naturally, like uranium and plutonium. These elements are characterized by their natural radioactivity called radioactive decay. During radioactive decay, alpha and beta particles, and high-energy gamma ray photons are spontaneously emitted. These particles and gamma rays are what make-up the radiation.

    Radiation is dangerous to biological life forms as these particles and photons interact with living tissue at the sub-atomic level, ionizing the atoms in a body. The effects of ionizing radiation can be sickness, cancer, death, and genetic birth defects for generations. There is shielding against this radiation, but when the shielding breaks down, the environment, and people, are exposed.

    An explosion at a nuclear fission power plant can spread radioactive fuel into the environment where, depending on the material, radioactivity can last for decades, or millennia. These particles could then settle in the water tables, in food or clothing, or be inhaled in. The radioactive particles polluting the environment then decay, causing the radiation that is harmful to life.

    Fukushima nuclear fission power plant explosion.
    A building at the Fukushima nuclear fission power plant after an explosion.

    Beyond a nuclear meltdown, or other catastrophic accident, radioactive fuel must be mined, transported, and processed before it’s ready to use, providing ample opportunity to mishandle the toxic metal fuel. The International Atomic Energy Agency IAEA reports in their International Status and Prospects of Nuclear Power, published in September 2010, that ”uranium mining now takes place in 19 countries, with eight countries accounting for 93% of world capacity.” These materials are at risk by those who would make ”dirty bombs”, conventional explosives laced with radioactive material, the purpose of which is to further spread radioactive poisons to biological systems.

    The fuel for nuclear fission plants is a finite resource, geographically located, with all the geo-political ramifications that come with a strategic resource. Currently, the full demand for uranium has not be met by mining, but by recycled materials. According to the IAEA, ”Currently, 35% of uranium needs are covered by secondary supplies – stored uranium or ex-military material – and recycled materials.” Dramatic price rises since 2004 by a factor of 10 anticipate a possible deficit. When industry estimates include low fuel costs, the supply deficit from mining that has been made up by recycled sources must be factored in.

    ACCIDENTS WILL HAPPEN
    Nuclear fission power relies on a process of chain reaction instigated by neutrons. When an uranium atom absorbs a neutron and subsequently splits apart, on average, 2.5 new neutrons are liberated from that reaction. These newly freed neutrons can then be absorbed by more uranium, creating more fission reactions and more neutrons, continuing the self-sustaining fission process.

    The trillions of reactions from all the uranium atoms splitting apart needs moderating. If the reaction goes too fast, and becomes uncontrolled, the fuel will become hot enough to melt. The radioactive liquid mix will form a pool at the bottom of the container, at which point, it can melt through the containment vessels and out into the environment.

    A nuclear fission meltdown can leave a region uninhabitable for centuries. Some materials will remain radioactive for geological time, essentially creating a dead zone for humans, as well as other lifeforms who live on this planet.

    Japan sits in one of the most seismically active regions of the world and, before March 11, had 55 operating nuclear fission plants. Over the last several decades, power plant designs have evolved into structures with maximum safety features for magnitude 7.9 earthquakes, but not 9.0. Every area of the globe has some type of extreme weather or natural threat that could disrupt or destroy a nuclear infrastructure. Earthquake, tsunami, or super-hurricanes can exact a crushing dominance of Mother Nature over human technology. It doesn’t happen often, but when a statistically rare event does occur, the consequences from damaged or destroyed fission power plants can last millennia.

    In the US, there are 104 operating nuclear reactors, 97% of them more than twenty years old, and more than half over 30 years old. This graph from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRC shows the average number of unplanned automatic scrams, or emergency shut-downs per plant for all 104 plants.

    Did lots of fission plants have no unplanned emergency shut-down, and a mere few have many more scrams? The chart doesn’t answer that. All it shows is a non-zero number of automatic emergency shut-downs.

    FISSION REACTORS ARE AGING FLEET
    Worldwide, ”about three quarters of all reactors in operation today are over 20 years old, and one quarter are over 30 years old.”, according to the IAEA, and age appears to be a factor in reactor safety. While newer fission nuclear plants have multiple safety back-up systems, the Fukushima plant in Japan was built in 1971, and had only the diesel generators, sitting above ground, as a back-up. When the back-up diesel generators stopped, a partial meltdown occurred.

    A survey of the age of the nuclear fleet in the United States shows the majority of nuclear reactors are between 20 to 40 years old, the result of successful efforts by concerned citizens to block the building of new nuclear fission plants after Three Mile Island accident in 1979.

    A specially-skilled individual is required to operate, maintain, and troubleshoot the various designs of reactors of this age. Lack of experienced personnel with this decades old technology is a cause for concern in the industry, and nuclear agencies are stepping up recruitment efforts to replace an aging workforce ready to retire. The IAEA reports that countries entering into the nuclear fission power production will have to rely on “their technology providers” for training.

    NO GOOD WASTE DISPOSAL
    Dangers from mining, processing, transporting, and fission reactor accidents are further compounded by back end radioactive waste disposal. Currently, there is no good method for storing radioactive waste generated by fission plants. Depending on the reactor, hundreds or even thousands of kilograms of radioactive fuel is used. Used fuel rods continue to accumulate in larger quantities and needs to be stored for longer time periods than initially envisaged (over 100 years), according to the IAEA.

    This photo showing “temporary storage” of radioactive waste is from the NRC website.

    Radioactive waste disposal in the US. Disaster in the making.
    Nuclear waste disposal in the US is "non-permanent", despite there being no acceptable solution on the horizon.

    In the US, a planned radioactive waste site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, had a license revoked and will be closed. Finland, France, and Sweden are hailed as ”advanced” in waste storage, with Finland currently constructing an ”exploratory tunnel to disposal depth” in hopes of ”applying for a repository construction license in 2012 so that final disposal can begin in 2020.”

    Beyond storage, some spent fuel is ”reprocessed” for weapons, continuing the intimate link between nuclear fission and weapons research. Reprocessing takes used fission fuel rods and transforms the material into another form, like a powder. This procedure has been criticized for creating a product easier to steal than the original heavy array of fuel rods would be. Reprocessing also makes accounting for the radioactive material much more difficult as small amounts may go missing, and not be noticed for years.

    A GLOBAL NEED FOR POWER
    Look at the top of this page at the Earth at Night montage by NASA. Japan shines bright, indicating a high-technology culture with a need for electrical power. And Japan is not alone.

    Many regions of the world shine just as bright. It is these regions that have had the benefits of petroleum that the unlit regions haven’t had, and due to peak oil, won’t have. Yet all the regions of the world want some form of a technological culture requiring more energy. The US Energy Information Administration predicts a 2.3% increase in world demand for electricity through 2035, using a baseline of 18.8 trillion kilowatt hours generated in 2007.

    Currently coal generates 39% of the world’s electricity [OECD]. As hydrocarbons continue their slide down Hubbert’s curve, new sources of energy are needed, and fission nuclear power plants are being discussed as a solution.

    MORE FISSION NUCLEAR PLANTS ARE BEING BUILT
    ”Nuclear energy from fission produces slightly less than 14% of the world’s electricity supplies, and it is a mere 5.7% of total primary energy used worldwide”, according the IAEA’s most recent International Status and Prospects of Nuclear Power report.

    Yet there are 440 nuclear fission power plants operating today on the planet, creating less than 14% of the electricity supplies. This graph from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission shows the distribution of nuclear fission power plants around the world.

    Currently, 60 new nuclear fission plants are being built world wide, with a third of them beginning construction in just the last few years. Ten new reactors broke ground in 2008. This increased to 12 new construction starts in 2009.

    The IAEA also reports that 18% of the fission reactors under construction have been under construction for over 20 years.

    ”Of the 60 plants, 11 have been under construction since before 1990, and of the 11 possibly only three are predicted to be commissioned in the next three years. There are a few reactors which have been under construction for over 20 years and which currently have little progress and activity.”

    Asia is a newcomer to nuclear fission technology, but it is this region of the globe that has the highest rate of new construction. Key industries have been ramped up to supply materials and engineering to this young industry.

    ”All 22 of the construction starts in 2008 and 2009 were pressurized water reactors (PWRs) in three countries: China, Repubic of Korea and Russian Federation”, says the IAEA report. China claims the ”capability to produce heavy equipment for six large reactors per year”. The Japan Steel Works (JSW), a maker of key fission reactor parts, had only a few months ago planned to triple it’s capacity.

    This chart from the US NRC shows the number of applications for new nuclear power plants. The US, which had a virtual halt to new fission plant constructions after the 1979 Three Mile Island disaster, also has increased applications for licenses in recent years.

    POWER PLANTS ARE EXPENSIVE
    New construction costs are rising higher than official inflation as commodities increase in nominal value and stricter design constraints are enforced. The permitting and building of a new plant can easily take ten to twenty years which also contributes to higher costs.

    It is currently cheaper to permit and build a natural gas plant than a nuclear fission plant, though this analysis has not taken into consideration the costs of environmental damage in either production or consumption of hydrocarbons.

    From the IAEA Nuclear Technology Review 2010:

    ”The Nuclear Technology Review 2009 reported that the range of cost estimates for new nuclear power plants had grown at its upper end compared to the range of $1200-2500 per kW(e) that had been reported in the Nuclear Technology Review 2006. In the past year, cost estimates remained high…..

    ”The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) updated a cost study for the USA that it had done in 2003 – its updated overnight cost estimate of $4000/kW(e) is very close to the name of the estimates for north America….. The updated MIT study concludes that, in the USA, the cost of capital will be higher for nuclear power than for coal and natural gas-fired power because of the lack of recent experience and resulting uncertainty among investors. Without this ’risk premium”, nuclear power’s estimated levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) would be comparable to the LCOEs for coal- and gas-fired power, even without fee or taxes on carbon dioxide emissions and even with an overnight cost of $4000/kW(e).”

    The private Citigroup Investment Research, estimated ”overnight costs for generic new nuclear reactors in the UK at $3700-5200/kW(e)”, while costs for new nuclear fission plants in Asia are significantly lower. The NRC IAEA report mentions the Republic of Korea where new reactor costs are $1556/kW(e), allowing Korea to bring ”four new reactors on-line since 2000 and has six under construction.”

    The chart here was supplied to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FERC and shows production expenses, which does not include upfront capital and construction costs. Also, fission fuel costs have risen significantly recently.

    The US Energy Information Administration published this table comparing the relative costs of producing electricity for its Annual Energy Outlook 2011, and it does appear to include a ”levelized” capital cost.

    Robert Alvarez, a nuclear expert from the Institute of Policy Studies, wrote ”A 1997 report for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by Brookhaven National Laboratory also found that a severe pool fire could render about 188 square miles uninhabitable, cause as many as 28,000 cancer fatalities, and cost $59 billion in damage.”

    We find this cost incalculable.

    INDUSTRY SAYS IT CAN’T HAPPEN HERE
    Whether it’s natural disasters or human error, things will go wrong. Looking at the various facts that cause risk, nuclear fission is a poor choice for Earth’s electrical energy source.

    The nuclear fission industry claims a nuclear crisis like what happened in Japan, can’t happen in the US. But Wall Street investment banks said a crash couldn’t happen, and BP claimed they had the technology to deal with anything on the ”horizon”.

    COLD FUSION IS THE BETTER PATH
    There are services to radiation in medical technology, and the natural radiation that exists in our environment allows for the dating of ancient objects from humankind’s early history. But the various factors that contribute to the disservices of large scale nuclear fission plants to generate electricity are overwhelming, and we conclude that fission nuclear power plants are not safe or cost-effective, especially when the ultra-clean alternative of cold fusion exists.

    Cold fusion is called low-energy nuclear reactions and though it is a nuclear process, cold fusion is nothing like the nuclear fission reaction that powers today’s nuclear plants.

  • Low-energy nuclear reactions describe a 21rst century process of extracting energy from atoms involving fractal superwave phonons, quantum waves, and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Energy is created as converting small bits of mass to energy as Einstein described in his famous equation
  • In low-energy nuclear reactions, there is no radioactive fuel or toxic metals involved. Energy is created by quantum interactions inside small amounts of nano-sized metals like nickel and palladium infused with the hydrogen from water.
  • Low-energy nuclear reactions do not involve a fission chain reaction.
  • Low-energy nuclear reactions do not produce the amount of harmful radiation seen in nuclear fission reactions.
  • Low-energy nuclear reactions do not produce radioactive waste. In fact, the effect of transmutations may allow for a process to clean-up existing stockpiles of radioactive waste, “transmuting” them into non-lethal materials.
  • Low-energy nuclear reactions do not require huge power plant infrastructure, but will be scaled small for personal use or large for industrial use. Current prototype cells sit on tabletops, operating at room temperatures.
  • Low-energy nuclear reactions do not have the geo-political impacts of oil and gas. Using a fuel of hydrogen from water, access to water means access to fuel, giving communities around the globe true energy security.
  • Low-energy nuclear reactions do not have a history in weapons research.
  • Low-energy nuclear reactions are being developed by young, new-energy companies concerned about the environment and the future of life on Earth.

    • For these reasons, we reject current nuclear fission technologies and we support cold fusion as the only viable alternative for ultra-clean next-generation nuclear power from water.

    Japanese Red Cross
    Donate to the Japanese Red Cross
    International Red Cross
    Donate to the International Red Cross
    American Red Cross
    Donate to the American Red Cross.

    Supporting links:

    1. Nuclear Technology Review 2010 International Atomic Energy Agency http://www.iaea.org/

    2. International Status and Prospects of Nuclear Power International Atomic Energy Agency http://www.iaea.org/

    3. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission http://www.nrc.gov/

    4. NRC Probability Risk Assessment
    http://www. nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/probabilistic-risk-asses.html

    5. United States Department of Energy Nuclear Office http://www.ne.doe.gov/

    6. United States Energy Information Administration http://www.eia.doe.gov/

    7. Guide to the Nuclear Wallchart
    http://www. lbl.gov/abc/wallchart/outline.html

    8. The Oil Drum http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3877

    9. Cost of Nuclear Power
    http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpow/WebHomeCostOfNuclearPower

    10. Nuclear Power Costs
    http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html

    11. Nuclear Reprocessing: Dangerous, Dirty and Expensive Union of Concerned Scientists
    http:// www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_risk/nuclear_proliferation_and_terrorism/ nuclear-reprocessing.html

    12. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission http://www.ferc.gov/

    Posted on

    UPDATE 3/23: Message from Amateur-lenr Toshiro Sengaku

    International Red Cross
    Donate to the International Red Cross

    American Red Cross
    Donate to the American Red Cross
    Japanese Red Cross
    Donate to the Japanese Red Cross

    UPDATE 3/23/2011
    Toshiro sent an update as Japan continues to deal with the aftermath of tragedy:
    “I’m very sorry to be late to send mail. I and my family are fine, but our head were full with the earthquake in the last week.

    One week passes, and we also have understood the realities of miserable damage due to this large earthquake. The number of dead will exceed 20,000. Many people were killed by prodigious Tsunami that was special feature of the earthquake.

    In Tokyo, the electric power fails by rotation according to the plan, because many power plants were stopped and demands of power may exceed supply capability.

    The Fukushima nuclear plant are not recovered, and scatters the radioactive substances. While the observed radioactivity is a small
    amount, person who feels insecurity has increased because the food such as the vegetables polluted by the radioactive.

    Anyway, we live and work everyday. We hope many damaged people will make a recovery.

    My best regard,
    Sengaku

    And this is from the Ft. Bragg campus of the college that I work at on the northern coast of California. — Ruby

    As many of you are already aware, Fort Bragg’s Japanese Sister City has been decimated by the Japanese earthquake and the following tsunami and fires. Several thousand people did not survive or are still missing. Fort Bragg has had a very close relationship with Otsuchi and its people for over a decade. A number of CRMC students and faculty have, in fact, visited Otsuchi and been welcomed into the homes and lives of the people that live there.

    A major fund-raising effort is being undertaken by folks along the Mendocino Coast to help the survivors in their recovery efforts. It is a volunteer-based effort and all funds will be sent directly to Otsuchi. I hope that some of you will be willing to contribute. Please take a few minutes to visit our web page at www.otsuchi.org.

    Thanks.

    Greg Grantham
    Professor of Marine Science
    College of the Redwoods
    Mendocino Coast Campus
    1211 Del Mar Drive
    Fort Bragg, CA 95437
    707-962-2687
    greg-grantham@redwoods.edu

    ********************************************
    Japanese blogger Toshiro Sengaku of amateur-lenr.blogspot.com checked in with a report from Tokyo and we were glad to hear from him.

    Where were you when the earthquake hit? What did it feel like?
    “I was in the office (10th floor) near TOKYO station when the
    earthquake hit. Tokyo is in the distance of about 300km from the
    epicenter, then the seismic intensity of Tokyo was from 4 to 5, that
    is not too large. It was not scary though it had shaken widely because the office building was a quake absorbing structure.

    However, the situation was very different and terrible for the person who lived in the Tohoku region.”

    Pictures show many people in a state of shock. Are you and your family and friends OK? How are people coping? Is there enough food, water, and electricity? What is the state of the transportation system?
    “In the Tohoku region, a lot of people lost the family and the house where they lived. And, they will be spending a cold, uneasy night in school or public hall etc. tonight.

    On the other hand, there are little collapse of the house and little
    injury in Tokyo area. I and my family lives almost usually.

    The largest problem for people who live in the Tokyo area was “only” stops of transportation system. On the other hand, transport systems and life lines (electricity, gas, water) were destroyed in the Tohoku region.”

    What is the situation with the nuclear reactors?
    “The core container in the nuclear reactor was not broken, at present the situation is not so bad, I think. The explosion of Fukushima Nuclear Center No.1 was caused outside of the core container. At present, sea water is poured into the core container to cool the core. We must watch the situation carefully.

    The area of evacuations are 20km to the nuclear reactors of Fukushima Nuclear Center No.1 and 10km to the Fukushima Nuclear Center No.2.”

    Is there any word from your friends in the Japaneses cold fusion community? How are they doing?
    “I and my friend can not gather information about cold fusion researchers who works in the Tohoku University and Iwate University. We have to wait.

    And Jed san reported about Dr. Mizuno situation. I guess the situation of Hokkaido region where Dr. Mizuno live in is better than Tohoku region:

    “Mizuno reports that the earthquake caused significant damage in his lab, “destroying” some of his experimental equipment. He paid for much of the equipment himself, such as the quadrupole mass spectrometer. I asked him to send details and perhaps a photo for the LENR-CANR news section. Perhaps he can set up a PayPal account to solicit donations to help rebuild.”

    Toshiro says:
    “I am tired but fine. It is very fortunately! In the north area of Honshuu of Japan, many people were killed by earthquake and huge tsunami.

    I hope people will be rescued and their life will be recovered.”

    We hope so too, Toshiro. Keep in touch, and let us know what we can do to help.

    Peace.

    Posted on

    Edmund Storms on the Rossi device: “There will be a stampede”

    James Martinez surprised Cash-Flow listeners on March 1 when he played a pre-taped interview with Dr. Edmund Storms just back from Chennai, India where the ICCF-16 took place. ICCF is a conference where researchers in low-energy nuclear reactions share their most recent results.

    Dr. Edmund Storms is a long-time researcher in this field and author of “The Science of Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions“.

    Download the .mp3

    James taped the interview in conjunction with 137 Films crew filming their documentary on cold fusion. To be released in late summer, it is expected to make the independent film festival rounds.

    Here are some excerpts.

    James: “What are the new issues that are happening in cold fusion? What happened with that Italian discovery because that’s been written about quite a bit.”

    Dr. Storms: “They [Rossi and Focardi] found a way of amplifying the effect to a level that makes it attractive as an industrial source of energy and people in the cold fusion field have been working towards that, but they had not achieved that level of heat production, and so this was both a bit of a surprise and a bit shock, but a bit of a kick to get people moving a little more rapidly now. And it looks like the phenomenon will actually have an application.”

    James: “This is a major step then, would you not agree?”

    Dr. Storms: “Oh yes, It’s a major step. It doesn’t change the reality, the reality had already been established, but it has moved the debate from the laboratory into an industrial environment, and it’s put the phenomenon on the map now. People, skeptics can no longer ignore what’s going on, it’s such a high level, and apparently quite reproducible, that there’s no doubt that it has the potential to really be a serious competitor for a primary energy.”

    James: “So we’ve arrived, so to speak.”

    Dr. Storms: “We’ve arrived. It’s interesting we’ve arrived in a different car than we thought we were. Cold fusion started out using deuterium and palladium, and then Rossi found that it worked quite well in nickel and light hydrogen.”

    James: Regarding that, since I saw the 60 mins interview, and saw what the Israeli’s did over there in their lab, what did … the Italians do that’s different? Were they financed well? What made them be ahead of everybody else regarding this issue?”

    Dr. Storms: “That question is a little difficult to answer. The contrast between the Israelis, Energetics, … they were using – just to give you a little bit of understanding – they were using heavy water, palladium in an electrolytic cell, and applying what they call Superwave that allows the palladium to get to a very high composition. They had worked with the Italians to create palladium that could achieve these high compositions. So they were getting success in a more conventional framework.

    Rossi hit upon this somewhat by accident. He was using a nickel catalyst to explore ways of making a fuel by combining hydrogen and carbon monoxide and apparently, observed quite by accident, that his [apparatus] was making extra energy. So then he explored it from that point of view and, apparently, over a year or two, amplified the effect.

    He’s exploring the gas loading area of the field. This is also a region, a method used in the heavy water, or the heavy hydrogen, system. But in this case, it was light hydrogen, ordinary hydrogen and nickel and what happens is quite amazing.

    You create the right conditions in the nickel, and he has a secret method for doing that, and all you do is add hydrogen to it and it makes huge amounts of energy based upon a nuclear reaction.”

    James: “Wow. Alright. I have a number of questions since you said secret. Are they going to be transparent with what they discovered? If I were them, I would tell everybody how they did it, or are they not doing that?”

    Dr. Storms: “Well, you really need a patent, you need to protect your intellectual property. You want to be able to gain some economic benefit from the discovery. So far, they have not gotten a patent, and that’s always been difficult in the cold fusion field because the patent examiners simply don’t believe that it’s real.

    So, until they get a patent, they’re not revealing how they do it. Now, they’ve been upfront about what they can do and what they promise to do, and so far, they’ve fulfilled these promises. Once they get their patent, then they promise to reveal how they go about doing this.”

    James asked Dr. Storms a question from an unnamed listener who apparently knew this interview would be happening. The question?

    “Some said this is LENR, not cold fusion. What’s the difference?”

    Dr. Storms: “Well there is no difference. It’s purely a matter of semantics. There is a phenomenon, and that phenomenon allows a nuclear reaction to be initiated in a chemical environment, and it’s a very special chemical environment, it’s one that we don’t understand yet, we don’t have total control over it, so that it’s difficult to reproduce, although not impossible, it’s been replicated hundreds of times, so it’s real.

    But it’s a process whereby the Coulomb barrier is reduced in magnitude, in a solid, by some kind of … oh what would I call it … chemical mechanism. It’s not chemistry, but it involves atoms and electrons, which of course apply to chemistry.

    And so, what do you call it? Well it was called cold fusion by Steve Jones, and that stuck. And then later people said, you know, that’s not very accurate because you get transmutations, and it may not be fusion directly, so let’s make it describe a bigger area, so we’ll call it low-energy nuclear reactions [LENR]. I like the chemically-assisted nuclear reactions [CANR] description myself, but nevertheless, it’s all the same thing. It’s hard to believe that nature has only one technique for doing something so extraordinary.”

    James: “As far as patents go for this subject matter, are you briefed on that all the time, are other scientists made aware of what’s happening with that, or do you hear about it later?”

    Dr. Storms: “Well it generally percolates into the cold fusion chat rooms fairly quickly. There was a patent that was made known by Windom-Larson most recently, but that was granted, oh I guess it was actually filed back in 2005.

    Very few are granted, and most of the ones that have been granted, I might add, are absolutely useless as patents because not only don’t they describe very well what is going on, but in the absence of any understanding, their descriptions are not implementable, you cannot take the patent and then do what the patent claims, which is what a patent absolutely requires. It has to describe how a person that skilled in the arts can go about replicating what the claims may be.

    None of the patents do that, so technically, their not valid, and that ‘s a big problem, until somebody makes something that works, and then describes how they made it work and that’s where Rossi comes in, because he in fact does have something that works and once he shows how it works, he will have a valid patent.”

    James then asked Dr. Storms what type of press did the Italians get on their demonstration.

    Dr. Storms: “The Swedish newspapers, the Italian newspapers, the Greek newspapers, they showed an interest. The American newspapers showed none at all. It’s been on a number of blogs and talked about in a number of chat rooms, but no, it hasn’t reached a level of any serious importance to the American press.”

    James: “Why do you think that is now?”

    Dr. Storms: “Mainly because, it is institutionally the belief that cold fusion is not real, or if it is real, it’s so trivial, it’d make no difference to anybody. That’s institutional. It’s the myth that’s in, we’ll call it, the intellectual structure of the United States, and a number of other countries.

    There a few countries where that’s not true, and Italy is one of them. The government there believes that it’s real, and they’re doing everything they can to develop it. The government in China believes it’s real an they’re doing everything they can to develop it.”

    James: “So what is the problem? Regardless whether it was an American issue or an Italian issue, that should be all over the press here, and it’s not. It absolutely amazes me that this needs to be happening right now, what I’m doing. The press should’ve had this totally covered.

    Well, what’s next for you? Are you going to be following what the Italians are doing, are you going to go to Italy and be working on it, and try to do what they’ve done and replicate it where you are?”

    Dr. Storms: “Well, first of all, I haven’t been invited. Rossi is determining who’s going to watch this – he’s promised a demonstration in Florida that’s coming up in October. And there will be some people from the US government there watching, and hopefully they will be convinced that it’s real and that will change the attitudes.”

    James: “So they still – after this entire time – can’t wrap their head around it!”

    Dr. Storms: This obviously is not a rational world, and we, on many levels, do not have a rational government. It is very simple once you realize that this irrationality is present.

    Yes, people are trying to replicate what he did. But in the absence of this secret addition, it’s all guesswork [refering to the secret ingredient Rossi is using as a catalyst]. And that’s been pretty much true of all the work in the field. We do not have a good theory, we don’t have a path to follow, and so people do a lot of random searches, and when somebody – I’ll use the analogy prospecting for gold – when somebody finds a nugget, everybody runs to the spot where that guy found the nugget and everybody starts to dig there. Maybe some other nuggets will be found, maybe not.

    That’s what has made it easy for the skeptics to blow it off, and it’s made it easy for the government to pretend that it doesn’t exist.”

    James then asked why was the upcoming demo is being done in Florida.

    Dr. Storms: That’s where the factory is that Rossi owns. Rossi has business interests in the United States, he has a number of companies. He has a company in Florida and that’s where the cells are being manufactured.

    James: “So they’ve [Rossi and co.] already started the process then?”

    Dr. Storms: “Oh, yeah. The [recent demonstration] in Bologna was a single cell unit and it put out 10Kilowatts and it’s put out even more energy in other circumstances. He’s going to build a hundred cell unit in Florida, he claims, to try to run a Megawatt. That’s pretty difficult to ignore.”

    James: “What do you think they’re going to be able to do of a practical use? What are they going to use it for initially?”

    Dr. Storms: “Well, they’re planning to use this as a source of energy in a factory in Greece, and they’re making arrangements in Greece for this to be incorporated into an industrial application, an industrial factory.

    It has to be done in industry at this level because we don’t know if it’s safe, we don’t know it’s characteristics, we just don’t know enough about it to put it into individual homes. This is what he says, and it’s quite rational. It has to be explored, its characteristics have to be understood in an industrial environment, so they’re going to do that in Greece.

    Of course, he’s taking orders, and I’m sure there’ll be people from all over the world, where regulations are not so quite severe, and minds are more open than they are here, and they’ll buy units, and put them in their factories, and suddenly the cost of energy to those companies will go down significantly, and all of a sudden people will panic, and then there’ll be a stampede to buy these things.”

    James: “The irony of the timing of all this now, seeing what’s going on in the Middle East right now, everything’s going up at the gas tank, people looking at other energy things, do you find this unusual, the timing of this? This could have happened five years ago, and right now, with the complete and total collapse of many economies around the world, suddenly these guys in Italy come up with something. Did that surprise you?”

    Dr. Storms: “Well, life always surprises me. It always has these synergistic relationships happening all the time. No, it didn’t surprise me. It’s quite, what would I call it, simple justice. The system absolutely needs this, and suddenly it’s available. I guess it took both happening at the same time to change minds.

    You have to be desperate enough to want to believe that this is real, and then you have to have a device that puts so much energy out that you cannot ignore it, and you marry those two things together, and the skeptics are just blown away.”

    James: “If this is going to happen in Florida, obviously the press is going to catch wind of it, and if it is a private meeting for this demonstration, are you .. thinking that now all the big money people behind the scenes are going to get in on this deal and close it off, and compartmentalize it, and not give it to the public?”

    Dr. Storms: “I don’t think that’s possible.”

    James: “… because I don’t think you should have been cut out of it. I mean, you’re one of the guys that stood tall before anybody!”

    Dr. Storms: “Well I appreciate that, but I’m not being cut out of it, and in fact, I don’t feel that I’ve been cut out of it.

    I’m funded. We’re working to try to understand the mechanism and so we’re hoping to have a seat at the table when the final decisions are made. But Rossi is clearly in charge of his own discovery, and I wouldn’t find that unusual.”

    James: “OK, well, listen, I’m glad that you’re back, I’m glad that you’ve told us this, I’m glad that we’ve covered it here. I want to thank you very much Dr. Storms for always being there for for me and helping me out, and making this a public issue, so thank you very much, much appreciated. We’ll be talking to you very soon. You may be surprised – we may hit Florida anyway!”

    Dr. Storms: “Well James, I appreciate your efforts too, it’s efforts like yours that make it possible for people to find out what’s going on.”

    For the FULL audio interview, go to the Cold Fusion Now Ca$h Flow page to download the March 1 Edmund Storms interview.

    Related Links

    Why is cold fusion rejected? by Dr. Edmund Storms July 1, 2010

    Q&A with Dr. Edmund Storms by Ruby Carat June 27, 2010

    Posted on

    Senate debates now on Patent Reform Act of 2011

    If you are concerned about the United States Patent and Trademark Office USPTO practices, the window is closing to contact your senator, as well as those on the the Judiciary Committee, in regards to the Patent Reform Act of 2011.

    They have opened the debate on the Patent Reform Act of 2011 to the full senate. Full text of the bill is available here.

    Members of the Judiciary are listed here.

    Contact your Senator here.

    A list of supporters of this bill is located here.

    The United States Patent and Trademark Office has been criticized for failing to issue patents related to cold fusion technologies, thereby suppressing the free-flow of information on new energy research and hampering the development of clean energy devices. For some cogent thoughts on this issue, see the recent post “Robert Duncan Interview on Cash-flow: ‘Public Investment means public ownership.’ “

    The following is from Senator Patrick Leahy’s Press Release:

    “Leahy Opens U.S. Senate Debate On Patent Reform Legislation
    Legislation Is Result Of Six Years Of Debate, Consideration In Congress

    WASHINGTON (Monday, Feb. 28, 2011) – The Senate Monday afternoon began debate on long-pending legislation to make the first comprehensive reforms to the nation’s patent system in nearly six decades. The legislation is authored by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). Leahy first introduced bipartisan patent reform legislation in 2006, and as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he has pressed the Senate to take up the legislation.

    “The Patent Reform Act is a key part of any jobs agenda,” said Leahy. “We can help unleash innovation and promote American invention, all without adding a penny to the deficit. This is commonsense, bipartisan legislation.”

    Patent reform legislation has been introduced in the Senate and in the House in each of the last four Congresses. Earlier this year, the Senate Judiciary Committee reported the Patent Reform Act to the full Senate for consideration for the third consecutive Congress. The Committee voted 15-0 to send the legislation to the full Senate.

    “This country’s first patent was issued to a Vermonter. Thomas Jefferson, the Secretary of State, examined the application, and President George Washington signed it,” Leahy said. “A balanced and efficient intellectual property system that rewards invention and promotes innovation through high quality patents is crucial to our nation’s economic prosperity and job growth.”

    The Patent Reform Act will improve and harmonize operations at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; it will improve the quality of patents that are issued; and it will provide more certainty in litigation. In particular, the legislation will move this nation’s patent system to a first-inventor-to-file system, make important quality enhancement mechanisms, and provide the PTO with the resources it needs to work through its backlog by providing it with fee setting authority, subject to oversight.

    The Patent Reform Act is supported by cross-sector manufacturers, innovators, small businesses and inventors, high-tech, universities, pharmaceuticals and biotech, labor, bar associations, financial planners, and others.

    The legislation is cosponsored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn), Christopher Coons (D-Del.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa).

    The Senate will debate the Patent Reform Act this week.”

    Download full text of the bill is here.

    A Brief History of the Senate Judiciary Committee and Patents here.

    Top