Breakthrough Energy – Page 6

March 23, 2015

The Peak Oil Crisis: The Mother of All Black Swans

Title graphic: M. King Hubbert’s graph of the fossil fuel age and it’s successor nuclear power in geologic time.

This is a re-post of an article written by Tom Whipple of the Falls Church News Press.
The original article is here.

Even Saudi Arabia’s oil minister is starting to talk about the advent of a “black swan.” These are defined as completely unexpected developments which cause lots of unexpected change. I believe we are going to be seeing a major black swan event in the not too distant future.

It should be clear to everyone that the earth’s climate is becoming so laden with carbon emissions that civilization as we know it on this planet is unlikely to make it through the next few centuries. Fortunately, however, the combustion of carbon-based fuels will be slowly on its way down as most of the oil that is left is becoming too costly to extract, and in the case of coal, is killing too many people from unhealthy air. Even the Chinese seem to have gotten the message and are cutting back on coal burning as fast as they can without collapsing their economy and getting the government overthrown. However, running out of cheap oil, killing ourselves off from dirty air, or devastating climate change induced weather events are not black swans as these developments are already well anticipated. What is desperately needed is a way for the world to stop burning carbon as quickly as possible without creating economic turmoil. There just may be an answer.

Coming down the road are a pair of technologies that will produce nearly unlimited amounts of cheap, pollution-free energy, and have the potential to change life-as-we-know-it.

I am talking about the twin technologies of cold fusion and hydrinos, each of which, when widely deployed, will constitute a revolution in the history of mankind fully equivalent to the discovery of fire, the wheel, the agricultural revolution, or the industrial revolution. Both of these technologies are based on turning the hydrogen found in water into virtually unlimited amounts of energy at very low cost and without any harmful pollution. Recent developments suggest that either or both of these technologies could become available for commercial applications in the next few years. In recent years, new technologies such as cell phones have spread across the globe in a few decades.

So where are these technologies and when can we expect to hear and read about them in the mainstream media, especially if they are getting close to becoming commercial products? The answer to this is simple. Both these technologies are based on science that is beyond that generally accepted by scientific community, especially those who have never looked into the results of the experiments. While those few scientists who have tested and are familiar with the details of these technologies tell us that they are for real, the bulk are waiting for irrefutable proof that they actually produce large amounts of cheap energy before they are willing to accept that our knowledge of nature may not be as complete as we like to think and that some scientific theories may be wrong.

The hydrino theory holds that there exists in nature a stable, compact form of hydrogen which does not absorb or emit light, making it very hard to detect. Under the proper conditions, normal hydrogen atoms such as those found in water can be transformed into hydrinos accompanied by a massive release of energy. This theory is the brainchild of one man, Randall Mills of BlackLight Power in New Jersey, who has been working on the development of the theory and a practical way to release energy for nearly 30 years. The reason the theory has received little attention is that it appears to violate fundamental principles of atomic science which would have to be rethought if it fact there is such a thing as a hydrino.

Last summer Mills reported in a fascinating video on his website, blacklightpower.com, that he has recently made significant breakthroughs in developing the technology. Last month he reported that all of the subsystems of his prototype “SunCell” now are working and that the first prototype of a commercial device is now being integrated. He also says that a business relationship for distribution of commercial products is being established. If the prototype devices work as advertised and can be tested by independent laboratories, the arguments over the existence of a hydrino should end fairly quickly unless some other explanation can be found. If the subsystems work as claimed, I would be surprised if we did not see the first prototype in operation before the end of the year.

The second of our black swan technologies is our old friend “cold fusion,” which now goes by several other names, largely to assuage the feelings of those scientists who claim there can be no such thing as cold fusion. There now is no question that the nuclear reactions are for real and that commercial quantities of heat can be produced under proper conditions by heating hydrogen in the presence of nickel and other elements. As far as we know, the Italian entrepreneur Andrea Rossi still seems to be the furthest ahead in the race to build and market commercial-scale devices although numerous people around the world are producing heat from laboratory scale devices.

Unlike Mill’s hydrino device, cold fusion is far more difficult to control and many experiments are producing so much heat that they melt down their test apparatuses. Only Rossi, who is now working from a US company, Industrial Heat, down in North Carolina, says he has developed the techniques to keep a commercially viable heat generating device under control. For several months now he has had a commercial sized 1-megawatt prototype device, which has been installed in a factory at an unrevealed location in the U.S., undergoing a year’s acceptance test. If this test is successful, and we won’t know until early next year, Industrial Heat will at some point likely begin publicizing and marketing commercial cold fusion devices.

If either of these endeavors meets their developers’ expectations, we should be seeing the biggest black swan in centuries land in our midst fairly soon.

March 13, 2015March 13, 2015

A New Kind of Nuclear Reactor?

A New Kind of Nuclear Reactor? by Guest Author Dr. Ludwik Kowalski, Montclair State University, in which Dr. Kowalski dives into the Parhomov experiment and makes sense of the particulars for the general reader.

Read the original article posted here on Dr. Kowalski’s cold fusion archive.

Abstract

Consider a short sealed porcelain tube, containing about one gram of white powdered LiAlH4 fuel mixed with ten grams of powdered nickel. Professor Alexander G. Parkhomov, who designed and tested it, calls this small device a nuclear reactor, in a published report. The purpose of this short article is to briefly summarize Parkhomov’s discovery, in as simple a way as possible, and to make some general comments. Such setup, even if scaled up, would not be useful in an industrial electric power generating plant, due to well-known conversion efficiency limit. The expected readers are scientists and educated laymen.

Section 1 Introduction

Consider a sealed porcelain tube 20 cm long, containing about one gram of white powdered fuel mixed with ten grams of powered nickel. Professor Alexander G. Parkhomov, who designed and tested it, calls this small device a nuclear reactor, in a published report (1). The purpose of this short article is to briefly summarize Parkhomov’s discovery, in as simple a way as possible, and to make some general comments. The expected readers are scientists and educated laymen. Hopefully, this article will prepare them to understand Parkhomov’s report, and similar technical publications on the same topic.

The author, a retired nuclear physicist educated in the USSR, Poland, France and the USA, has dedicated this article to his father who died in a Gulag camp, and to his famous mentor Frederic Joliot-Curie. Who is Alexander Parkhomov? He is a Russian scientist and engineer, the author of over one hundred publications. The photo shown below was taken in 1990. Electronic equipment on the table is probably not very different from what he used to measure thermal energy released in the reactor.

Parkhomov in his lab

Section 2 Describing the Reactor

The title of Parkhomov’s recent report is “A Study of an Analog of Rossi’s High Temperature Generator.” Is the word “reactor,” in the title of this section, appropriate? Yes, it is. A totally unexplained reaction, releasing an extraordinary amount of heat, must be responsible for what is described in Sections 3. Is this reaction nuclear? Parkhomov certainly thinks so; otherwise he would not use instruments designed to detect nuclear radiations. His powdered fuel was 90% natural Ni; the rest was a LiAlH4 compound.

The controversial field of science and technology (2,3), in which Rossi (4) and Parkhomov are active, is Cold Fusion CF), also known under different names, such as CMNS, LENR, etc. Reference to Andrea Rossi in the title of the report is puzzling. Yes, Rossi also thought that thermal energy released in his device was nuclear, rather than chemical. But that is where the similarities end; the two reactors differ in many ways. For example, Rossi’s fuel was hydrogen gas, delivered from an outside bottle.

The illustration below is a simplified diagram of Parkhomov’s setup. The diagram does not show that the porcelain tube (red in the diagram) was closely wrapped by a heating wire. The electric energy delivered to the heater, in each experiment, was measured using several instruments; one of them was a standard kWh meter, similar to those used by electric companies. Heating of the fuel was necessary to keep the fuel temperature very high; the required temperature had to be between 1000 C and 1400 C.

Simplified diagram of Parkhomov’s setup

The reactor container (a covered box) was immersed in an aquarium-like vessel, filled with boiling and steaming water. To keep the water level constant during the experiment, a small amount of hot water (probably 90 grams) was added through a funnel, every three minutes or so. The mass of the escaped steam, turned into liquid water, was measured outside of the setup. Knowing the mass of the steam that escaped during an experiment one can calculate the amount of thermal energy escaping from the aquarium. Parkhomov’s method of measuring excess heat was not very different from that used by the leader of Russian Cold Fusion researchers, Yuri Nikolaevich Bazhutov (5).

Section 3 A Surprising Energy Result

Here is a description of results from one of three experiments performed by Parkhomov in December 2014. The porcelain tube with the powdered fuel was electrically heated at the rate of 500W. Then the state of thermal equilibrium was reached. The water in the aquarium remained in that state for nearly one hour. The constant fuel temperature, measured with a thermocouple (also not shown in the diagram) was 1290 C. The time interval of 40 minutes was selected for analysis of experimental results. The amount of water evaporated during that interval was 1.2 kg. The amount of electric energy the heater delivered to water in the aquarium, during that time, was 1195 kJ. Most of that energy was used to evaporate water. But 372 kJ of heat escaped from water via conduction. That number was determined on the basis of results from preliminary control experiments
Let XH be the amount of heat the aquarium water received from the reactor that is from the porcelain tube containing the fuel.
Thus the net “input” energy was

INPUT = 1195 – 372 + XH = 823 + XH

It represents thermal energy received by water, during the experiment.
Knowing the water’s “heat of evaporation” (2260 kJ/kg), one can calculate the thermal energy lost by water to sustain evaporation. It was:

OUTPUT = 2260*1.2 = 2712 kJ

This is the thermal energy lost by water, during the experiment. According to the law of conservation of energy, the INPUT and the OUTPUT must be equal. This leads to:

XH = 2712 – 823 = 1889 kJ

This is a surprising result. Why surprising? Because it is much larger than what is released when one gram of a familiar fuel is used. Burning one gram of powdered coal, for example, releases about 30 kJ of thermal energy, not 1889 kJ. What is the significance of this? The superficial answer is that “Parkhomov’s fuel is highly unusual, and potentially useful.”

Section 4 Cold Fusion Contoversy

Parkhomov’s box is not the first device that was introduced as a multiplier in which electric energy is turned into heat, and where outputted thermal energy exceeds the electric energy supplied. A conceptually similar device, based on electrolysis, was introduced in 1989, by Fleischmann and Pons (F&P). Their small electrolytic cell also generated more thermal energy than the electric energy supplied to it. Trying to establish priority, under pressure from University of Utah administration, the scientists announced their results at a sensational press conference (March 23, 1989). They wanted to study the CF phenomenon for another year or so but were forced to prematurely announce the discovery (private information)

The unfortunate term “cold fusion” was imposed on them. Why unfortunate? Because it created the unjustified impression that cold fusion is similar to the well known hot fusion, except that it takes place at much lower temperatures. This conflicted with what had already been known–the probability of nuclear fusion of two heavy hydrogen ions is negligible, except at stellar temperatures (6,7).

Suppose the discovery had not been named cold fusion; suppose it had been named “anomalous electrolysis.” Such a report would not have led to a sensational press conference; it would have been made in the form of an ordinary peer review publication. Only electrochemists would have been aware of the claim; they would have tried to either confirm or refute it. The issue of “how to explain the heat” would have been addressed later, if the reported phenomenon were recognized as reproducible-on-demand. But that is not what happened. Instead of focusing on experimental data (in the area in which F&P were recognized authorities) most critics focused on the disagreements with the suggested theory. Interpretational mistakes were quickly recognized and this contributed to the skepticism toward the experimental data.

5) Engineering Considerations

The prototype of an industrial nuclear reactor was built in 1942 by Enrico Fermi. It had to be improved and developed in order to “teach us” how to design much larger useful devices. The same would be expected to happen to the tiny Parkhomov’s device.
a) One task would be to develop reactors able to operate reliably for at least 40 months, instead of only 40 minutes. This would call for developing new heat-resisting materials. Another task would be to replace the presently used (LiAlH4 + Ni) powder by a fuel in which energy multiplication would take place at temperatures significantly lower than today’s minimum, which is close to 1000 C .

b) The third task would be to scale up the setup, for example, by placing one hundred tubes, instead of only one, into a larger aquarium-like container. This would indeed increase the amount of released thermal energy by two orders of magnitude. Scaling up, however, would not increase the multiplication factor. The only conceivable way to increase the MF would be to find a more effective fuel.

c) A typical nuclear power plant is a setup in which a nuclear energy multiplier (a uranium-based reactor) feeds thermal energy into a traditional heat-into-electricity convertor. Such multipliers are workhorses of modern industry. Note that MF of an industrial nuclear reactor must be larger than three; otherwise it would not be economically justifiable. This is a well-known fact, related to the limited efficiency of heat engines.

d) Uranium and thorium seem to be the only suitable fuels, in any kind of energy multiplier. Why is it so? Because fission is the only known process in which more than 100 MeV of nuclear energy is released, per event. This number is about four times higher than what is released when two deuterons fuse, producing helium. Will more efficient fuels be found? If not then chances for replacing coal, oil, and gas by a Parkhomov-like fuels are minimal.

6) Scientific Considerations

Science is at the base of all modern engineering applications. But the main preoccupation of most scientists is to understand laws of nature, not to build practically useful gadgets. Confirmation of claims made by Parkhomov is likely to trigger an avalanche of scientific investigations, both theoretical and experimental, even if the energy multiplication factor remains low.

a) Suppose that Parkhomov’s energy multiplier, described in this article, is already recognized as reproducible on demand, at relatively low cost. Suppose that the “what’s next?” question is asked again, after two or three years of organized investigations. Scientists would want to successfully identify a “mystery process” taking place in the white powder, inside the porcelain tube. Is it chemical, magnetic, pyrometallurgic, biological, nuclear, or something else? Answering such questions, they would say, is our primary obligation, both to us and to society.

b) Parkhomov certainly believes that a nuclear process is responsible for XH, in his multiplier. Otherwise he would not use instruments designed to monitor neutrons and gamma rays. But, unlike Fleischmann and Pons, he does not speculate on what nuclear reaction it might be. He is certainly aware of tragic consequences of premature speculations of that kind.

7) Social Considerations

The social aspect of Cold Fusion was also debated on an Internet forum for CMNR researchers. Referring to the ongoing CF controversy, X1 wrote: “The long-lasting CF episode is a social situation in which the self-correcting process of scientific development did not work in the expected way. To what extent was this due to extreme difficulties in making progress in the new area, rather than to negative effects of competition, greed, jealousy, and other ‘human nature’ factors? “A future historian of science may well ask “how is it that the controversy ignited in 1989 remained unresolved for so many decades? –who was mainly responsible for this scientific tragedy of the century, scientists or political leaders of scientific establishment, and govrnment agenies, such as NSF and DOE? Discrimination against CF was not based on highly reproducible eperimental data; it was based on the fact that no acceptbal theory was found to explain unextected experimental facts, reported by CF researchers.

Parkhomov’s experimental results will most likely be examined in many laboratories. Are they reproducible? A clear yes-or-no answer to this question is urgently needed, for the benefit of all. What would be the most effective way to speed up the process of getting the answer, after a very detailed description of the reactor (and measurements performed) is released by Parkhomov? The first step, ideally, would be to encourage qualified scientists to examine that description, and to ask questions. The next step would be to agree on the protocol (step-by-step instructions) for potential replicators. Agencies whose responsibility is to use tax money wisely, such as DOE in the USA, and CERN in Europe, should organize and support replications. Replicators would make their results available to all who are interested, via existing channels of communication, such as journals, conferences, etc. A well-organized approach would probably yield the answer in five years, or sooner.

References

(1) A.K. Parkhomov, “A Study of an Analog of Rossi’s High Temperature Generator” http://csam.montclair.edu~kowalski/cf/parkh1.pdf

(2) L. Kowalski, “Social and Philosophical Aspects of a Scientific Controversy;” IVe Congres de la Societe de Philosophy des Sciences (SPS); 1-3 Juin 2012, Montreal (Canada). Available online at:
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2012/PP-29-L2.PDF

(3) Ludwik Kowalski, http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/413montreal.html

(4) Ludwik Kowalski, ” Andrea Rossi’s Unbelievable Claims.” a blog entry: http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/403memoir.html#chapt24

(5) Peter Gluck interviews Bazhutov:
https://coldfusionnow.org/interview-with-yuri-bazhutov-by-peter-gluck/

(6) John R. Huizenga, “Cold Fusion, The Scientific Fiasco of the Century.”
Oxford University Press, 1993, 2nd ed. (available at amazon.com)

(7) Edmund Storms, “The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction,” Infinite Energy Press, 2014. (also available at amazon.com)

Find more on Ludwik Kowalski’s cold fusion archive.

Q&A with Jack Cole on new Hot Cat replication, experiment completion

A Russian Experiment: High Temperature, Nickel, Natural Hydrogen by Michael C.H. McKubre

March 3, 2015March 3, 2015

New book describes how E-Cats are made

A collection of articles by Robert Ventola has been published as a book “HOT-CAT 2.0: How last generation E-Cats are made” co-authored with Vessela Nikolova.

Vessela Nikolova is the author of the biography of Andrea Rossi E-Cat The New Fire. According to her blog, Robert Ventola is a contributor and electrical engineer.

The book is dedicated to the memory of Sergio Focardi physicist and Professor Emeritus at the University of Bologna, who worked with Andrea Rossi first testing, and then collaborating in the development of the E-Cat.

The chapters describe the evolution of E-Cat designs and includes a chapter entitled The secret interior of a reactor

Read excerpts from the Preface by Vessela Nikolova and the Introduction by Robert Ventola compliments the authors.

Purchase the book on Amazon.

January 21, 2015January 20, 2015

Open Power Association Newsletter #17: Roy Virgilio honored; collaboration with Francesco Celani moving forward

The Open Power Association at Hydrobetatron.org has published Newsletter #17. Selected excerpts of interest to readers are google-translated and posted here.

Read the full and complete newsletter in the original Italian here.

*****BEGIN NEWSLETTER*****

2015: if it were a good year?!

Dear Friends,
The reactor ITAbetatron is now ready to support the experiments planned. In the coming weeks we will enter the heart of the work, and we all wish you success in this endeavor!

In this case we will finally have a new source of energy: clean, inexhaustible and economic, that creates the conditions for the welfare and prosperity of the peoples of the Earth, and at the same time to combat global warming, and therefore dangerous climate change in place thus also saving the planet Earth.

All your help will be useful if not decisive. Therefore you renew your subscription to ‘Association Open Power or subscribe for the first time. This is the greatest gift you can give yourself! CLICK HERE and with your association, also receive a nice gift!

*****

THE REACTOR: WORK IN PROGRESS …
in the foreground a particular extension of the reactor ITAbetatron:

Are you entrepreneur-minded? Then you may want to consider the possibility of investing in our promising research to find a new source of energy: clean, inexhaustible and economic.

Seize this opportunity now!

Send us an e-mail with your proposal to:
contatti@hydrobetatron.org

We will evaluate and if necessary, fix an appointment for you to learn more about our program, and what we can do to collaborate.

*****

The Directors of the Open Power Association resolved unanimously to appoint the Honorary Member in 2015: Roy Virgilio

Roy Virgilio, Honorary Member 2015 Open Power Association

Roy Virgilio, deals with conventional renewable energy, and more exotic for about 10 years.

In September 2002, he founded http://www.progettomeg.it, covering cold fusion experiments and other clean energy, with a focus on biofuels. In 2004 he also founded the Shared Forum on Renewable Energy Sources (http://www.energeticambiente.it) where the threads of all energy sources are collected.

In 2005 he organized the National Conference on Cold Fusion held in Pisa in April, and participated in the foundation of the NPO and Social Promotion “EnergoClub” for the conversion efficiency of the planet.

Since 2004 he has been a speaker at several conferences throughout the country, talking about Free Energy, Cold Fusion and Biofuels.

He also writes articles for magazines of science and environment including “AamTerranuova“. In 2007 he published his first book “Biofuels Yourself”, currently in its second edition.

*****

Sometimes we humans are hypocritical, selfish, evil and even violent.

Nevertheless: Our nature is Divine! Let us help you remember this by connecting to the beauty of the ‘Universe also watching the beautiful images taken by the space telescope: Hubble!

TO VIEW ALL GALLERIES: http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/entire/

*****

And ‘We are honored to be able to announce that Francesco Celani
(website: francescocelanienergy.org) officially collaborates with “Open Power”!

Francesco Celani, besides being always our friend and esteemed scientist, is an honorary member of “Open Power” from the foundation of the ‘Association itself. Thursday, December 11 (2014), Francesco Celani has visited our new laboratory in Rome where he met amicably with Ugo Abundo, our President and Scientific Director of the ‘Association “Open Power”, for a scientific debate on issues of common interest. On this occasion was made official the relationship of scientific collaboration that will elapse between us.

Interviewed by Luciano Saporito, he had words that fill us with pride about our commitment in the field of new energy.

Francesco Celani also claimed that “the laboratory Open Power is well structured, the enthusiasm of the researchers involved transpires, the search ranges in different directions that complement each other, carried out in specific work islands; the procedures are scientifically confirmable, and equipment built, well-engineered, integrated fields of investigation and promising, and proposals for innovative solutions and optimal desirable to make the maximum effort in running projects designed”.

*****

A NEW DISCOVERY (June 25 2014) FRANCESCO CELANI!

It is an electrical phenomenon, apparently not due to known phenomena, due to the interaction of Hydrogen gas with long (100cm) fine wire (diameter 100 microns and 200-meter) Constantan (alloy Cu_55%, Ni_44%, Mn_1% with traces of Iron from 0 to 0.5%) having the surface covered by the same Constantan to reduced dimensionality (measured between 50 and 5000 nm with SEM) as methodology developed in LNF also with the help, at various levels of external colleagues. The whole is measured, at a macroscopic level, when such INDIVIDUALS wire, electrically isolated from each other with sheaths made of borosilicate glass, placed inside a reactor having also the hydrogen gas, have an internal temperature of> about 150 ° C and external next environment. In other words, it is as if you were in the presence of a new form / method (apart from the well-known Seebeck effect and / or Thompson) CONVERSION DIRECT from Heat to Electricity. E ‘truly challenging, from the point of view of scientific speculation, the role of Hydrogen understood as mono-atomic and / or even proton. Obviously we’re just starting. New recent (December 15, 15:00) results show that the ignition temperature is not 150 ° C but only (about) 55 ° C. ”

PRECIOUS were some suggestions on the issue of “abnormal current” provided to Francesco Celani also by some researchers and collaborators Open Power.

*****

Published on: francescocelanienergy.org
An interview by Maurizio Melis with Francesco Celani aired on Thursday, December 25, 2014 on Radio 24 under the heading: “Smart city, voices and places of’ innovation ‘directed by Maurizio Melis.
TO LISTEN TO THE ‘INTERVIEW: CLICK HERE

*****

Published in: hydrobetatron.org
a new video in which Ugo Abundo illustrates some details of the ItaBetatron reactor. TO SEE THE FULL MOVIE: CLICK HERE

*****

Alexander Parkhomov has confirmed the Hot Cat experiment.

Russian scientist Alexander Parkhomov
Would successfully replicate the E-Cat Andre Rossi.
The reactor prepared for the ‘experiment

Fig. 4. The reactor in operating time. The covers from a thermal insulation and vessel with the reactor are removed

The reactor operates during the ‘experiment.
Read more HERE

*****

TALKING ABOUT US …
https://coldfusionnow.org/francesco-celani-continues-live-open-science-with-open-power-association/

*****

GOOD READING!
Published in the articles section of hydrobetatron.org, the new article:
“Science, brain and spirituality” by Luciano Saporito
TO READ THE ‘ARTICLE IN PDF CLICK HERE

*****

BOOK: “PILLS OF WISDOM” PILL 013
“A ‘picture sometimes speaks a thousand words”:
Sri Krishna

*****

For the full Open Power Association Newsletter #17, please go to the Archive here: http://www.hydrobetatron.org/archivio-newsletters.html

January 13, 2015

A Russian Experiment: High Temperature, Nickel, Natural Hydrogen by Michael C.H. McKubre

This is a re-post of an article written by Michael C.H. McKubre and published in Infinite Energy Magazine issue #119.

The original article can be found here.

A Russian Experiment: High Temperature, Nickel, Natural Hydrogen
by
Michael C.H. McKubre

[Editor’s Note: Alexander Parkhomov’s E-Cat experiment report was issued on December 25, 2014. We have uploaded the original Russian report by Alexander Parkhomov and his English translation.]

The first thing to record is that the document under consideration is an informal, preliminary research note available to me only in English translation of the Russian original. Despite that it reads well. Alexander Parkhomov is a “known” scientist from a highly reputable Institution, Lomonosov Moscow State University, which I have visited on several occasions. He has published work with friends of mine including Yuri Bazhutov (Chairman of ICCF13 and member of the IAC) and Peter Sturrock (Stanford University). These are both very capable senior scientists so that when this research is prepared for formal publication I am sure we can anticipate a complete and solid report.

In the meantime I will comment briefly on what is presented. Because of the community interest in the topic and the apparently clear and elegant nature of the experiment, Parkhomov’s preliminary report has already received an astonishing amount of discussion on the CMNS news group. What is stated in this preliminary report is encouraging, potentially even interesting, but one is struck by material information that is not made available in this report. Much, most or all of this added detail apparently is available to the author so one must await further elucidation from Parkhomov or a serious engineering effort at replication before final conclusions can be arrived at.

Although clearly motivated by the Rossi “Lugano” experiment it is not correct to call either a replication of the other or of any before. These are new experiments, with new characteristics, and some common features. As shown below the reactor active core consists of nickel powder intermixed with a hydrogen (lithium and aluminum) source, LiAlH4, enclosed in an alumina tube and confined with bonded ceramic plugs. This core is surrounded by a helically wound, coaxial electrical heater extended in length to provide closely uniform heating. The whole is potted in ceramic cement to incorporate a single sense thermocouple.

To this extent this configuration mirrors the Rossi reactor recently reported from Lugano although we do not know the similarity or differences between the Ni samples used in each.[1] Since LiAlH4 decomposes to liquid and H2 gas at the temperature of operation its source and nature of are presumed not to make much difference although the impurity content (unstated) may. Also different is the nature of the electrical input used for heating. For Parkhomov this is unspecified. The Rossi effort at Lugano employed 3-phase (50 Hz.) power for the calorimetric input and thermal stimulus but also includes an unknown amount of power in unstated form as a trigger. No such trigger apparently was used by Parkhomov.

The two experiments diverge radically in their chosen means of calorimetry. Parkhomov states that the “Rossi reactor technique based on thermovision camera observation is too complex,” with which I tend to agree. The chosen mean of calorimetry on the new report is to employ the latent heat of vaporization of water — the well known amount of heat required to boil water to steam, in this case at ambient pressure. The heater/reactor combination shown above was enclosed with partial insulation inside a rectangular metal box that was contacted on 5 of 6 surfaces by water.

There are some second order effects that might pertain to this boiling water calorimetry but the method is “tried and true.” It has been employed accurately for well over 100 years and in a slightly different form (boiling liquid nitrogen) was the method selected in recent SRI calorimetry.[2] With simple precautions such a calorimeter should be accurate within a few percent over a wide range of powers and reactor temperatures. One must be concerned to interrogate the heat that leaves the calorimeter by means other than as steam escaping at ambient pressure, that water does not leave the vessel in the liquid phase as splattered droplets or mist (fog), and to accurately measure the water mass loss (or its rate to determine output power). Obviously one also needs to accurately and completely measure the electrical input power.

Although this last issue has been recently (and anciently) raised it is very rarely a problem. Measurement of current, voltage and time (power and energy) are some of the measurements most easily and commonly made. Parkhomov does not supply details of the electrical power or its measurement and he is very much encouraged to do this in his formal reporting. I have no reason, however, to doubt the input power statements. Splatter and mist are issues of observation and calibration and heat leaks are a matter of calibration. Much detail is missing here. Full information about the calibration(s) must be provided in any formal report and full resolution of the question “what do the data tell us?” awaits this detail.

Get Infinite Energy now!

In the meantime what can we learn? Parkhomov states without showing that data that: “The power supplied to the heater stepwise varied from 25 to 500 watts.” The thermocouple in the reactor reached 1000°C approximately 5 hours after initial heating. It would be very nice to have these early-time data together with the data for calibration with which to compare; the greatest weakness of this report is the paucity of data. We are forced basically to rely on three data pairs that I have re-tabulated below from the Parkhomov report with some calculated numbers. Three time intervals are reported of varying duration (Row 2) in which the cell reported an average temperature resulting from the stated average electrical input power, and accumulated the stated Energy In. Parkhomov states from his calibration (not shown) that the heat leak from the system to the ambient is 155 W with the boiler at 100°C. From this heat leak rate we can calculate the energy that leaves in each interval through the insulation and from the mass of water lost we can calculate the heat that leaves as steam by using the known latent heat of vaporization of water (40.657 kJ /Mole or 2258.7 kJ / kg of H2O). The sum of these is the Total Energy Output, the second half of our three data pairs.

These tabulated data (although few) exhibit an impressive set of characteristics:

Excess energies of ~120 to ~1900 kJ in 40-50 minutes.
Energy output greater than heat leak rate for the two higher input powers so that even if this loss approaches zero there is still calculated excess energy.
Percentage excess energies (and therefore average power) of ~20-160% with increasing input power and temperature.
Average excess powers of ~50 to nearly 800 W with a very small “fuel” load (0.9g of Ni).
Excess power densities of ~60 to nearly 900 W g-1 of Ni, well within “useful” regimes and consistent with previous CMNS results.
Excess power densities for the small reaction volume (~1 cm3) of ~50 to nearly 800 W cm-3.

All of these characteristics are exceptionally favorable. In the “plus column” we can also add that the experiment should be very easy to reproduce and we will hopefully soon have well-engineered replication attempts and conceivably confirmations. The experiment also does not appear to need stimulation[3] other than heat, hydrogen and possibly lithium or the need for solid-nickel/molten-metal interaction. So what are the worries? A very large amount has been said about this experiment in part because of the spectacular character of the tabulated data. Over and above the obvious need for calibration data and complete run-time data (ideally in the form of numbers not just plots) not everybody is happy. Why not?

Although others may have further points to add I would summarize three major concerns expressed[4] with the material that has been presented (rather than what was not):

The unexpected behavior of the Temperature at high power. When excess power (of apparently considerable power density) is being created one would expect to see the temperature of the source to be increasingly elevated. The observed trend is not in the “right” direction.

A plot of the data tabulated by Parkhomov for Reactor Temperature vs. Input Power is a stunningly good fit to a parabola. Because of limits of accuracy and precision experimentalists normally expect such close fits to be the result of calculation, not measurement. The goodness of fit may be explicable by the author or just be a fascinating coincidence.

A temperature arrest of approximately 8 minutes occurred at the end of the experiment after the rapid power and temperature drop following heater failure. This “Heat after Death” episode was preceded by a similar period of apparent temperature fluctuation. Either episode or both might be important signals of the underlying heat generation process or may signal sensor failure. It is difficult to resolve this ambiguity without redundant temperature measurement.

In the absence of relevant calibration data at least, and (better) a finite element model of the complex heat flow from the system as well, one can use only experience and intuition to predict what the reactor thermocouple sensor should register as a consequence of changing input power. The input power to the helical heater has a known (distributed) location. The excess power, however, while (presumably) volumetrically constrained has no defined or necessarily stationary position within the fuel volume. Even the first step of heat flow is therefore complex but an argument has been made qualitatively that, all else being equal, if you add a heat source the temperature should go up. Does it?

Let’s look first at a plot of percent excess power (left vertical axis) and temperature (right vertical axis, °C) as a function of input power (W). Three different colored curves are plotted for three different postulated values of the conductive heat leak from the calorimeter: red (155 W) the heat leak power calibrated by Parkhomov and assumed to be constant throughout the active run; blue (102 W) the value that makes the excess power for the first data point zero, as a conservative internal calibration; green (0 W) no heat leak, the most conservative estimate possible for this term. There is nothing at all surprising about this set of curves, and something quite encouraging. The observed excess power cannot be explained by an error in the conductive heat leak or any changing value of that parameter. The temperature of the reactor rises monotonically and smoothly with increasing excess and total power.

Now let’s look at the same data plotted against the measured reactor temperature below. Here we see some indication of the first concern enumerated above. Although slight, the curvature of this family of curves is up suggesting that as the excess (and total) power measured calorimetrically by the released steam increases, so also does the rate of heat (or temperature) loss from the thermocouple sensor. Although this might indicate a measurement problem (unknowable without calibration data) note that the deviation cause by this curvature is well within the variation bounded by the assumed heat leak to the ambient and might easily be caused by a relatively small change in this calibrated “constant.”

At least two unincluded heat loss term are known that must cause the heat leak constant to change in the direction to cause upward curvature: radiant heat loss from the reactor to the enclosing metal box at higher temperature; increased convective transport from the enclosing metal box to the inner wall of the “steamer” at higher rates of steam bubble evolution. I do not know whether the shape of the curve is a problem or is not. The point that I would like to re-reinforce is that we can only answer such questions definitively and thus gain confidence in the data and therefore knowledge if we have direct access to calibration data in the relevant temperature regime. I would also like to see a good thermal model as the reactor/calorimeter system is nowhere near as simple as it seems having several parallel and series heat transport paths. I realize that such model would be labor intensive and/or expensive to develop so lets start with the calibration. How does the system behave with no possibility of excess power?

As a comment in conclusion, there are gaps and unexplained effects in the data set, notably in the missing calibration data, and the foreground data record is slight. Nevertheless the experiment is clearly specified, easily performed, elegant and sufficiently accurate (with relevant calibration). I would recommend that the experiment be attempted by anyone curious and with the facilities to do so safely, exactly as described. Anything else or more runs the risk of teaching us nothing. I await further word from Parkhomov and reports from further replication teams.

Footnotes:
[1] Parkhomov has stated that the NI used to charge his reactor had an initial grain size of ~10µ and specific area ~1000 cm2/g.
[2] SRI DTRA report and ICCF17 proceedings.
[3] Note that the lack of need for stimulation is very good for demonstration but undesirable for control and thus technology.
[4] The first two points were elaborated initially by Ed Storms, who may make them more strongly than I do here.

About the Author: Dr. Michael McKubre is Director of the Energy Research Center of the Materials Research Laboratory at SRI International. He received B.Sc., M.Sc. and Ph.D. in chemistry and physics at Victoria University (Wellington, New Zealand). He was a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Southampton University, England. Dr. McKubre joined SRI as an electrochemist in 1978. He is an internationally recognized expert in the study of electrochemical kinetics and was one of the original pioneers in the use of ac impedance methods for the evaluation of electrode kinetic processes. Dr. McKubre has been studying various aspects of hydrogen and deuterium in metals since he joined SRI in 1978, the last 25 years with a close focus on heat measurements. He was recognized by Wired magazine as one of the 25 most innovative people in the world. Dr. McKubre has conducted research in CMNS since 1989.

***********************************END RE-POST

Interview with Yuri Bazhutov by Peter Gluck

Infinite Energy Magazine

January 13, 2015January 13, 2015

Interview with Yuri Bazhutov by Peter Gluck

This is a re-post of an article written by Dr. Peter Gluck of Ego Out in Cluj, Romania.

The original article can be found here.

SHORT INTERVIEW WITH YU. N. BAZHUTOV by Peter Gluck

I had the privilege to ask a few preliminary questions from the leader of Russian LENR researchers Yuri Nikolaevich Bazhutov. They call the field Cold Nuclear Transmutation and I think this name is more realist than Cold Fusion.

Yuri Bazhutov is an ’89-er cold fusionist (excuse me) a well known member or our community, a reputed author, with 15 papers 1982 to 2014 in the LENR-CANR Library, an organizer and participant at our meetings, CNT strategist, a personality..

Q
It is encouraging to see and easy to observe how closely and seriously are followed, discussed and theorized the developments in CNT/LENR in Russia. What is the strategic thinking beyond this and the main targets?

A
After more, than 25 years of theoretical, experimental pilot studies in Cold Nuclear Transmutation in Russia we have arrived to a stage when we think about patents, demonstration devices, search for investors for realization of industrial devices. We are at a different, higher level now.

Q
Your very personal opinion: how do you see the scientific aspects; how these new developments, can they be explained theoretically and what do you and your collaborators intend to do for the experimental part?

In essence is it new science or new application (s) of already known science?

A
As co-author of the Model of the Erzion Catalysis (MEC), I believe that it explains the nature of CNT. All my experiments made in 25 years confirm this model.

MEC is built on orthodox representations of the Physics of Elementary Particles including as the main part, Quantum Chronodynamics (QCD) and, therefore it is also the new Section of Nuclear Physics

Q
The Lugano experiment despite its over-complicated thermometric calorimetry is a harbinger of a really wonderful/powerful energy source, MWhours from grams. Unfortunately, the Testers were shocked by the analytical results.
What do you think about those unexpected isotopic shifts and the dynamic processes that make these possible

A
Starting with the first experiments made by Rossi and Focardi up to the very Hot Cat tested in Lugano, MEC gives generally fine explanations and I have published about this in RCCNT&BL Proc., and in the Russian Inventing magazines (No. 1, 2012) and ISCMNS J. (No. 13, 2014). However I believe that our option of Russian E-cat on the basis of Plasma Electrolysis gives a much better perspective- heat generator at close realization still having a very high output specific power (MWhours from grams common water).

Q
On December 25, 2014 at a CNT seminary-Alexander Parkhomov and you have presented an experiment confirming the Lugano experiment using a realistic-cut-the Gordian knot simple calorimetry inspired from your experience. A very positive event.

However, after more than 50 years in and around research i have learned the cruel 1=0 rule-1 single experiment can’t generate absolute certainty. Nor Lugano, neither Parkhomov; so I ask-was the experiment repeated in house and when will the new report be published?

A
Parkhomov now works on lengthening of time of continuous work of a cell then to do atom spectroscopic and mass spectroscopic analyses of change of chemical structure and of the isotopic composition of fuel.

Peter Gluck – This was just a first discussion, I hope to continue. Bazhutov added: see and read more– and I have translated the paper.

http://vpk.name/forum/s188.html
The revolution in energetics was accomplished! The place of organic fuels was taken by the Cold nuclear Transmutation.
By A.A. Rukhadze, Yu.N. Bazhutov, A.B. Karabut, V.G. Koltashov

The era of oil burning has arrived to its end. The revolution in CNT (Cold Nuclear Transmutation) opens the way toward a new economic transformation, to the triumph of robotics, to cheaper production and the transition of the world’s economy in which Russia should not be disadvantaged.

On October 8, 2014 in the prestigious Los Alamos electronic publication Arxiv.org it was published the report of an independent group regarding the testing of the heat generator- Hot Cat created by Andrea Rossi. Six well known scientists from Italy and Sweden have tested for 32 days the functioning of the generator that allows obtaining cheap energy on the basis of a new scientific principle.

In the absence of the author of the invention (A. Rossi) there were measured all the possible parameters of the “energetic cat” After that, for an half year the scientists have processed the results in order to get comprehension. And their verdict was univocal: the Rossi generator works and produces an incredible amount of energy- the energy density is millions times greater as by burning the same quantity of any kind of organic fuel and is 3.7 times greater than the input electric energy. In the same time it is changed the isotopic composition of the fuel materials.

No nuclear radiations from the reactor could be observed during the test.
The first demonstration of working of an E-cat prototype was performed already at January 14, 2011 in Bologna, at the Physics Dept. of the University. During this demo the scientists and the journalists have seen a functioning reactor with the power of 12.5 kW at output. This works on the principle of cold nuclear transmutation as have related the authors, Andrea Rossi and Sergio Focardi.

Sergio Focardi, professor at the Bologna University – has performed even 20 years earlier the mechanism of hydrogen-nickel interaction in cooperation with the professor of the Siena University, Francesco Piantelli. These studies were done in the frame of a new physical phenomenon, cold fusion discovered by Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons in the year 1989.

At October 28, 2011 Andrea Rossi has already shown his first 1 Megawatt reactor sold to his first customer. Engineers and scientist were present, verifying how it works. Due to some imperfections, the reactor has produced 470 kWatts working for 5.5 hours in self-sustaining mode. There were used 100 reactor modules each with 3 branches- the whole complex of 300 reaction chambers.

The orthodox physicist overall have again ignored Rossi. According to all the canons of physics, something like this- nuclear boiler on the table- cannot exist! Amplification of energy almost 10 times is pure non-sense! And only few “heretics” of science, working for cold fusion (CF) have supported him.

Rossi had an unpredictable behavior but not so that he could be called a rogue and a charlatan as the orthodox have accused him. He has not asked money from anybody, on the contrary he has sold his house to be able to start this research. He has not chased popularity in the press; he refused interviews and has worked more with businessmen than journalists.

Rossi also has not tried to open a dialogue with the scientists – the luminaries of the nuclear physics: “The best proof of my truth will be the commercial device on the market”- he says.

The attitude toward this inventor has gradually changed- when after a dozen conferences nobody could show he cheats, secretly brings electricity to the device.

After that NASA took Rossi under its protection. Rossi could not refuse. It is clear he is safer in the US than in Italy. But NASA is only the visible part of the wall built by USA around Rossi and his invention.

It can be confirmed that the US tries to obtain complete control of the new sources of energy, the one who owns it, will be the far leader in technology.

Signals at the APEC Summit Show Big Changes Ahead
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1187686?ref=feeds%2Flatest
and gets rid of the oil gas dependence.

The US hopes not only to manage the flow of finance but also, on the basis of new technologies, having almost free, clean, limitless energy to perform export-oriented industrialization.

Other countries will remain behind if they will not also try to change. For this reason, in India after the ATEC summit where this issue was discussed ( see the CNN link) governmental actions were initiated to finance the development of new energy see please: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/11/17/indian-government-urged-to-revive-cold-fusion-research-program/

It is for sure to say that Rossi’s invention cannot be kept under lock for long. In dozens of laboratories worldwide, the scientists are trying to guess the secret of the “silent Italian”, to find out his catalyst, to develop a theory of the process. In meantime, preparations are made for bringing the generators on the market. If the transition in industry, trade and transport rising humankind to a new level of automation- needs hundreds of thousands “Cold Cats” (actually they are warm or hot, N.T.) the start of these new industries will bring the oil industry in the abyss by thousands of ways – very bad for the economies that depend on hydrocarbons. It will become obvious the futility of investing in oil and its long term purchase.

In the near future we can expect a rapid development of the Cold Nuclear Transmutation (a new and more correct name than Cold Nuclear Fusion) both regarding theory and experiment, great investments will lead to breakthroughs in the related fields of science and technology. U.S. already relies on the revolution in the energy sector and may soon get its winnings. Civilization is near to a new era and we know in advance that it will be grandiose.

Russia is still among the leaders in research in Cold Nuclear Transmutation even in the absence of targeted funding, due to the still strong post-Soviet educational, theoretical and experimental research basis of its enthusiasts. The country has a Coordinating Council on the issue of Cold Nuclear Transmutation, held annual conferences and monthly seminars, in spite of the strong resistance of its orthodox-minded opponents. The Russian researchers in Cold Nuclear Transmutations have presented copyrighted theoretical models for CNT, more than 500 publications at the 25th anniversary of the discovery of CNF by Fleischmann and Pons. Based on the principles of CNT there had been created dozens of patents for the creation of new energy. A part of the researchers had been able to get small funding, others, unfortunately were forced to work abroad.

The “war of sanctions” from 2014 has shown that the US sees Russia as a threat to its dominance in Europe and world hegemony. Rossi’s success gives them a chance to retain the role of the global financial and industrial center, undermining the position of the other strong players. But the long-term decline in prices in the oil market will not necessarily mean a catastrophe for the Russian economy. With a favorable state’s attitude toward science, we will be able to recover the leading position as it was in the ‘50-‘60 years of the twentieth century. We will be able to participate in the new industrial revolution, going forward to terminate the humiliating position on the raw materials periphery of the world.

A.A. Rukhadze Chairman of the Coordination Council of the SFA on the problem of Cold Nuclear Transmutation,
Academy of Natural Sciences and the National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Georgia, Honored Scientist of Russia, Doctor of Science, prof., Institute of General Physics “AM Prokhorov”

Yu. N. Bazhutov member of the International Executive Committee on the issue of Cold Nuclear Transmutation, organizer of (1-21) Russian Conferences on Cold Nuclear Transmutation and the problem of the 13th International Conference on Cold Nuclear Transmutation (Dagomis 2007), Deputy. President of the Cold Nuclear Transmutation Committee (RFO), PhD, MN, IZMIRAN

A. B. Karabut AB, winner of the International Award Cold Nuclear Transmutation them. “Giuliano Preparata”for 2007.,
Laureate of the State Prize of the USSR for 1982. Member of COP Cold Nuclear Transmutation (RFO), PhD, MN, SNA “Luch”

V. G. Koltashov, head of the Center for Economic Research Institute of Globalization and Social Movements, Ph.D.

Translated by Peter Gluck, Jan 13, 2015

END RE-POST