More exciting news from the 19th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (ICCF-19) in Padua, Italy today.
From the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project Facebook page:
Vindication – Part 3
The MFMP has been offered something no one knew existed, something priceless and which could reveal critical secrets many in the LENR field have been seeking for over a quarter century.
Before Martin Fleischmann left the US, he personally gave a trusted friend an original pre-1989 Johnson Matthey palladium wire – the very same as used in experiments that led to that fateful announcement of a new primary energy source that came to be known as cold fusion.
He has held this secret all these years until now. We checked today with Mike McKubre, Vitorio Violante and Melvin Miles if there was any known public metallurgical and elemental / isotopic characterisation of this material, the answer was a resounding no.
It is known that the early attempts to replicate the Pons and Fleischmann effect mostly failed due to the purity and processing of ‘palladium’ used. In fact ENEA has been trying to establish what additives and structures are critical to creating the effect for more than 2 decades. Many of the principal research labs working in the field are trying to establish the correct crystal shapes, sizes, orientation etc. and chemistry.
In our own nickel powder / hydrogen research, we have tried to get the purest nickel possible – but have failed to see any excess heat. Now we know from our recent isotopic analysis of Dr. Parkhomov’s Nickel, that there is high concentrations of Carbon and Oxygen on the surface, elements also found in Rossi’s fuels.
The unique opportunity we have been honoured with is profoundly important, and there is not a person we asked at the conference that were not falling over themselves to help in what ever way they could. Ultimately it is down to the current owner to decide exactly what happens but from the available piece, which is about the thickness of a toothpick and between 7 and 8 cm long, the current plan is to
1. Use 3 X 2mm samples to characterise structure, isotopic constitution etc.
2. Run at least two 2cm segments in Pons and Fleischmann cells, copied from the original and/or use the original cell.
3. Reserve remainder
We will auction the ownership rights of the post run, post analysis 2cm segments in a one of a kind, never to be repeated auction. This is an unrepeatable opportunity to own the only known samples of this historic precious metal.
This auction, along with the auction of the donated 1 ounce Pd 1989 “Cold Fusion” coins is design to raise enough money the help ensure a fully faithful replication that will be conducted by someone who is not currently a member of the MFMP and who is a very experienced experimentalist. The work will be conducted in France with the help of Jean-Paul Biberian and all data will public.
We must work with the best resources on the planet to ensure that this materials secrets are revealed for all. It is wonderful to be a part of something that will yield critical data for advancement of the field.
More information to be published about the Vindication program.
The name of the current owner and how he came to be entrusted with the electrode will be revealed in time, right now, given the incredible importance to maintain security, we have been asked to hold off on publishing that information.
We want to take this opportunity however, to publicly thank the donor and curator of this material for coming forward.
ICCF-19 Program for Tuesday
Also from the MFMP Facebook page, that “Carl Page is in Padua, as is Bill Gates – apparently…”
22Passi caught an old photo in todays newspaper in Padua ICCF19: “Bill Gates belives in perpetual motion?”
Dr. Bob is perplexed and asks Bill Gates to visit Padua?
E-Cat World provided a report on Day 2 by Robert Ellefson.
Peter Gluck has a news round-up sometimes before it happens.
Cold Fusion Dog Dr. Bob summed up ICCF19 – Day 2
New video of Tom Darden was posted on MFMP Youtube:
Yesterday Alain Coetmeur of LENR-forum.com provided summaries of these talks from Day 1:
- Michael McKubre talk at ICCF19: those who have worked long have duty to teach. No concealing, collaborate!
- LENR at Tohoku University by Yasuhiro Iwamura
- Brillouin Energy Corp presentation
David Nygren obtained a photo earlier in the day from Robert Godes, who was presenting at poster session. Godes described the photo, “That is a 3rd generation Brillouin Energy HHT reactor system…. we are now on gen 4. The Nickel rod fits inside the tube that goes all the way through the vessel with the bolted ring. We flow inert gas through the largest tube with the bolted ring and fill the second tube with H2 gas. We then pass high current pulses through the Ni rod. This system has produced 4X more thermal energy out than Q -pulse energy deposited in the core. We have performed this with the same core in both our lab in Berkeley, CA and at SRI.”
What will tomorrow bring?
Two public talks on the topic of LENR will be given by members of the Energy 2.0 Society in April.
On Wednesday April 15, Gary Scott, electrical engineer and one of the founding board members of the Energy 2.0 Society will address the Madison, Wisconsin chapter of the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) on the subject of: “LENR: Energy 2.0”.
The meeting will include a lecture by Gary Scott, along with pizza, salad and a beverage held at Engineering Hall Room 1800, 1415 Engineering Drive, Madison, WI 53706 at 5:00 p.m. on April 15th. Cost is $5 for IEEE chapter members, free for IEEE student members, and $10 for all others.
Electrical engineer Scott does not care for the “cold fusion” name, calling it “incorrect”. We strongly disagree, nevertheless, his enthusiasm for LENR gains our support.
From the IEEE Madison Section Newsletter:
Talk: At the moment the most promising forms of LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions some times incorrectly referred to as Cold Fusion) are those that are able to operate using nickel and hydrogen — both plentiful and inexpensive natural resources. In LENR reactions no pollutants or emissions are produced, neither are harmful radiation or radioactive waste. This makes LENR a clean and sustainable form of energy. We are in the very early days of research and development in this field, and much about this phenomenon is poorly understood. There are competing theories proposed that try to describe the exact mechanism by which this anomalous heat is generated, but none has as yet been accepted as authoritative. There are many researchers and companies studying LENR at the moment, and it appears that we are on the verge of seeing commercial-grade LENR reactors appear in the marketplace. Ultimately LENR has the potential to revolutionize the way that energy is produced — cleanly and less expensively than current energy sources, and from elements that are cheap and abundant — making it a truly ‘2.0’ technology that we feel should be promoted for the benefit of humanity.
For more information visit: http://ieee-msn.truenym.net/newsletters/IEEE-2015-04/
On Sunday April 26, Tom Wind, president of Wind Utility Consulting in Jamaica, Iowa, and president and founding board member of the Energy 2.0 Society will speak at the EarthFest EcoFair at the Mayo Civic Center in Rochester, Minnesota. Tom Will be speaking at 2:00 p.m. on the subject of “The Advance of LENR Technology”. Admission is free. For more information about the event visit http://www.earthfestrochestermn.org/
About the Energy 2.0 Society
The Energy 2.0 Society is registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization based in Iowa, USA. The society was formed to increase awareness about LENR technology and to promote its use with the purpose of improving quality of life for people everywhere. For more information please visit http://www.energy2point0.org
The Open Power Association’s Ugo Abundo will be presenting at ICCF-19 on experiments with the Hydrobetatron.
Report #12 Spring, the first day [.pdf] describes recent results:
Hydrobetatron preliminarily performs up to 2.26 ratio in hydrogen vs reference run in argon, with electrically pulsed powders at Open Power Lab.
The contribution of involved heat transfer phenomena is under analysis.
The complete set of runs will be discussed at ICCF19.
Watch video of Open Power Lab action with Pulse generator and Hydrobetatron at hydrobetatron.org.
Also published is Open Power Association Newsletter No. 019 for March 2015.
Read [the original report in Italian here]
Selected topics are google-translated and reproduced below.
Newsletter No. 019 – March 2015
The experiments planned with the reactor ITAbetatron pulsed with nanoscale powders, etc. Proceed in the best way! We all hope to succeed fully in this wonderful company! 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 the dangerous climate changes, thus also saving the planet Earth.
PUBLISHED ON HYDROBETATRON.ORG THE REPORT No. 012
TO VIEW THE VIDEO CLICK HERE:
“Spring, the first day”:
Hydrobetatron preliminarily performs up to 2:26 ratio in hydrogen vs reference run in argon, with electrically pulsed powders at Open Power Lab.
The contribution of Involved heat transfer phenomena is under analysis.
The complete set of runs will be discussed at ICCF19.
FULL REPORT IN PDF:
“OPEN POWER” will attend the conference ICCF19 to be held in Padova from 13 to 17 April 2015
Published in the post of hydrobetatron.org The “Technical Report of experiments conducted on: prototype LENR” of: Quirino Puppies
TO READ THE FULL REPORT IN PDF:
TALK ABOUT US:
Are you an ‘entrepreneur-minded?
Then you may want to consider the possibility of investing on 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 introduction at: email@example.com
We will evaluate and, if necessary, we will fix an appointment to know us better and learn the details of the collaboration.
How much will we have to wait for Andrea Rossi to receive the apology from the Italian State? This is the story of Emilio Spaziante, General of the Guardia di Finanza in the 90s, and Andrea Rossi, in prison for crimes he did not commit: confiscated 4 million to Spaziante.
“He used the official GDF as nominee”
TO READ THE ‘COMPLETE ARTICLE CLICK HERE:
Read the entire Newsletter #019 on Hydrobetatron.org here.
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.
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
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:
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:
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.
(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:
(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:
(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.