Lectures From Daejeon

The videos of the lecture from Daejeon ICCF-17 have arrived. I must lay out the ground rules and provisos.  I am not allowed to rebroadcast the lectures. I am not allowed to release the password.  These are the wishes of the conveners and I have to respect them.  They, the Cold Fusion, experimenters and presenters of the lectures are the heroes of this story, not I. I am but a member of the peanut gallery.

I feel that I am at liberty to give my impression of the lectures, however you must understand that my comprehension is very limited. If that is unsatisfactory you only have yourself to blame. You should have been there.

The first lecture I shall write about is that given by Professor Hagelstein.  Here is what I understood of his lecture.  Professor Hagelstein is a theoretician. He is tasked with creating models explaining the empirical results of the Experimenters. The gold standard of a model is it’s predictive power.

Model 281 did not work and had to buried out in the back yard. However it was intuitively correct.  It predicted a coupling of phonon energy and nuclear energy. Takahashi objected to the model on the grounds that it was not reversible. It would not transmit energy in both directions. Professor Hagelstein thought this might be due to losses.

There are two elements in the coupling process: the nucleus and the phonons. The nuclear energy is too large and the phonon energy is too small. What Professor Hagelstein needed was a nuclear energy 100 times smaller, so he turned to Quarks. And then things began to look a lot brighter. How bright? 1.5keV x-ray bright. You see Karabut had been rabbiting on at a previous ICCF meeting that he was obtaining 1.5keV x-rays from his gas discharge experiments.

And then events began to make Professor Hagelstein fall off his chair in amazement and delight.  He fell off his chair three times to be exact. I would love to tell you why he fell off his chair but he began to babble mathematics and so I was lost.

However all was not lost because I managed to get something about a lossy spin Boson chopping his energy up into small enough pieces so that they were digestible by the phonons. I have a picture of a carrier wave of a radio signal that might help you visualize the coupling of the two elements. The short signal wave is the energetic nuclear and the longer carrier signal is the low energy of the phonons.

Professor Hagelstein described the process creating the x-rays was as if a little hammer was striking the surface of the mercury repeatedly.

The energy distribution of the collimated x-rays fit professor Hagelstein’s equations beautifully. The more energetic the hammer blows the broader the x-ray, which makes sense to me.

OK.  Let’s pull this thing together.

We now have a channel for energy to flow from the nucleus to the matrix and vice versa.  So, mass in the Nucleus can be annihilated and the energy transmitted to the “outside world” beyond the Coulomb barrier, and energy can also flow into the nucleus from phonons coupled to the nucleus. This energy is stored as Mass. And we all know what happens if you increase the mass of a nucleus, don’t we. It transmutes.

I am guessing either to another isotope if the mass is large enough to be a neutron, or into another element.  Professor Hagelstein said that a geologist told him that there is more aluminum along fault lines and less iron.

Your homework is to figure out why.  And that is as good as it gets for now.

An Explanation of Low-energy Nuclear Reactions (Cold Fusion) by Edmund Storms

After delivering the John Chappell Lecture “What is Cold Fusion and Why Should You Care” at the 19th Natural Philosophy Alliance Conference in Albuquerque, New Mexico July 2012, Dr. Edmund Storms spoke with Cold Fusion Now’s Ruby Carat in a private interview about his new model for initiating the cold fusion reaction, also called low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR), lattice-assisted nuclear reactions (LANR), and quantum fusion.

Dr. Storms is a former Los Alamos National Lab scientist and 23-year veteran of LENR research. Now with Kiva Labs in Santa Fe, New Mexico, he has developed the idea of a Nuclear Active Environment (NAE) to include a model of how the cold fusion reaction might begin.

The interview focuses on his idea as outlined in the paper An Explanation of Low-energy Nuclear Reactions (Cold Fusion) [.pdf] published by the Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science #9 2012 [visit].

Dr. Storms‘ lecture “What is Cold Fusion and Why Should You Care” can be seen here.

Discussion on this topic can be accessed here.

Email Ruby

Peter Gluck: INSPIRED BY DEFKALION: THE TORTUOUS WAY TOWARD LENR STANDARDS

Longtime LENR researcher, now LENR+ advocate (read further to know the difference) operating from Cluj, Romania, Peter Gluck has published an interesting sequence of observations and suggestions on the process of bringing a newly discovered phenomenon into a usable technology for the betterment of humankind, and how those involved in that process may operate to the best, and worst, possible outcomes.

While we don’t always agree, the problems associated with bringing a revolutionary new technology into human civilization are, in part, outlined here with a pointed direction towards solutions, and with sensitivity.

The full essay is here.

A lengthy excerpt follows:

Researcher and Author Peter Gluck
SECOND PART POSITIVE (about LENR!)

Problem solving is a great art, and, modesty apart, I am a guru of it- (see my 20 Rules of Problem Solving in this Blog.) A practical principle is that a very good solution is applicable for surprisingly broad range of things.

Take in consideration that: “The Good and Evil are Siamese twins”- ergo the Manual, in an adapted form. can be used for other problems too even if these are essentially good, positive, constructive.

In my former writing it was stated that LENR needs a Definition.

At the Panel of LENR theory at ICCF-17 it was minimum of superposition or concordance between the basic ideas of the brightest 5 theorists, their assumptions are different and their logic and mathematics do not intersect. I conclude that prior to a definition, for LENR it will be necessary to have a lot of more mutual understanding, less Babelization, a bit of conceptual harmony, a good inner taxonomy. and even standards. The standards have to be accessible and acceptable for the LENR people but also for those outside the field who take the decisions.

The Modern Mass Manipulation Manual (MMMM) can be used to help to make these tasks more clear…

DIVIDE and Solve
Divide- and the other two basic MMMM verbs/actions are poly-semantic here.

Even huge works, plans, tasks (says the science of Project Management and also the common sense) can be fulfilled if they are divided, in small sub-tasks. Sometimes, this is the unique possibility to make a mega-task manageable. Other times it is a trick to get time till the task becomes obsolete or ceases to be interesting or important.

Wicked problems must be split in small steps, actions and tasks. Tasks have to be smartly segmented. Logical schemes with alternative ways have to be created; careful good planning is essential.

We have to divide the great field of LENR in sub-domains, select those with the best scientific and technological (if!) perspectives and focus on those with the highest expectations. I am using a rather simple approach; when I speak about dividing, the “knife” I am using is technology. I repeat- the main criteria for dividing is: what is good for technology and is potentially commercially valuable, from what cannot lead to a technology and is merely a lab curiosity.

But this thinking too must avoid logical rigidity. Divide ideas in those that are possible, those that can be made possible and those that are not possible. These three categories are overlapping dynamically, will remain in evolution.

If, in LERN you try to divide the things in simple and complicated, then in practice you will state soon that actually they are very complex and amazingly complex.

Everything I know in LENR I have learned from my colleagues via their writings and messages, however today it is a sharp division between my opinion and the LENR opinions of other people. This is due to my focusing on technology and on the future – perhaps most people will consider I am anticipating some facts. Only the future can show if I am too optimistic regarding the present situation of the field. It will also show if I am too pessimistic regarding the technological future (lack of it, actually) of the classic, pre-revolutionary part of LENR.

Yes, when it is about dividing the entire LENR field, it seems only I am speaking about LENR and LENR+ following a technical and scientific revelation caused by the Defkalion process. It is described as:

LENR – unexpected, not controllable nuclear reactions in a hydrogen isotope plus transition metal system.

LENR+ – designed and controllable nuclear reactions in a hydrogen plus transition metal system enhanced by making hydrogen reactive and the metal more receptive.

If this division/classification will be ever accepted, this depends on the industrial success of the Hyperions and of the E-cats– if they become heaters as usual and are sold as other older energy generators.

It is a great pity and delay that this simple and powerful principle “make hydrogen reactive and nickel more receptive” is not recognized; this is in a way present in Piantelli’s process (hydrogen negative ion and nano-clusters of nickel). I bet that Rossi’s E-cats – he had more variants of them thin and fat, are all also based on this generic “best practice” or “core understanding”.Rossi speaks so many times about the necessity to use atomic hydrogen and to apply some special proprietary treatments to the micrometric Ni powder, that this is a case where we can believe him.

It is also regrettable that in the present time, the LENR+ deniers and LENR+ ignoranti are so predominant, the qualitative difference between the classical LENR systems and the fledgling LENR+ technologies remain merely unknown.

By the way, my Open Letter [read] was accepted very politely by the organizers of the ICCF-17, but as far I could state its impact on the participants was zero or less. It could be worse.

However despite the fact that I have predicted the technological failure of palladium and deuterium in wet systems these are continuing to be popular and the pre-formed nanometric complex powders are participating in many scientific orgies with both deuterium and hydrogen.

So it is a sharp division between my opinion and the opinions of my colleagues and friends, however one of the first slogans I created says; “Differences in opinions attract smart people and repel only those who are not so” Sometimes this is almost true, however it sounds fine, isn’t it?

I have now the typical behavior of a theorist speaking my own language, own concepts and very personal presumptions and specific approach; and I am not the fan of anybody, even not of myself because I do not claim my inerrancy.

For a standard we have to analyze the similarities and the differences between LENR and LENR+. In practice only LENR+ as Defkalion says- needs a standard and a definition, and only LENR+ has to be and can be standardized.

CONNECT and Understand
First of all, LENR has to be connected to reality, this is usually a painful and shocking experience and it is especially difficult when it is about the technological reality. Defkalion’s experience (see their paper at ICCF-17) shows that even if LENR is the cause of many natural phenomena, hydrogen and nickel in their “almost” natural-technological state are very far from being ready to initiate/enter a low energy nuclear reaction, have no real chances, and their physico-chemical status has to be radically and deeply transformed.

This explains the extreme difficulty of experimental LENR and shows the way to LENR+ as an energy source.

Connect with pragmatism and disconnect from theoretical idealism, re-connect theory and experiment. Connect as strongly possible, LENR and the Scientific Method (principles of Galileo).

Without this connection any progress in understanding and in making LENR useful, is illusory.

Few people will agree with me that the time is ripe for LENR’s weaning from palladium, therefore I will not say that perhaps it is time to invest less (money, time, hopes) in wet systems (yes I know about Brillouin!), electrolysis, deuterium. The great LENR community is free and democratic, everybody does something resulting from what he/she has already done, likes to do and affords to do. Global LENR management and strategy are inexistent, or, just happen. Perhaps a better connection between the teams could help.

Connect in stronger and more powerful networks of researchers, but include good engineers and materials scientists. Connect to the essence and disconnect from the fuzzy halo of ideas around it. This is a problem of subjectivity and of definitions.

Connect with more and more remote scientific and technical ideas trying to create creative bisociations.

Connect better- smarter, more diplomatically with the press, develop empathy for their points of view and try to convince the journalists that a working LENR is a better source of interesting sellable information than a failed LENR.

Special- National Instruments has connected with the best LENR warriors and has established a very valuable model.

In the near future, the place where LENR+ Truth can be revealed is Defkalion’s on-line real time mass spectrometry plus the other systematic and instrumental analyses- a unique window of opportunity. I hope DGTG will connect with an excellent strategic partner as good in instrumental analysis as National Instruments is in instrumental measurements, for this task of paramount importance. Goddess Athena, help us!

May I add some highly desirable but rather idealistic connections?

Develop more connected professional networks, include engineers, managers, specialists in materials science, IT people, clever businessmen, nice politicians…

Make friends, make demos, make positive noise. Develop empathy for skeptics. Stop infighting. Develop strong solidarity in the LENR community and do not let it to degrade to liquidarity or even gasidarity.
Disconnect from the cursed word “anomalous”; use ‘unexpected’ or ‘surprising’ instead.

LENR is at least as natural as combustion, nuclear fission or hot fusion but much more environmentally friendly as these.

LENR is more concentrated, practical and reliable as solar or wind energy. It has to be developed in harmony with the other forms of energy, connected with these by complementarity not by senseless rivalry.

COMBINE and Enhance
First of all, combine the best modes of thinking for understanding the generative essence and spirit of LENR+.

Combine and unite the good things and eliminate the bad things.

Combine the best theories, more precisely the fragments of truth from these to develop real understanding and ideas for the technological development of this science. Accept that theories if not combined and confronted with solid experimental data are uselessly incomplete…

Accept that only combinations of theories are able to explain LENR that is a very puzzling combination of a broad range of branches of physics and chemistry.

LENR+ uses secret combinations of chemicals that enhance some of the critical (bottleneck) stages of the set of reactions that lead to LENR+. Rossi calls in a populistic manner these combinations “Catalyst” and calls his generator E-cats– a misnomer taking profit from the general sympathy toward the household felines.

The combination of words “cold fusion” is an other misnomer. (for ‘fusion’- ask Steve Krivit) , ‘cold’ is also not true/real. LENR+ is not as hot as Hot Fusion (at millions of degrees) but it is very hot for earthly conditions. It seems that as Defkalion says, LENR+ takes place only in the dynamic vacancies – miniature workshops of Hephaistos with Hell- like conditions.

Conclusion: for the success of LENR, we have to divide it in LENR+ that is both interesting and valuable and LENR classic that is only interesting, we have connect it to good things and disconnect it from harmful things; and, eventually we have to combine what we already know with what we still have to discover- all these in order to create the best energy source of the near future. –Peter Gluck

“Explaining LENR”

A new idea of what creates the cold fusion reaction has been articulated by Edmund Storms of Kiva Labs. Storms describes his hypothesis with the simplest terms in the updated Student’s Guide to Cold Fusion [.pdf] and in a recent paper submitted to the Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science called Explaining LENR. [.pdf]

There are three distinct parts to his model.

1. The Nuclear Active Environment NAE of a crack or hollow is formed.
2. Hydrogen enters the NAE.
3. Applied power at the resonant frequency of the NAE/hydrogen combo turns mass into energy.

Storms does not say what nuclear mechanism is at work, only that it is instigated by resonance.

Peter Gluck, one of the earliest scientists to look into cold fusion/LANR/LENR, and what he has termed LENR+ for the new commercial products now being engineered, asked how this proposal answers seven crucial questions, and got Storms to answer. Re-published here from his blog EgoOut is their exchange.

Question #1: What are the consequences if the New Theory is successful?

Storms: The consequences of my theory being correct are twofold. First, the ability to replicate LENR at robust levels will improve. Once the required cracks can be manufactured on demand, the energy could be made on any scale, from that required to power a computer to a space craft.

Second, the phenomenon can be applied to solving the solar defect of neutrinos. This will cause a new understanding of the Standard model. But right now, we can only hope.

Question #2: What about the completeness of the New Theory? Is it a “transtheory”?

Storms: The model will be a “trans-theory” only to the extent that it is acknowledged as plausible and worth exploring. This acceptance is not assured at this time. As for whether one or many theories are required depends on how many ways Nature has to cause LENR. I assume only one basic method is possible. Therefore, only one theory is needed, i.e. the correct one. We will have to wait until the proper tests are made to determine which theory is correct. My model shows exactly which tests need to be done.

Question #3: Is the theory valid for all the existing LENR systems?

Storms: I base my model on hundreds of observations that show several very robust patterns of behavior. These behaviors include both the presence and absence of expected behavior. I rely on using a large number of combinations of behaviors, all of which are consistent with the logic of the model.

In addition, the model can be applied to both deuterium and hydrogen systems using any method for causing LENR. Of course, less support for the idea exists in the hydrogen system, which makes it the ideal system to use as a test of the predictions.

Question #4: Does the New Theory explain the serious problems of control, characteristic to all the LENR systems?

Storms: Control is a problem that the model addresses. I assume the rules controlling chemical behavior apply to the process that precedes the nuclear reaction, regardless how the nuclear reaction operates. Once the preconditions are understood, the controlling variables can be identified and used in the same manner they would be used to control a chemical processes. In other words, chemistry determines the rate of the nuclear reaction.

Once the required conditions are formed, the nuclear process occurs very rapidly and without any additional effort. This is similar to how energy is made in a gas furnace. The rate of energy production is determined by how fast the fuel is applied, in this case D+, and the subsequent flame does its thing without any additional effort or control.

Question #5: Does the New Theory explain the huge enhancement of energy achieved in the LENR+ systems of Rossi and Defkalion?

Storms: Rossi has succeeded in increasing energy production by finding a way to create many active cracks in the fine nickel powder. Presumably the powder has just the right size to support exactly the correct size crack. As a result, the concentration of NAE is higher than Piantelli was able to achieve in solid nickel. The secret of the process involves the method and/or the material that needs to be added to Ni to cause the cracks to form.

Question #6: Piantelli had a self-sustaining cell working for some 4 months and Rossi speaks about an active life time of the material of 6 months. It seems Ni is not destroyed but transmuted. My guess from the very start (1993 paper) was that the active sites are formed in some way by “surface dynamics”- the movements of the atoms at the very surface of the metal – many degrees of freedom.

If the NAE are active cracks in the metal and many/more active cracks mean more energy, then isn’t LENR an inherently destructive process? Is there is a concurrent process by which the structure of the metal is rebuilt, the “wounds” are healed or is the metal, in a certain sense, ‘sacrificed’, structurally speaking?

Storms: I propose that a limited and relatively constant number of active cracks can form because these result from stress relief. Once all the stress is relieved, no more cracks can form. Of course, most of the cracks made this way will be too large to be active, so that only a small number of NAE sites are making the detected energy.

The life time will be determined by variables independent of the number of active sites. For example as deuterium accumulates in the E-cat, the reaction rate will drop because the less active tritium formation reaction will start. When deuterium is used to make helium, the helium will accumulate and block access to the active sites for the deuterium.

I do not believe that any significant transmutation takes place. All measurements of this process show that this reaction is rare, except for the claim by Rossi.

Question #7: Based on the New Theory, what would you recommend as a strategy for the LENR field? On what should research and development focus as much as they can; palladium-deuterium Pd-D systems or nickel-hydrogen Ni-H systems?

Storms: This question involves politics, which makes it difficult to answer. On the one hand, the Pd system has a great deal of experimental support while the Ni system can apparently produce significant power, but based on very little understanding of the process.

If the crack model is correct, the metal is not important except that it be able to form active cracks and dissolve D or H as the required reactants. In fact, Ni might be a better host for the D reaction than Pd because it is cheaper and the D is more active than H because each D makes more energy than each H.

So, my advice is not to focus on the metal but on understanding the process. Once the process is mastered, the claims will be accepted regardless of the metal used. In fact, I think neither Ni nor Pd is the best host for the reaction.

Related Links

A Crack in the Code by Ruby Carat May 24, 2012

A Crack in the Code

There is much speculation on the nature of the cold fusion reaction.

What starts a nuclear reaction when hydrogen meets a tiny piece of metal?

Low-energy nuclear reactions LENRs do not occur often in Nature. We generally do not see spontaneous heat energy erupt before our eyes in ordinary material. It is a rare phenomenon and historically difficult to reproduce in the lab.

This is what has led Edmund Storms, a twenty-three year veteran of cold fusion research and formerly of Los Alamos National Laboratory, to speculate that the reaction cannot occur in ordinary material, but requires some special environment that operates independently of the larger metallic structure. He calls this special environment the Nuclear Active Environment NAE.

According to Storms, the NAE must be present for the energy-producing reaction to occur. His fullest survey of the field yet was summarized in the recently updated A Student’s Guide to Cold Fusion May 2012. [visit] In it, Storms has pushed the idea of the NAE further by proposing a model.

To reproduce the excess heat effect between hydrogen and various metals maximally and efficiently, the recipe on how to perform the steps must be clearly stated. What elements must we put together to initiate the power-producing reaction on demand?

This recipe exists experimentally for a few lucky leaders in the race to commercialize a technology. Labs like Blacklight Power, Brillouin Energy, JET Energy, LENUCO, Leonardo Corporation and Praxen-Defkalion Green Technologies all have recipes to initiate LENR with a particular key element which also happens to be a trade secret. Ironically, each of these successful laboratory breakthroughs uses a different theoretical model as a guide.

If there is no one definitive theory that tells us how to make cold fusion work for all the varied forms of energy cells and transmutation generators that have been discovered, why not go back to basics and look at the source of all that’s known about these systems, the experimental data?

And that’s exactly what Edmund Storms did, deciding that “Identification of the NAE can start by finding a single condition that is present during all successful LENR studies.”

So what environmental factor appears in all successful experiments?

All successful experiments have some kind of rough, broken topology in common. Cracks, crevices, or microscopic mountains of material built-up on a surface that create tiny canyons at their feet are all present in some form or another.

Cracks can form through repeated stress. Most metals used in cold fusion show cracks, if not until after repeated loading and de-loading of hydrogen. Thus, Storms’ idea of the NAE is absence of material, like a crack.

The material deposited on the surface electrodes from the original style palladium-deuterium Pd-D electrolytic systems came from contaminants both in the Pyrex container and the heavy water salt solution. The stacking of contaminant particles makes ‘hollows’ where hydrogen (deuterium) could be become trapped.

Slide from Navy SPAWAR Twenty Year History of LENR Research Using Pd-D Co-deposition showing bumpy surface where hydrogen can hang.
Co-deposition techniques, whereby palladium and deuterium are purposefully deposited on a planar substrate have measured many transmutation elements. Upon examination, they are found to have many crooks and crannies, tiny caverns where hydrogen could have been trapped.

Thin-film electrodes have measured transmutation effects between the interfaces of the different layers, places that may enjoy a thin space for hydrogen to collect.

Nano-particle powders may be generating just the right-sized spaces between the tiny spheres to create the NAE.

Slide from Navy SPAWAR Twenty Years of LENR Research Using Pd-D Co-deposition showing mottled surface of electrodes.
Storms visualizes the cracks as, perhaps, long thin spaces where hydrogen can stack up on one another with an electron shielding the positive-charges of the proton nuclei. [see top]

With the electron screening the positive-charge, the protons can migrate closer than they normally would. Of this arrangement, Storms says “This is obviously not a conventional relationship.”

Given the NAE of a crack, Storms is proposing a three-step framework to describe the reaction.

Storms 3-Step Model
1. The nuclear active environment NAE is formed.
2. The NAE is populated with hydrogen and electrons.
3. Resonance initiates the nuclear mechanisms that cause fusion.

Through some endothermic process, meaning it requires energy to perform, the NAE of a crack or space is created first. Then, hydrogen is introduced to the space, perhaps through pressure. After the hydrogen is introduced to the NAE and it’s all stacked up, an energy is applied.

Superwave pulses
Irving Dardik's Superwave pulse activates Energetics Technologies generator.
The energy may be introduced as a Brillouin Q-wave or an Energetics Superwave, or perhaps, as a Letts laser-light. Simply heating the cell can add enough energy too.

Whatever the source, the added energy makes the hydrogen dance back and forth in step with the frequency of the applied pulse.

When the energy applied is at the resonant frequency of the hydrogen/NAE combination, then the nuclear mechanism initiates. The resonant frequency is determined by the size, shape and mass of the H-stack. But like Ella Fitzgerald singing just the right note to make the glass shatter, the resonant frequency applied to the crack and its contents will increase the response exponentially.

But what is the nuclear mechanism that ensues? Storms leaves the nature of that open at this time, though he considers the idea of some special type of matter forming, like a Bose-Einstein Condensate BEC, a Lochon, hydrinos, or Rydberg matter.

Whatever mechanism occurs in the third step to set-off the mass-to-energy conversion, he believes it is initiated by resonance. Further, as the resonance process turns mass into energy following Einstein’s E=MC2 equivalence, the energy dissipates not explosively, but by a emitting series of photons, light-energy, that over a period of time, both disperse in the atomic lattice and are focused and emitted along the axis of the crack.

Hydrogen isotopes
Hydrogen has one positively-charged proton at the center. Deuterium has an extra neutron, tritium has two extra neutrons at the center. All have a negatively-charged electron orbiting the nucleus to make an atom.
The energies of the photons will depend on the type of fusion reaction, which is itself dependent upon the ratio of hydrogen H and deuterium D in the NAE.

The electron which shielded the positive-charge of the protons in the stack performs double-duty as it is sucked into the fusion process, and occasionally, emitted back out as a Beta decay during the process in which tritium is formed.

Hydrogen, deuterium or tritium present at the ends of the stack would be available to interact with other elements, producing the observed transmutations.

JET Energy diagram of palladium atomic matrix when filled with hydrogen. The palladium atoms are bonded together through their outer electrons in what's called a lattice.
In this model, energy can accumulate in the NAE through resonance without affecting the atomic bonds of the crystal lattice. It allows the nuclear mechanism to operate in an environment independently of the larger metallic matrix. There is no violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Storms’ model gives testable claims along with a proposal on how to create the NAE and he’ll be working with colleagues in the coming months to test this hypothesis. Only experimental confirmation of a model will determine its usefulness in engineering energy-producing cells.

If Edmund Storms is right, and creating cold fusion is a matter of resonance, then the possibility exists that the transition metals need not be the only host to the reaction; any material could create cold fusion. All we need do is create the little space, add hydrogen, and apply the proper frequency, and there is clean, dense, portable, and next-generation energy technology that leaps above the hard-won trial-and-error achievements thus far, and the energy revolution we seek will be delivered.

Cold Fusion Now!

For more from Edmund Storms, go here.

Mr. Rossi visits Sweden

Andrea Rossi has recently visited universities at the modern Swedish capital of Stockholm and the ancient Swedish capital of Uppsala. The purpose of the visit was ostensibly to hammer out research agreements with Stockholm University and Uppsala University similar to that reached with the University of Bologna.

However, the visit also gave Mr. Rossi the chance to swap ideas with scientists from around the world. As he reported on his Journal of Nuclear Physics website:

“In Sweden I am working with top scientists from Sweden, USA and Japan from whom I am learning. A lot.” –Andrea A. Rossi

From his recent comments on the site it appears Mr. Rossi is still refining his ideas on the theory behind the functioning of the E-Cat. He mentioned one cold fusion theory as particular interesting: Professor Yeong E. Kim‘s Bose-Einstein condensation theory of nuclear fusion. Professor Kim recently released a paper examining the application of his theory to hydrogen-nickel systems such as Rossi’s and recommending avenues of further research. He will be delivering a talk on the subject at the Fifth Asia Pacific Conference on Few-Body Problems in Physics 2011 (APFB2011), August 22-26 in Seoul, Republic of Korea.

Also on his site, Mr. Rossi recently gave his opinion on the effect his E-Cat technology will have on other energy technologies (in particular hot fusion):

“I think that all the energy sources must be integrated and developed. They must be a team, not a mess.” –Andrea A. Rossi

And in answer to the following questions:

“How many years of study it took to get the first working prototype of E-Cat? What was your first thought when you realized it was working? What could be the more beautiful consequence of your invention for mankind?”

Mr. Rossi gave these answers:

1- About 15 years
2- That I was going into an ocean of troubles and an enormous amount of work. I was right.
3- Energy at very low price: better quality of life; maybe less wars, more time for Culture.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Many of us are looking forward to seeing the fruits of that work.

Related posts:

“Eppur s’accende…”: Professors Levi and Ferrari on Italian radio — Ivy Matt June 29, 2011