Rossi "cold fusion" device function confirmed by two Swedish scientists

[Mn_Mark]

Re: Rossi "cold fusion" device function confirmed by two Swedish scientists

I'll believe Rossi when the device can be fully inspected and verified.

Isn't that exactly what the article I linked is about? How two independent scientists from Sweden examined his apparatus and say it appears to be legitimate?

What did they not do that you would have them do?

I think he is behaving exactly like I would if I discovered such a technology. I would work on commercializing it and let the results speak for themselves.

[Mn_Mark]

Re: Rossi "cold fusion" device function confirmed by two Swedish scientists

As ASH calculated out in another thread - the amount of energy being output from the purported cold fusion device is far too small even in the best case. Secondly all known fusion reactions create some type of radiation - which apparently in this case is so weak as to be contained by aluminum foil.

The linked article mentions that the device has a lead shield about an inch thick to contain radiation.

[ASH]

Re: Rossi "cold fusion" device function confirmed by two Swedish scientists

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energ...cle3144827.ece

A phenomenon that Kullander and Essén noted was that the curve for the water temperature at the output showed a steady increase up to about 60 degrees centigrade, after which the increase escalated.

“The curve then became steeper, it clearly had a new derivative. At the same time there was no increase in power consumption, it rather decreased when it got warmer,” said Essén.

In their report they note that it took nine minutes to go from 20 to 60 degrees centigrade, which corresponds to the heating from the input electrical power. Going from 60 to 97.5 degrees centigrade, by contrast, just took four minutes.

For what it's worth, this type of behavior is normally the signature of a reaction with a low activation energy. Roughly speaking, if a reaction takes off at 60 C, the potential energy barrier between reactants and products is on the order of kT ~ 28.7 meV (that's small 'm' as in milli-electron volts). If you have a thermally activated process with such a low activation energy, that's almost certainly a chemical phenomenon rather than a nuclear phenomenon. (Or, possibly a surface or transport phenomenon, since the energy is small compared to most chemical bond strengths.)

To clarify: Reactions of all sorts play out on a potential energy surface defined by a set of "reaction coordinates" that generally correspond to the physical arrangement of reacting bodies. A simple example is two atoms of hydrogen coming together to form H₂. In this case, although the atoms occupy three-dimensional space and their spatial locations involve six coordinates (two sets of three Cartesian coordinates), the problem can be reduced to a 1-dimensional problem based upon their separation along that inter-atomic axis. There are problems with a larger number of bodies and more interesting configurations that require treatment with a large number of reaction coordinates, which is why the general case is a potential energy surface rather than just a 1-D potential energy curve. But anyway, you can think of a simple reaction in terms of two valleys separated by a hill. The "valleys" in the potential energy surface correspond to the reactants and products; the "hill" is a higher-energy transition state that the reactants have to pass through in order to turn into the products. Classically, in order to make the reaction go, you need to add enough energy to the reactants so that they can climb over the hill (but as sunskyfan noted -- quantum mechanically there is also a small probability of tunneling through the potential energy barrier, that depends upon the height, width, and shape of that barrier). Anyway, when you add heat to reactants, the kinetic energy gets distributed in a way such that there is on average 1/2 kT per degree of freedom (where k is the Boltzmann constant -- about 8.62E-5 eV / K). Thus, when the temperature rises so that the average energy of the reactants in close to the energy required to surmount the potential energy barrier between reactants and products, the reaction starts to take off.

That said, the amount of power claimed to have been generated is pretty high. Something interesting may be going on. Also, my 'sanity check' estimate of the expected minimum energy yield from fusing hydrogen to nickel was based upon the numbers claimed for the total mass of nickel supposedly transmuted to copper. As I noted in the other thread, I didn't like the methodology they used to assay the 'transmuted' products, so all I could conclude from that calculation was that their claimed energy yield was low for the amount of transmutation they were claiming -- not that fusion wasn't going on at all. There are a whole bunch of other reasons why their specific story about fusing hydrogen to nickel doesn't add up (for instance the lack of evidence of the intermediate radioactive isotopes that would have had to have been produced), but that doesn't mean something interesting isn't going on. My bet is currently on 'intentional fraud', but you never know.

[Spartacus]

Re: Rossi "cold fusion" device function confirmed by two Swedish scientists

maybe my memory is failing but IIRC nothing higher than Iron is produced until the nova/supernava stage or neutron star stage; Fe is 26, Ni is 28, so Nickel is not being produced normally.

Every time I hear about cold fusion I hope someone has found a cheap way to make heavy mesons

Go out tonight and if it is clear find a bright red star like Betelgeuse in Orion. A red giant. Nickel and Silicon is being turned to Iron there and producing energy as you watch.


Quantum tunneling through potentials happen in every transistor. It is part of nature. If it didn't happen stars would not produce as much energy as the do. There are two ways to bring nuclei close enough together for them to fuse: Heat/Gravity/Pressure and the random proximity due to tunneling. If you could create a matrix that sets up a resonance you might get enough tunneling for a few statistically significant fusion events. Perhaps enough to net some energy. This idea reminds me of chasing a room temperature superconductor. Possible but not probable but something that "credible" people have been spending lots of money and time chasing. Healthy skepticism is called for but these ideas should not to be ridiculed as fantasy.

[bpwoods]

Re: Rossi "cold fusion" device function confirmed by two Swedish scientists

My bet is currently on 'intentional fraud', but you never know.

Pons and Fleishman Mark II???

BpW

[ASH]

Re: Rossi "cold fusion" device function confirmed by two Swedish scientists

maybe my memory is failing but IIRC nothing higher than Iron is produced until the nova/supernava stage or neutron star stage; Fe is 26, Ni is 28, so Nickel is not being produced normally.

Binding energy per nucleon:

Ni-58 (68% abundance) = 8.732041 MeV
Ni-62 (3.6% abundance; most stable nucleus) = 8.794549 MeV
Fe-58 (0.3% abundance; 2nd most stable nucleus) = 8.792221 MeV
Fe-56 (91.8% abundance; 3rd most stable nucleus) = 8.790323 MeV

In stellar nucleosynthesis in a heavy star, the end product of fusing Si-28 is Fe-56 by way of Ni-56 and Co-56. Although Fe-58 and Ni-62 are both more stable than Fe-56, they're not much more stable, and they aren't really accessible from Ni-56 given the other reactants available within a stellar core at this stage of a star's life, and the time available.

[sunskyfan]

Re: Rossi "cold fusion" device function confirmed by two Swedish scientists

You are correct that the Iron catastrophe is real when the star starts to fuse Iron with something else becomes the statistically "dominate" process. In that case there is a net loss of energy and the compression of gravity wins out thus the catastrophe as the star implodes rapidly. Its been a long time since reading Frank Shu in college but that doesn't mean that other various events are not happening such as decay of a Nickel Isotope (as Ash pointed out) or fusing Ni and He into heavier elements and producing a release of energy (though the energy brought to the table initially may be greater than the resultant element and the photons and kinetic energy of the resultant nuclei) its that these processes are rare sometimes very rare but they are happening.

My only point earlier is that we should be careful to discern between impossible and improbable. My observation has been that when modern Physics is concerned we too often look at the probable event to characterize the nature of something when it is the rare event that is useful.

[Glenn Black]

Stored Hydrogen ?

Metal hydrides literally trap hydrogen within the alloy, much like a sponge absorbs water. When heat is applied, the gas is released. Hydrides are capable of storing hydrogen at two or three times the density of compressed gas and will desorb the hydrogen at roughly the same pressure required for storage.
...
For example, the magnesium hydrides can store up to 6.5% hydrogen.

http://www.nickelinstitute.org/index...i_id/10813.htm

Nickel is a known catalyst. Hydrogen is known to adsorb and absorb onto catalytic substrates in extremely large quantities, literally hiding between the metal atoms. If all this hydrogen was previously stored in the nickel catalyst, then "burned", is this a possible explanation of the total energy produced?

[ASH]

Re: Stored Hydrogen ?

http://www.nickelinstitute.org/index...i_id/10813.htm

Nickel is a known catalyst. Hydrogen is known to adsorb and absorb onto catalytic substrates in extremely large quantities, literally hiding between the metal atoms. If all this hydrogen was previously stored in the nickel catalyst, then "burned", is this a possible explanation of the total energy produced?

I wouldn't think so. The claim about the amount of energy evolved is the strongest part of Rossi's story. The article says the Swedes estimated about 25 kWh was produced in the recent trial. If you figure 6.5% hydrogen content by weight for a metal hydride, and 50 grams of nickel, that only amounts to a few grams of hydrogen, or around 1.6 moles. I wouldn't think chemical burning of hydrogen likely to yield more than a few hundred kcals per mole (for instance, 286 kcals/mol for burning gaseous hydrogen and oxygen to liquid water). So, order of magnitude, you'd expect ~500 kcals or so. But 25 kWh is more like 21,500 kcals. So either this is a deliberate fraud, or something interesting is going on. It seems about an order of magnitude high for a simple chemical process involving hydrogen, but low for a nuclear process (given Rossi's other claims about the amount of reactants consumed).

On the other hand, if you read the article closely, it says "The reactor itself, which is loaded with the nickel powder and secret catalysts pressurized with hydrogen, has an estimated volume of 50 cubic centimeters (3.2 cubic inches). ... The reactor was according to Rossi loaded with 50 grams of nickel powder." So, if this is a deliberate fraud, there seems some opportunity to introduce other materials, or different amounts of material than claimed, into the reaction vessel. James Randi has pointed out that trained scientists are often deceived by deliberate fraud because they aren't alert to the possibility that someone is actively trying to mislead them.

[GRG55]

Re: Rossi "cold fusion" device function confirmed by two Swedish scientists

Go out tonight and if it is clear find a bright red star like Betelgeuse in Orion. A red giant. Nickel and Silicon is being turned to Iron there and producing energy as you watch.


...

I imagine there's a wee bit more than a handful of nickel involved in your illustration...

[Jam]

Re: Rossi "cold fusion" device function confirmed by two Swedish scientists

Great catch, C1ue. Checked out a couple of other articles posted there--it seems they would post anything and everything anybody would send them, errors and all. Most articles seem to relate to the Rossi device. However, even if they don't, readers' comments below the articles tend to gravitate towards the Rossi device, no matter what is the subject of a particular article itself.

[c1ue]

Re: Rossi "cold fusion" device function confirmed by two Swedish scientists

More background behind what looks more and more like a well considered scam:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...74#post6864674

My goodness. I was expecting incompetence, but this is incompetence beyond my expectations.

The only power-in instrumentation is a "WATTS UP" power meter, a sort of cheap consumer grade device you'd buy at Home Depot when you're doing a home energy audit. It can't sample faster than once per second. There's no voltmeter. No ammeter. No oscilloscope. No true-power-measuring eddy current meter.

The H2 input was not monitored at all. No flowmeter, no bottle scale. Nothing. They report looking at the pressure gauge---by which they mean the coarse dial gauge on the high-pressure bottle---and seeing no change.

The only power-out instrumentation is a cup of water (collecting "steam") and, at the end of a long cool pipe, a relative humidity probe which they mistake for a "steam dryness" probe. (A steam dryness probe wouldn't do anything in that position even if you had one.)

And the data is presented primarily in the form of digital photos of a computer screen with graphs on it. What the heck?

So, yeah, I'll tell you exactly what is going on. They pumped 1kW of electric power into their thingamabob. The unmetered hydrogen did some PV work too, and probably some chemistry, but that's not the big problem. Their ordinary heat sources made some water boil. The boiling water contains a mix of steam and ordinary droplets---the steam takes energy to make, the droplets basically don't. This cloud ran down their pipe, condensing all the way, trickled past past their indifferent "steam quality probe". They then imagine that all of the water had been boiled, and calculate the energy required. Unsurprisingly, this number is much greater than the electric power consumed.

Considering above discussion that power output could be overestimated up to 7 times because of difference between vaporization and just reaching 100C, it brings to power output in the range of existing power sources. A set of suspicious coincidences is pointing towards using nickel-metal hydride batteries, which are used in innovative way.

Instead of just discharging them directly, they can be overheated to about 100-110C which will cause accelerated internal self discharge through direct reaction between H2 developed from metal-hydride anode and NiO(OH) cathode. This self discharge causes large heat dissipation, basically entire energy of the battery is dissipated as heat instead of electricity.

NiMH energy density is about 300Wh / L, so considering that most of the blue box shown in the presentation is filled with batteries, it would account for enough energy (considering 7 times underestimation it would be just 1.7kW needed for 30 min presentation.
Using thermally induced self-discharge would also account for about 30 min delay - because thermal time constant of all batteries is about 30 min due to large mass and thermal capacity, it takes about 30 min to heat it up to needed 110C temperature with 400W heater.

Another coincidence. From Giuseppe Levi report
"The basic observable elements are an horizontal metallic tube (approximate length 70 cm, diameter 20 cm, 22 L volume, 30 kg weight as a guess-estimate".

Why is it so heavy? According to Rossi, apparatus includes lead shielding to shield radiation. However, very accurate measurements of neutrons and gamma radiation in the same Levi report showed no radiation whatsoever.
Levi also explained that lead shielding can not completely hide radiation,
only reduce, so absence of radiation outide shielding means that there
is no radiation inside either.
So could it be that so called lead shielding is just an excuse for
the weight of batteries? Quick check - 30 kg * 80Wh/kg (NiMH energy density) gives 2.4kWh which would allow to produce 4.8 kW output for half
hour demonstration - more than needed to account for 7 times reduced
power estimate. The same batteries would have volume of 2.4kWh/300Wh/l = 8 L. This is well within 22 L volume estimate and gives
enough space for heater and water pipes.

This elegant apparatus would exhibit the same behavior of Rossi demonstration unit, and, conveniently, it would even be rechargeable! By simple switching wires from heater to battery string terminals, they can be recharged for the next demonstration!

Care should be taken not to allow overheating above 140C where NiO(OH) decomposes with oxygen release and whole thing can blow up. That is where the need of very accurate external temperature control and water flow control comes in. Btw operating battery in such way is extremely dangerous as thermal run-away is possible, so all the participants of this demonstrations might have been exposed to mortal danger.

Hopefully these considerations are just a coincidence and Rossy device is a real thing.
But for any prospective investor I would absolutely require long continuous run test (above 24 hrs) and inspection of the volume/weight of the inside of the device to exclude above mechanism.

Note that making apparatus larger (say 1MW) does not eliminate above
"NiMH thermal self-discharger" - it is perfectly scalable to any size! Only
long continuous run-time with controlled device size/weight can assure against such contraption.

Note the 2nd posting posits a NiMh nickel metal hydride - as I noted in the original post about the Rossi device - as the mechanism by which 'additional' heat can be generated.

It also notes that if indeed standard model/quantum mechanics fusion is occurring, the shielding against radiation is far too little to be of real benefit.

[Jam]

Re: Rossi "cold fusion" device function confirmed by two Swedish scientists

Well, there is at least some innovation there .

A set of suspicious coincidences is pointing towards using nickel-metal hydride batteries, which are used in innovative way.

[tastymannatees]

Re: Rossi "cold fusion" device function confirmed by two Swedish scientists

latest

http://ecatreport.com/e-cat/andrea-r...-qa-highlights

[Adeptus]

Re: Rossi "cold fusion" device function confirmed by two Swedish scientists

For what it's worth, I just posted a 45 min documentary produced ~1 year ago, on this cold fusion stuff over in the video section:
http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...st-Cold-Fusion

Also, off tastymannatees's ecat URL above, we get a 15 minute interview of Nobel Prize Laureate Brian Josephson on Andrea Rossi´s device:
http://ecatreport.com/rossi/nobel-pr...i%c2%b4s-e-cat