LENR news Communicate on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions

24Apr/121

Italian professors and students create, patent and show LENR reactor

Big news in Italy, announced on Italian blog 22Passi by Daniele Passerini. Some professors, with students have build and patented a small LENR reactor.

Here is the translation of Danielle Passerini blog article on last message from hugh Abundo, the professor that lead the project:

Sunday, April 22, 2012

Cold fusion: study it in school and be seriousRepresentation of the 'Athanor' of the ancient alchemists

Last Thursday we all came to know that a group of professors in science, from Construction, Environment and Territory domain led the research on cold fusion in an Institute of Higher Education, the Leopoldo Pirelli in Rome, obtaining apparently technological achievements of the highest importance.

This outstanding interdisciplinary school project entitled "The sun in the laboratory" and the small reactor that was born, patented by IIS Pirelli, was baptized Athanor. Emphasize the non-random choice of giving that name to a device which are integrated electrochemical processes and nuclear reactions at low energy, in order to produce energy from hydrogen in turn contained in plain water. Athanor was the name of the alchemical furnace , since precisely the denial of death (Α-Θάνατος) represents the perpetual renewal of things through a process of transmutation.

So, on one hand the dream of ancient alchemists to transmute the elements through chemical reactions, on the other the discovery of the twentieth century, how the processes of transmutation belong to the realm of nuclear physics, until now two worlds believed do not communicate, find a new synthesis in the 21st century : the LENR as "middle way" between chemistry and physics.

A revolution is finally coming to light through such inventions as the 'E-Cat' by Rossi and 'Athanor' of IIS Pirelli. The other day I wrote to the secretary of the Foundation J.Von Neumann, to make contact with the Engineer Hugh Abundo, coordinator of The teaching team of IIS Pirelli involved in the project. In the wee hours of today, I received the answer of Engineer Abundo ...

As per the invitation of the sender, I am happy to share it with all the blog readers.

At last, Dr. Passerini!
Very pleased to meet you.

We finally could meet (on the web). So, I was a little 'looking through the J.Von Neumann Foundation's (Institute of Research in Artificial Intelligence) secretariat to contact your site, that I read with great interest for some time, appreciating the style with esteem.

It was my intention, through the blog, to invite your supporters to Congress in time for a direct exchange of ideas.
We can always fix it.

In a few days we will publish video recording of the entire conference, the presentation, the student interventions,the startup of the reactor, the hour and a half of confrontation through group discussion. And we will add a huge amount of technical material on the tests performed and future plans.

I'll let you a hint that it is an electrolytic reactor (type Mizuno or Iorio), but with the fundamental difference that it employs free nanopowders , untreated nor fixed on supports, which we were able to confine and to turn on in a totally innovative fluidized bed reactor .

Alternatively to those who make this kind of communication unfortunately vulnerable claiming yields usually denied by detractors, during the conference, anyway communicating what we have obtained (according to our interpretation of the measurements), a yields of the order of 400% and higher, we did not do a live demo of these measurements (we only turn on the reactor to communicate visually what it was), but communicate with one major news.

The news is that we have patented the powder cathode in the name of the school, so from now on no one only interested in personal gain can patent it.

The Public Institution, on the other hand, may provide the apparatus to allow experimentations, or only the license to use at ridiculous cost for the illustrated material for the self-construction and the best protocol of use.

We are a group of (teachers) engineers with sectoral capacities in radio-protection, chemistry, physics, mathematics, engineering, and we have integrated our forces in this project (with the invaluable help of our students who have acquired considerable expertise in the field, although limited to educational aspects).

The patent function to the most open circulation, both of the building plans, and of tests and interpretations, in order to share information without fear that the reader patents himself what we tell ourselves, and subsequently prevent us and others to continue in promising directions.

We then challenged the critics to make their demanded measurements by themselves , and we check where they make mistakes, making available even to lend our unit to conduct the tests in our presence (to unmask even a manipulation of magician detractor !).

Currently we are catching our breath from the great commitment for the logistical organization of the event, and checking how the chain reaction evolves post-event, in terms of dissemination of news, possibly correct (but unfortunately we have detected minors errors of transmission). Soon we will work with you providing the said open information to help diffusion.

We are gathering around us professionalism which constitute the critical mass to break the wall of technological scientific and methodological difficulties, that have not yet allowed to explain the nature of the phenomena involved, and aim for a campaign of experiments specifically designed to catch the UNDERSTANDING of the phenomenon (perhaps aiming too high, but at least we will take few successful shot, maybe low, in the worst case, while aiming down usually capture only underground targets ...).

I suggest you access the site of the School: http://www.leopoldopirelli.it , in whose home is beginning to be a list, already no longer updated, links to references that speak of the event, which grow in number so fast that the boys in the preparation Internal not have time to be specified.

For immediate disclosure of this mail, with our appreciation for your work and who brings life to your blog, I, and the group that I coordinate, send you many cordial personal greetings.

Mr. Hugh Abundo

Coming soon new information on the Athanor of IIS Pirelli (still keep an eye on the comments on this post).

PS: Abundo adds :

"... it will possible immediately from your readers, for free, to get construction plans to build the reactor and run it, in order to open a campaign of free trials in order to achieve, and I hope to overcome soon, those yields we have presented.

The realization is not difficult and does not presents high costs, nor for the instrumentation, so that dozens of independent investigators may be involved.

Many cordial greetings, and forgive quick writing, but we're busy.

We hope the translation respect the authors intent.
Anyway the news is great. thanks again to Danielle Passerini, 22passi, and congratulation for IIS Pirelli.

24Apr/121

The new edition of Ed Storms’s CF/LENR Guide.

By Peter Gluck

The new edition of Ed Storms’s CF/LENR Guide.

 A few days ago this valuable document was published:
Edmund Storms:A STUDENT’S GUIDE TO COLD FUSION.
Edition 2012
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEastudentsg.pdf
A must-read for our community.Thank you, Ed- you have created an excellent review of the field, very dense in information, comprising almost all the essential facts and ideas of interest. Also a great performance in taxonomy, you have succeeded to classify and correlate an increasingly huge diversity and richness of data, some of them fluid or with lower reliability. You possess both the holistic, details in the whole, and holographic, whole in the detail, vision of the field.

With full respect to this accomplishment I try to add something to the understanding of cold fusion/LENR whatever this discipline/field/science/technology is today.

But first perhaps a possible change- in the title. This opus  is much more a guide for Researchers than for Students- usually we have to deliver to students (at least University students stricto sensu, not learning people – largo sensu) - knowledge with predominantly firmly established facts with only a small proportion of open, undecided, not completely understood  problems.
If we refer to the interpretation and understanding of experimental data, in case of LENR, what we don’t know or don’t can comprehend is almost matching what we already know and can explain- and use for prediction. It will be a real Student’s Guide when certainties will be preponderant and applied commercially. That day is not so far, I hope.

Re the central issue – NAE.

It seems (as I have shown in my ancient paper:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GluckPunderstand.pdf
later published in Fusion Technology) that LENR is indeed a
catalysis like phenomenon taking place in small active sites... Somewhat philosophically defined, catalysis occurs when matter at a level is able to stimulate some processes at an other level of organization. Chemical catalysis is stimulation of processes at the level of electron layers (chemical) by special structures at the atomic level. It is an influence from inside out. LENR goes in the opposite direction; matter smartly organized on the chemical level determines some unexpected phenomena on the nuclear level. A complex phenomenon involving more levels and stages of collaboration.
The catalytic nature of cold fusion- it takes place in active sites, specifically nuclearly active sites, is not my idea, it a natural idea.
Important things take place in restricted, special zones or areas, and this includes miracles.

I remember discussing about it with many scientists already at ICCF-2 Como in 1991, inter alia with a great electrochemist professor Heinz Gerischer (R.I.P!) while walking together along that beautiful lake. Corrosion, the Prof’s specialty is also very local.

If “nuclearly active” environment” is better than site, zone is for now a non-relevant question, I think it is OK to accept this, NAE is nice.
It is true that for the Pd-D systems there is a real NAE mystics- neither dimension nor chemical composition can explain local nuclear activity. Nobody except me believes that existing NAE in real Pd based systems are actually poisoned, deactivated by a simple mechanism - due to adsorption of gases different from deuterium- from air. OK, Pd –D system are more scientific than technological- in the best case we can use some 2.10 exp 8 g of Pd and the total power in world is around 15 exp 12 W. How many W can generate a g of Pd?

However it is a rather different situation for the Ni-H branch due to two publications of Francesco Piantelli – his second patent WO 2010/058288 and his Poster “Proton Reactor” presented at Pontignano in 2010.Unfortunately, these are not cited in Ed’s Guide. Piantelli shows that for Ni-H (and other transition metal-H systems too) NAE are crystalline nanostructures of pure Ni. See please also “Special- contribution of Piantelli to the LENR-specific nanotechnology.” in http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/08/how-does-apply-prof-piantelli-rules-of.html
Piantelli has advanced from the NAE mystics to NAE science and Rossi and even more DGT, have gone steps further toward NAE technology.

At 5.II.7 Ed speaks about “Theory of Rossi and Piantelli”. I ask him to reverse the order. Piantelli has worked more than 20 years
in order to understand a line of LENR research and was the leading scientist in all the published and patented research works
for Ni-H. Unfortunately, the anti-meritocratic Italian practice to put the authors in alphabetical order favors – for example -Focardi who was kind of second violin in these works. The great majority of heat releasing experiments was performed at Siena Univ. in Piantelli’s lab. Piantelli’s popularity has suffered because he never has never been an enthusiast of Preparata’s theory and also not an optimist regarding the chances of Pd-D LENR to have an industrial future. One of his arguments is the closed electronic structure of palladium.

Great bad question: are the weaknesses of Pd-D i.e. low intensity, difficult reproducibility, short duration- curable or not?

Piantelli’s active sites or NAE are nanostructures and is well known today that one and the same material in bulk and in form of nanostructures have essentially different properties.
These nanoclusters act as NAE, must be built by different processes, some based on hydrogen fragilization of nickel, Ni alloys or other transition metals.
Piantelli also considers as vital to free the active site of any traces of alien gases ( not hydrogen) and uses deep degassing a very, very drastic and time consuming process (see the patent!) similar to a technological exorcisation.
Obviously NAE in Pd –D systems, e.g. electrolysis are fully exposed to all the components of air. If this is a fatal error only the future will say but it is difficult to create an anaerobic environment for such cases.
.
A fundamental question- Pd-D vs. Ni-H similarities and differences.

Ed Storms seem to believe in the economics and rationality of Nature- one set of laws/principles is valid for all forms of LENR, ergo the Pd-D and Ni-H are similar and what we learn in  the frame of  one can be applied in/transposed to the other. See please:
SUMMARY
6. Heat is mostly generated by D+D+e fusion to give He4+e when deuterium is used and H+H+e fusion to give stable deuterium when normal hydrogen is used
This is an over-simplification, IMHO.

SUMMARY
Two assumptions are made:  All LENR occurs in the same environment and by the same mechanism, and the environment and mechanism must not conflict with known chemical behavior or each other.

6.II Testable Predictions
9. No difference exists between the conditions required to cause fusion involving pure D or pure H. However, many more NAE sites are required to obtain a detectable amount of energy when H is used compared to D.
I think that these statements have to be demonstrated, the contrary statements also can be true- in some extent. What is obvious, Ni-H works better than Pd-D. Piantelli has succeeded already to eliminate 2 of the 3 flaws of LENR obtaining reproducible processes working for month in a self-sustaining regime. Intensity was also increased up to tens of watts however more is necessary for industrial application of LENR as an energy source.

I think we cannot dictate Mother or Stepmother Nature how to behave. Nature is known to have no problems only solutions and nothing can limit the number of these. It is one manifestation of Nature’s Extremistanic attitude and unique ambition to be interesting. Science means understanding Nature’s interestingness, Technology is converting interestingness in usefulness.

Involving and explaining Rossi and Defkalion.
More than one year has elapsed from the first Bologna University
Rossi experiment claiming heat generation at more kWatts level and that was followed by a dozen or so of chaotically conceived and badly executed experiments. Inventor Andrea Rossi has stubbornly refused to make simple and absolutely convincing experiments. An inextricable informational hodgepodge has resulted.
Ed Storms, who first has imagined a stampede to Rossi like LENR technologies, now has chosen to wait for more reliable data. He has completely ignored Defkalion Green Technology that has much better engineering than Rossi.

As regarding Rossi, I think that if do not confuse the points of view, we can use this analogy:
- If you try to demonstrate that 0 = 2, that’s a scam.
- If you try to demonstrate that 2 = 4, that’s advertisement.

Rossi has used some methods from bad ads to convince the public that he has better results than he actually has, also due to stability and duration problems his results were disturbingly regressive, both energy intensity per E-cat, and COP decreasing from one experiment to the next. COP= 6 is inadmissibly low,
I am convinced that using probably Edisonian methods, Rossi
has really discovered a new method in LENR, just he cannot manage the system well.
I think it is not reasonable to reject Rossi completely, Krivit style.
NAEology has to explain what is the essence of Rossi’s discovery, what had he added to Piantelli’s successful methods and what kind of functional additive(s) he calls his catalyst.
We will see this hopefully in the 2013 edition of Ed Storms’ Guide.

Peter Gluck