LENR news Communicate on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions

1Sep/122

Lettre Ouverte aux décideurs: La Fusion Froide va changer le monde

Dans l'espoir sensibiliser  aux opportunités créées par la Fusion Froide, j'ai fait cette Lettre Ouverte aux "décideurs", comme les entrepreuneurs, les autorités locales, les politiciens, les chercheurs, les ONG.

C'est encore un brouillon, mais celà raconte une histoire qui, même imparfaitement écrite, est convaincante.

N'hésitez pas à commenter, corriger, critiquer, proposer, sur le forum http://www.lenrforum.eu/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=495&p=2047#p2047

 Il y a une version anglaise de cette lettre ouverte.

J'en profite pour citer les transparents de Tyler, très appréciés et convainquants.

 


Bonjour,

Par cette lettre ouverte [LettreOuverte], j'attire votre attention sur les développement relatif à ce qui est communément appelé "La Fusion Froide" et plus techniquement appelé : les "LENR" (Réactions Nucléaires à basse Énergie).

Ces dernières années, culminant cet été, des événements auraient du faire la une des journaux et révolutionner les stratégies industrielles.

Une multinationale de l'instrumentation scientifique franchit le Rubicon.

Les 7 et 8 août 2012, la société d'instrumentation scientifique National Instruments, acteur dominant dans les laboratoires industriels comme scientifiques, a franchi le Rubicon et publiquement apporté son soutien à la Fusion Froide, lors de sa convention annuelle, la NIWeek 2012 à Austin. Cette annonce a culminé par quelques minutes de discours par le fondateur de National Instruments, James Truchard [NIWeekVideo]. Mais cette NIWeek a aussi vu 4 présentations sur ce sujet [NIWeekCF], dont une conférence Keynote panel sur la Fusion Froide, une présentation des résultats d'un chercheur Japonais (Takahashi), une présentation sur la commercialisation de cette technologie, et une séance "posters" dans le domaine de la recherche "grande physique" où la Fusion Froide était largement représenté.
Un chercheur, Pr Celani, a aussi présenté dans le hall une version de démonstration (transparente) de son réacteur à Fusion Froide, qui a fait sensation, en produisant environ 14Watt de chaleur pendant plusieurs jours, avec une fraction de gramme de fil de constantan traité [NIWeekCelani].

Cette conférence est l'aboutissement de diverses prises de position du directeur des applications "Grande Physique", Stefano Concezzi. Il était connu comme le promoteur des outils National Instruments pour les réacteurs à fusion chaude. Dans une conférence à Bruxelles puis à Rome [NIConcezzi], il a présenté les travaux de validation lancé par National instruments sur la Fusion Froide, distribués à 10 équipes qui ont confirmé le phénomène.

Il faut noter que la conférence de travail à Bruxelles faisait suite à un rapport sur les pistes de recherches en science des matériaux, proposée à la commission européenne par divers experts [EUReport], parmi lesquelles se trouvait la Fusion Froide.

Une seule de ces nouvelles aurait du affoler les téléscripteurs.

Des entreprises fleurissent déjà sur un Eldorado déjà bien défriché.

Quelques jours après la NIWeek, a eu lieu la conférence internationale sur la Fusion froide, l'ICCF17, à Daejeon. A nouveau le réacteur de démonstration de Celani a fait son petit effet. Entre diverses présentations d'articles expérimentaux et théoriques, deux compagnies ont présenté des résultats relatifs à leur réacteur en développement : Brillouin Corporation (Fondée par Robert Godes) et Defkalion Green Technologies, tandis que Nichenergy (émanation du Pr Piantelli, un pionnier de la Fusion Froide à base de réaction Nickel Hydrogène) s'est désisté. A noter que Celani lui-même travaille actuellement en collaboration avec une Startup britannique "Kresenn Limited". Et le grand absent de cette conférence était l'étrange Andrea Rossi et sa société Leonardo Corporation.

La société grecque Defkalion, en déménagement au Canada suite au désastre grec, a présenté des résultats [DGTICCF] qui d'après elle confirme le potentiel industriel de son réacteur Hyperion à Fusion Froide, basé sur une réaction Nickel/Hydrogène en phase gazeuse à haute température, et aussi des transmutations.
Brillouin Corp a présenté [BrillouinICCF], d'autres résultats de test réalisé avec le SRI (centre de recherche autour de Stanford [SRI].

Une seule de ces nouvelles aurait du affoler les téléscripteurs.

Un entrepreneur italien fantasque, mais qui a lancé le signal du débarquement.

Andrea Rossi lui avait fait sensation en Juillet en annonçant [Prometeon] le partenariat avec une nouvelle société italienne "Prometeon", menées par Aldo Proia, anciennement chef de projet chez le producteur d'électricité solaire Energaya. Aldo Proia, a concédé une interview intéressante a cette occasion.

La communication de Andrea Rossi, créateur de la machine "e-cat", est resté néanmoins chaotique, et reste très sujette à caution, eu égard à l'étrange personnalité et au passé controversé de Mr Rossi.

Mais on notera que c'est quelque mois après avoir proposé à Andrea Rossi un partenariat, que la société Defkalion à rompu son contrat en Juin 2011 puis présenté, en Novembre 2011 [HyperionSpec], un réacteur à Fusion froide basé sur des principes similaires, mais une conception plus industrielles.

C'est aussi après des contacts avant-ventes, pourtant infructueux, avec Andrea Rossi, cet hivers 2011, que National Instruments a commencé à communiquer via Stefano Concezzi, jusque là évangéliste zélé des Tokamak.

Une seule de ces nouvelles aurait du affoler les téléscripteurs.

Les réacteurs ne sont pas encore industrialisés que des startups se positionnent sur les applications.

Fin juin une conférence en Virginie, ILENRS12, avait déjà vu les préparatifs de cette révolution.
On pouvait y voir une Startup Suisse, financée par un incubateur autour de l'EPFL de Lausanne, "LENR Cars SARL" [LENRCarsILENRS] présenter son projet de voiture à Fusion Froide, basée initialement sur un socle "Tesla S", des convertisseurs thermoélectriques, et un réacteur type Hypérion.

En avril dernier la société Kresenn aux Royaume-Unis [Kresenn] s'est créé avec pour but de concevoir des data-center autonomes alimentés par la Fusion Froide. Elle travaille depuis quelques mois avec le Pr Celani.

Une seule de ces nouvelles aurait du affoler les téléscripteurs.

Un socle scientifique robuste face à un déni évident de la réalité.

Cette efflorescence de technologie industrielles, basées sur des recherches italiennes, et de n'est pas un hasard car c'est a l'ENEA, et globalement en Italie qu'il est resté un noyau de chercheur en Fusion Froide, qui ont exploré la piste des réactions Nickel-Hydrogène en phase gazeuse à haute température, fondement des réacteurs actuels.

L'ENEA aujourd'hui publie un historique de la Fusion Froide à l'ENEA [ENEACFHisto], sans honte. Afin de faire tomber le mur du déni, vers 2002, elle a essayé de faire publier un rapport expérimental, au meilleur niveau technologique, démontrant la production d'Helium4 et de chaleurs dans des expériences de type Fusion Froide [ENEAReport41]. Elle avait tenté de propose un résultat expérimental, sans interprétations ni théorie, mais avec les meilleurs standards de métrologie, et le tout poussé par le Prix Nobel de physique, Carlo Rubbia. Son rapport a été refusé par toutes les revues, avec diverses raisons toutes plus ridicules que les autres, mais au sommet de toutes, la plus reconnues de toutes: "Science" qui a poliment dis que cet article n'était pas "prioritaire"[Report41Denial]. Cet article qui, ne pouvant être mis en doute quand a ses références et sa qualité, aurait du secouer la physique mondiale et les marchés financiers, n'avait donc pas de place dans cette revue, ni dans des dizaines d'autres moins prestigieuses. Le ridicule n'a pas de limite, même s'il s'explique bien théoriquement [BenabouGroupthink].

Vers 2009 le laboratoire de recherche de la Navy (US Navy SPAWAR) avait lui aussi tenté de passer le mur du déni en médiatisant ses nombreux papiers (eux publiés avec succès dans des revues à comité de lecture). Ils ont communiqué sur la chaine FoxNews [SpawarConf]. Il faut dire que dès 1998 ils avaient découvert un protocole de Fusion froide reproductible et répliquable [SpawarPeer], le Graal en science. Cela n'a eu aucun effet, et depuis la recherche en Fusion Froide est interdite au SPAWAR.

Sur son site internet, le laboratoire NASA GRC confirme la réalité de la production de chaleurs liée à la Fusion Froide [NasaGRC], et cite dans ses transparents un vieux rapport de 1989 qui montre déjà une chaleur anormale importante (expérience bien plus proche des réacteurs modernes), mais faute de curiosité n'en cherche pas la cause. Ces expériences ont étés reproduites en 2005 en chine, puis en 2008 à la NASA. On ne sera pas surpris de voir la Fusion Froide cité comme une des possibilités de faire des avions propres [Nasa89Expe].

Une seule de ces nouvelles aurait du affoler les téléscripteurs.

Quels arguments opposent-t-on à ces faits solides?

  • On nous dit souvent que la fusion froide ne marche pas, mais comme le dit bien National instruments, il y a des centaines d'expérience différentes, qui confirment la réalité de l'anomalie au delà de toute explication chimique.
  • On nous dit que ces expériences ne sont pas répliquées, mais les travaux du SPAWAR, d'Iwamura, et même de Fleischmann et Pons (par une équipe CEA de Grenoble notamment [CalorimetryGrenoble], avec de meilleures instrumentations) ont été répliqués. Dans un monde normal deux bonnes réplications indépendantes sont suffisantes pour confirmer.
  • On nous dit que de nombreuses expériences ont échouée, mais on peu se demander depuis quand un échec en science n'est autre chose qu'un échec. Depuis les chercheurs en fusion froide ont expliqué l'essentiel des échecs par des conditions insuffisantes pour déclencher la réaction. Pour d'autres ils ont observé un mauvais travail de calorimétrie [Calorimetry], voir pire [MalloveMIT]. Enfin il concèdent que l'état métallurgique du palladium est un facteur clé, difficile à contrôler, sauf comme le SPAWAR par la co-déposition, comme les chercheurs Italiens, par des poudres ou fils traités à l'échec nanométrique, ou comme Defkalion par l'usage de mousses traitées[DGTFoam].
  • On nous dit que les papiers scientifiques ne sont pas publiés dans des revues à comité de lecture, mais le SPAWAR [SpawarPeer] et quelques autres ont réussi à passer le filtre pour publier dans quelques revues reconnues.
  • On nous dit que les quantités de chaleur ne sont pas utilisables. C'était vrai avec les expériences électrolytiques des débuts, mais ce n'est pas une excuse pour ignorer l'importance en physique fondamentale. Depuis, et comme on pouvait s'en douter, des progrès ont été fait pour produire des quantités importantes d'énergie, avec des rapports de production largement supérieurs à 1, voir comme l'Hypérion au delà de la vingtaine, et ce sans surprise si on se base sur les travaux des chercheurs italiens, comme Celani, qui avaient déjà rendu compte de performances massiques similaires au nucléaire.
  • On nous dit que les résultats des industriels ne sont pas validés par des autorités indépendantes. C'est vrai, mais si on accepte les résultats scientifiques nombreux, les validation récentes, l'engagement visible d'acteur comme National Instruments, l’engagement financier de personnes connues comme Alexandros Xanthoulis de Defkalion (et son conseil d’administration: [DefkalionBoD], Grec-canadien de Vancouver, ancien économiste auprès de la banque Européenne de développement, dans le cadre du développement des Balkans, que nous faut-il ? Quelle société industrielle sur terre se voit astreinte à un tel niveau de preuve en phase de R&D? Ne faut-il pas ne serait-ce que envisager l'éventualité d'une révolution ? Et donc s'y préparer ?
  • Et dernier argument le plus ironique, éminemment circulaire, mais essentiel, c'est qu'on nous avance comme preuve que cela ne peut être vrai : "autant de gens si intelligents n'auraient pas pu faire cette même erreur en ignorant la Fusion Froide" ! On ne peut que constater expérimentalement, comme Roland Benabou de Princeton avec Enron, Challenger et la crise financière, que cet argument a des lacunes [BenabouDenial], et observer qu'il existe des mécanismes simples pour expliquer cet entêtement [BenabouGroupthink].

Un changement de paradigme, un choc de productivité, et des conséquences bénéfiques imprévisibles.

Une fois acceptée la situation actuelle il est temps d'en analyser les conséquences. Les premiers réacteurs en cours de développement par Andrea Rossi et Defkalion promettent déjà une révolution. Le prix devrait être autour des 100euro du kW thermique, avec un cout de carburant faible. La densité énergétique et de puissance est similaire a celle du carburant nucléaire [Ragone], mais le réacteur est bien plus simple. L'autonomie se compte en semestres. Au delà du carburant lui même, qui restera un produit manufacturé, les matières premières (Nickel, Hydrogène classique) sont bon marché et utilisés en petite quantité. Des calculs laissent envisager que le remplacement toute l'énergie planétaire ne consommerais que quelques pour-cent de la production annuelle de Nickel [Energy]. Le seul coût notable sera l'investissement, et au prix estimé actuel, 6 mois de PIB mondial assureraient la migration. Il restera le problème du prix des turbines [Turbines], finalement désormais plus coûteuse que les réacteurs. Mais on peu faire confiance aux ingénieurs pour optimiser leur conception au faible coût de la Fusion Froide.

D'après tout cela on peut estimer une division du coût de l'électricité d'un facteur 5 à 10, mais aussi à terme d'une baisse de la consommation électrique qui pourrait autoriser une réorganisation de la production et du réseau [Electricity].

Si la Fusion Froide aujourd'hui semble tout à fait prête à remplacer les sources de chaleurs dans toute l'économie, et aussi dans la production électrique, la marine, et les trains, l'état actuel de la technologie des turbines, ne permet pas d'être aussi optimiste à court terme dans le domaine des transports routiers, aériens, et spatiaux. Néanmoins comme la NASA [SugarNasaBoeing], ou "LENR Cars SARL" [LENRCars], on peut estimer que c'est une question de moins d'une ou deux décennies pour que les premiers véhicules routiers ou aériens soient qualifiés.

De tout ces faits et calculs, il est clair [Impact] que nous sommes à l'aube d'un changement complet de paradigme énergétique, d'un gain de productivité de plus de 10%, d'une baisse drastique de la pollution, du CO2, des couts induits, auquel peuvent s'ajouter des applications encore inconnues à l'impact imprévisible sur les pays développés, émergents ou pauvres [CfFuture].

C'est le moment de s'y intéresser !

C'est pour ces quelques raisons, et des centaines d'autres faits cohérents, que je me permets d'attirer votre attention sur le domaine de la Fusion froide, qui mérite votre intérêt, et peut être l'occasion de vous différencier, voir d'acquérir une "aura de pionnier" dans un monde concurrentiel.

C'est la stratégie qui semble être celle de National Instruments, et je pense qu'elle sera payante.

Nul n'est besoins de nous croire sur parole, ni d'afficher une foi quelconque. Le simple fait de se questionner, d'interroger les faits, de rechercher les contacts industriels, les inscriptions légales, les bases documentaires, d'organiser un débat, serait déjà suffisant pour que la vérité sorte.

Il n'y a aucun doute que des amis qui vous veulent du bien vous contacteront rapidement pour vous convaincre de la folie de cette démarche. C'est ce qui est arrivé à Mr Papandréou qui n'a pas saisi l'offre d'Andrea Rossi, laissant Alexandros Xanthoulis se présenter [EarlyDGT]. C'est ce qui est arrivé aux investisseurs souhaitant financer le Pr Hagelstein après le succès du NANOR aux IAP du MIT [NanorMITSuppression], qui ont rebroussé chemin sur le conseil d'"amis" du MIT.

Quand en avril 2009 Robert Duncan, patron de l'Université du Missouri a été missionné par CNBC "60 minutes" pour faire une enquête sur des résultats de fusion froide, il a trouvé cela ridicule, mais a vérifié, et depuis c'est un franc supporter de la Fusion Froide et la prochaine conférences sur la fusion Froide aura lieu à l'Université du Missouri [Duncan].

Gageons que vous saurez garder votre indépendance d'esprit, et saisir votre chance.

Nous sommes à votre écoute.

Ce document est constellé de références, essentiellement vers le site LENRforum.eu qui contient un fond d'information, de liens externes qui devraient vous confirmer ce que j'ai avancé. Vous trouverez aussi quelques personnes pour répondre à vos questions éventuelle, ou sinon vous rediriger vers les bonnes personnes, des experts reconnus, des chefs d'entreprise, des scientifiques, en zone francophone ou de par le monde.

1Sep/125

Open letter to decision makers : Cold Fusion will change the future

In  the hope to trigger awareness about Cold Fusion and LENR I have made this Open Letter to "decision makers", like businessmen, local authorities, politicians, researchers, NGO.

It is still a draft, but it tells a story that even imperfectly written , is convincing.

 

Feel free to comment, correct, criticize, propose, on the forum http://www.lenrforum.eu/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=504&p=2099

there is a french version of that letter.

Consider also the slides of tyler that are convincing too.

no more time to discuss, but to work on the next world we want.


Dear madam, dear sir,

With this open letter [OpenLetter], I draw your attention to the development on what is commonly called "The Cold Fusion" and more technically called: the "LENR" (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions).

In recent years, culminating this summer, events should have made the headlines and revolutionize industrial strategies.

A multinational scientific instrumentation just crossed the Rubicon.

On August 7th and 8th 2012, the scientific instrumentation company National Instruments, dominant player in industrial and scientific labs, has crossed the Rubicon and publicly supported the Cold Fusion during its annual convention, NIWeek 2012 in Austin . The announcement culminated with a few minutes of speech by the founder of National Instruments, James Truchard [NIWeekCF]. NIWeek also saw four presentations on this topic [NIWeekCF], including a conference Keynote panel on Cold Fusion, a presentation of the results of a Japanese researcher (Takahashi), a presentation on the commercialization of this technology, and a session "posters" in research "big physics" where Cold Fusion was well represented.
Researcher, Professor Celani, also presented in the hall a demo version (transparent) of his Cold Fusion reactor , which make sensation, producing about 14Watt heat for several days, with a fraction of a gram of treated constantan wire [NIWeekCelani].

This conference is the culmination of various positions of Director of "Big Physics" Applications, Stefano Concezzi. In a conference in Brussels and Rome [NIConcezzi], he presented the validation work launched by National Instruments on Cold Fusion, distributed to 10 teams confirmed the phenomenon.

It should be noted that the Working Conference in Brussels followed a report on the research track in materials science, proposed by various experts to the European Commission [EUReport], among which Cold Fusion was present.

Only one of these news, should have caused panic in news agencies.

Companies already blooming on Eldorado already cleared.

A few days after the NIWeek, held the International Conference on Cold Fusion, the ICCF17 in Daejeon. A new demonstration of Celani reactor has a fair impact. Between various paper presentations experimental and theoretical two companies presented the results of their reactor development: Brillouin Corporation (founded by Robert Godes) and Defkalion Green Technologies, while Nichenergy (an emanation of Pr Piantelli, a pioneer of Nickel Hydrogen Cold Fusion reaction) withdrew. Note that Celani himself is currently working with UK Startup "Kresenn Limited". And conspicuously absent from this conference was the odd Andrea Rossi and his company Leonardo Corporation.

Greek company Defkalion, in moving to Canada following the Greek financial disaster, presented results [DGTICCF] which confirms the industrial potential of Hyperion Cold Fusion reactor, based on a Nickel / Hydrogen reaction in gaseous phase at high temperature, and also transmutations.
Brillouin Corporation introduced [BrillouinICCF] other test results achieved with SRI (research center around Stanford [SRI]).

Only one of these news, should have caused panic in news agencies.

An odd Italian entrepreneur, but who started the race.

Andrea Rossi had caused a sensation by announcing in July [Prometeon] a new partnership with Italian company "Prometeon", conducted by Aldo Proia, formerly project manager for a producer of solar electricity, Energaya. Aldo Proia, conceded an interesting interview on this occasion.

Communication of Andrea Rossi, creator of the machine "e-cat", however remained chaotic, and remains highly questionable, given the strange personality and controversial past of Mr Rossi.

But note that this is a few months after proposing a partnership with Andrea Rossi to the company, that Defkalion breached his contract in June 2011 and presented in November 2011 [HyperionSpec] Cold Fusion reactor based on similar principles, but a more industrial.

It was also after before-sales contacts, yet unsuccessful, with Andrea Rossi during winters 2011, that National Instruments began communicating via Stefano Concezzi , hitherto zealous evangelist of Tokamak.

Only one of these news, should have caused panic in news agencies.

Reactors are not yet industrialized but startups are already focusing on applications.

End of June a conference in Virginia, ILENRS12, had seen the preparations for the revolution.
You could see a Startup from Switzerland, funded by an incubator around the EPFL in Lausanne, "LENR Cars Ltd" [LENRCarsILENRS] present his project of Cold Fusion car, based initially on a "Tesla S" frame, thermoelectric converters and a Hyperion-type reactor.

In April the company Kresenn from UK [Kresenn] was created with the aim to develop autonomous data center powered by Cold Fusion. She worked for several months with Professor Celani.

Only one of these news, should have caused panic in news agencies.

A robust scientific basis against a clear denial of reality.

This industrial technology efflorescence , based on research from Italy, and is not luck because ENEA and Italy globally it has remained a research safe haven for Cold Fusion, where was explored the track of Nickel-Hydrogen reactions in the gaseous phase at high temperature, the basis of current reactors.

ENEA today published a history of the Cold Fusion at ENEA [ENEACFHisto], without shame. To break down the wall of denial around 2002, it tried to publish a technical experimental report at the highest level, demonstrating the production of heat and helium4 in experiments like Cold Fusion [ENEAReport41]. It tried to propose an experimental result without interpretation or theory, but with the highest standards of metrology, and all driven by the Nobel Prize in Physics, Carlo Rubbia. Its report was rejected by all journals, all with different reasons each more ridiculous than the other, but on top of all, the most recognized of all: "Science" who politely say that this article was not "priority" [Report41Denial]. This article, which could not be doubted about credentials and quality, would shake the global physical and financial markets, therefore had no place in this magazine or in dozens of other less prestigious. Ridicule have no limit, even though it is theoretically explained [BenabouGroupThink].

To 2009 the research laboratory of the Navy (U.S. Navy SPAWAR) had also tried to pass the wall of denial by communicating about its numerous papers (published successfully in journals with peer review). They communicated on the FoxNews channel [SpawarConf]. I must say that in 1998 they had discovered a reproducible and replicable protocol for Cold Fusion [SpawarPeer], the Grail of science. This had no effect, and since the Cold Fusion research is prohibited SPAWAR.

On its website, the NASA GRC laboratory confirms the reality of the production of heat related to Cold Fusion [NasaGRC], and cites in its slides an old report from 1989 which already shows significant abnormal heat (experience much closer to the modern reactors ), but not looking for the cause by lack of curiosity. These experiments were reproduced in China in 2005, then in 2008 at NASA. We will not be surprised to see the Cold Fusion cited as one of the possibilities to propel clean aircraft [Nasa89Expe].

Only one of these news, should have caused panic in news agencies.

What arguments do we oppose these solid facts?

  • We are often told that cold fusion does not work, but as said National instruments, there are hundreds of different experience, which confirm the reality of the anomaly beyond all chemical explanation.
  • We are told that these experiences are not replicated, but the work of SPAWAR, and Iwamura, and even Fleischmann and Pons (see [Calorimetry]) were replicated. In a normal world, two good independent replication is sufficient to confirm.
  • We are told that many experiments have failed, but a failure in science is nothing more than a failure. Since then, cold fusion researchers have explained most of the failures by insufficient conditions to initiate the reaction. For others they observed a poor job of calorimetry [Calorimetry] or worse [MalloveMIT]. Finally they conceded that the metallurgical state of palladium is a key factor, difficult to control, except as by the SPAWAR co-deposition, as Italian researchers, nanoscale treated wires or powders , or as by Defkalion the use of treated foams [DGTFoam].
  • We are told that scientific papers are published in journals with peer review, but the SPAWAR [SpawarPeer] and others have managed to get the filter to publish in a few renowned journals.
  • We are told that the quantities of heat are not usable. This was true with the early electrolysis experiences , but this is not an excuse to ignore it's importance in fundamental physics. Since then, and as might be expected, progress has been made to produce large amounts of energy, with ratio of production much higher than 1, or like the Hyperion beyond the twenties, and with no surprises looking at the work of Italian researchers, like Celani, who had reported similar to fission performance.
  • We are told that the results of the manufacturers are not validated by independent authorities. This is true, but if we accept many scientific results, the recent validation, visible commitments or actors like National Instruments, the financial commitment of known people like Alexandros Xanthoulis of Defkalion (and its board of directors: [DefkalionBoD] Greek-Canadian Vancouver, former economist at the European Bank of Development in the development of the Balkans, that we need? What industrial company on earth is tightened to such a strain level of evidence in R&D phase? Should we not even consider the possibility of a revolution? And so to prepare?
  • And the last ironic argument, eminently circular, but bottom line, is that one advance as proof that this can not be true because : "so many people so smart could not make the same mistake by ignoring the Cold Fusion ! " We can see experimentally, as Roland Benabou Princeton with Enron, Challenger and the financial crisis, that this argument is flawed [BenabouDenial], and observe that there are simple mechanisms to explain this obstinacy [BenabouGroutthink].

A paradigm shift, a productivity shock and unpredictable beneficial consequences.

Once accepted the current situation it is time to analyze the consequences. The first reactors being developed by Andrea Rossi and Defkalion are already promising a revolution. The price should be around 100euro per kW thermal, with a low cost of fuel. Energy density and power is similar to that of nuclear fuel [Ragone], but the reactor is much simpler. Autonomy account in semesters. Beyond the fuel itself, which will remain a manufactured product, raw materials (classic Nickel Hydrogen ) are inexpensive and used in small quantities. Calculations allow to estimate that the replacement of all planet energy would consume few percent of the annual production of Nickel [Energy]. The only cost will be significant investment, and with the current estimated price, 6 months of world GDP would ensure the migration. There remains the problem of the price of turbines [Turbines], finally now more expensive than the reactors. But we can trust engineers to optimize their design to the low cost of Cold Fusion.

From all this we can estimate a division of the cost of electricity by a factor of 5 to 10, but also in terms of reduced power consumption that could allow a reorganization of production and the [Electricity].

If Cold Fusion today seems quite ready to replace heat sources throughout the economy, as well as in power generation, marine, and rail, the current state of the turbine technology does not to be too optimistic in the short term in the field of road transport, air and space. However as NASA [SugarNasaBoeing] or "LENR Cars Ltd" [LENRCars], we can estimate that it is less a matter of one or two decades before the first road vehicles or aircraft are qualified.

From all these facts and calculations, it is clear [Impact] that we are on the verge of a complete change of energy paradigm, a productivity gain of over 10%, a drastic reduction of pollution, CO2, costs incurred, to which can add the unpredictable impact of unknown applications on developed countries, emerging or poor [CFFuture].

This is the time to be interested!

For these few reasons, and hundreds of other facts consistent, I would like to draw your attention to the field of Cold Fusion, which deserves your interest, and may be an opportunity to differentiate yourself, see acquire an "aura of pioneer" in a competitive world.

This is the strategy that seems to be the National Instruments and I think it will pay off.

No one needs is our word, or display any faith. The simple act of questioning, questioning the facts, find industry contacts, registration legal documentation databases, organize a debate is already sufficient for the truth to come out.

There is no doubt that friends who wish you well soon contact you to convince you of the folly of this approach. This is what happened to Mr Papandreou has not taken the offer of Andrea Rossi, leaving Alexandros Xanthoulis present himself [EarlyDGT]. This is what happened to investors seeking to finance Prof. Hagelstein after the success of the NANOR at MIT IAP [NanorMITSuppression], who turned back on the advice of "friends" at MIT.

In April 2009 when Robert Duncan, head of the University of Missouri was commissioned by CNBC "60 minutes" to investigate the results of cold fusion, he found it ridiculous, but checked, and since it is a outspoken supporter of Cold Fusion and the upcoming conferences on Cold fusion will take place at the University of Missouri [Duncan].

I bet that you will keep your independence of mind, and your chance.

We're listening.

This document is studded with references, mainly to www.LENRforum.eu site, which contains background information, external links, that should confirm what I have advanced. You will also find a few people to answer your questions, if any, or otherwise redirect you to the right people, experts, business leaders, scientists, around the world.

30Jul/120

NIWeek 2012 : LENR as the guest star.

The annual corporate conference of National Instruments, NIWeek 2012,  prepare to be the prelude of ICCF17.
LENR theme is visibly  a strategic orientation of National Instruments, and if we can make many conjecture on their intention, it seems clear that LENR is welcome at NI, and that NI want to show that to the face of the world.
One Keynote on LENR:
TS10500 Keynote: The Quest for Alternative Energy—Anomalous Heat Effect (a.k.a. Cold Fusion)
8/7/12 (Tuesday 7th) 4:45 PM - 5:45 PM

Several labs around the world are trying to replicate the phenomenon known as “cold fusion.” While the term has evoked controversy, many research facilities have observed over 200 instances of intense heat. This demonstrates either an unknown physical event or a need for better measurement and control tools. In both cases, NI can provide the tools to accelerate innovation and scientific discovery. The Big Physics and Science Summit brings together experts to discuss these anomalous heat effects, the status of theoretical research, experimental results, and the prospect of commercializing this technology for daily energy needs.

One presentation of the research works of Takahashi(at Technova Inc) :

8/8/12 (Wednesday 8th) 3:30 PM - 4:00 PM

The Kobe-Technova team has worked to elucidate the underlying physics of anomalous heat evolution effects in deuterium (D) and protium (H) gas-loaded nano-metal-compound systems. Basic tools are the twin D(H) gas-loading equipment and the supporting theoretical modeling by the TSC multibody fusion theory. Using various Pd-based and Ni-based nanofabricated samples, the team has reproducibly observed anomalous heat effects with isotopic differences using time-dependent (dynamic) data of thermal-power evolutions, D(H)/metal-atom loading ratios, and their temperature dependence (for Ni-based cases).

Speakers:

  • Akito Takahashi (Senior Adviser, Technova Inc.)
A session about LENR commercialization :

8/8/12 4:00 PM - 4:30 PM

In the quest for alternative energy, researchers have tried to understand the intense heat release of Pd-D or Ni-H reactions. By understanding the physics behind this lower energy nuclear reaction (LENR) phenomenon, researchers can control the reaction. Discover how Brillouin Energy Corporation has demonstrated control over the reaction, who the early adopters are likely to be, the types of systems that will be commercialized, and the applications these systems will address.

Speaker:

  • Robert Godes (President and Chief Technology Officer Brillouin Energy Corp)
And last but not least, in Big Physics Poster session, massive attack of LENR stars and companies:
8/8/12 (Wednesday 8th) 4:45 PM - 5:45 PM

Review the technical papers, projects, and research work of scientists and engineers from different labs and commercial companies such as LNLS (Brazil), Los Alamos National Laboratory, MagiQ Technologies, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and Phoenix Nuclear Labs. Learn control and instrumentation best practices through one-on-one conversations with over 15 authors.

Speakers :

  • Francesca Sarto Dr., (ENEA)
  • Vittorio Violante (ENEA Frascati Research Center)
  • Peter Hagelstein (MIT)
  • Francesco Celani (INFN)
  • Alexandros Xanthoulis (Defkalion)
  • George Xanthoulis (Defkalion)
  • James Dunn (Defkalion )
  • John Hadjichristos (Defkalion)
  • Symeon Tsalikoglou (Defkalion)
  • Andrew Hammond (MagiQ Technologies)
  • Barry Hutt
  • Cary Long
  • Casey Lamers (Controls Engineer, Phoenix Nuclear Labs)
  • Frank Gordon
  • Gene Flanagan
  • Ignazio Piacentini (ImagingLab)
  • James Pogge (Tennessee Technological University)
  • Lizarazo Juan Sebastian
  • Piyush Joshi (Brookhaven National Laboratory)
  • Simone Primavera (Tri Alpha Energy)
  • Tim Ziemba (Eagle Harbor Technologies)
  • Arun Veeramani (National Instruments)
  • Chad Evans (Big Physics Systems Engineer, National Instruments)
  • David Potter (National Instruments)
  • Thierry Debelle (Principal Systems Engineer, National Instruments)
Some people could reasonably criticize the lack of validated direct proof of LENR, however National Instruments behavior is the biggest proofs that I've seen, with the behavior of a not so famous Canadian-Greek economist.

When you see gulls you KNOW that there is food.

If some want to be embedded journalist, and write article for us, you are welcome...
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