Source: Next Big Future

Steven Krivit is the editor of the New Energy Times. Krivit is an authority on low-energy nuclear reactions (LENRs), and has spent the past decade thoroughly and scientifically studying LENR phenomena.

The entrepreneur Andrea Rossi has claimed to have invented a LENR device capable of producing far more energy than it takes in. In an interview with Sander Olson for Next Big Future, Krivit discusses the absence of scientific evidence to support Rossi’s claims, the questionable nature of the demonstrations that Rossi has given, and the reasons why he is a skeptic of Rossi.

Click here to go to article

After 23 years, researchers at the Navy’s Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center in San Diego, Calif., have been ordered to stop their low-energy nuclear reaction research.

On or about Nov. 9, 2011, Rear Admiral Patrick Brady , commander of SPAWAR, ordered SPAWAR researchers to terminate all LENR research. The order came seven days after Fox News published a story about Andrea Rossi’s Oct. 28, 2011, demonstration of his Energy Catalyzer. New Energy Times discussed the Fox News story on Nov. 9.

Fox contributor John Brandon wrote that a SPAWAR representative attended the demonstration and measured and verified the test. Brandon also wrote that SPAWAR may have been the customer to whom Rossi sold his 1 megawatt device on Oct. 28, 2011 – the same device still sitting in Rossi’s garage in January.

According to sources who are familiar with the commander’s orders but not authorized to discuss them, Brady gave the following instructions to SPAWAR researchers:

1. Immediately cease all LENR research at SPAWAR.
2. Return any unused funds for LENR research.
3. Withdraw any pending proposals for LENR research.
4. Do not publish additional scientific papers on LENR research.

According to the sources, Brady also issued instructions to cancel one of two existing cooperative research and development agreements for LENR research between SPAWAR and JWK International Corp., a private company in Annandale, Va.

New Energy Times sent the list of instructions to James Fallin, the director of public affairs at SPAWAR San Diego, and asked for confirmation.

“In response to your recent query,” Fallin wrote, “while I won’t discuss details of our internal decision-making processes, I will confirm SPAWAR plans no further low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR) research. There are other organizations within the federal government that are better aligned to continue research regarding nuclear power. We have taken initial steps to determine how a transition of low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR) research might occur.”

According to one of the sources, the rationale that Brady used was that LENR work was not part of SPAWAR’s mission. According to Brady, the source said, its mission is in information dominance, and energy is not part of that mission. New Energy Times read the response from Fallin to the source today.

“It’s bullshit,” the source said.

Ray Mabus, the Secretary of the Navy, says that energy is a fundamental part of the Navy’s mission. In a talk on Oct. 13, 2011, Mabus said that the Navy pioneered the use of nuclear technology for its ships and that it has continued to do pioneering energy work.

“This is what we do,” he said. “We change the way we use and produce energy, and we’re doing it again, and we’re at the cutting edge, which is where the Navy has always been on energy use.”

If Brady is thinking of moving LENR research out of SPAWAR and over to the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C., that makes little sense because NRL has had a very poor track record in LENRs.

SPAWAR has an impressive track record of more than two dozen original LENR research papers published in peer-reviewed journals. NRL has none.

Brady took command of SPAWAR Aug. 6, 2010, when Rear Admiral Michael C. Bachmann retired.

“For many years, Admiral Bachmann had been extremely supportive, scientific and open-minded about LENR research at SPAWAR,” one of the sources said.

The Bologna Facts

Brandon did not go to Bologna, Italy, to attend the Rossi demonstration. He obtained information about the Oct. 28, 2011, Rossi demonstration from Sterling Allan, who runs a Web site called Pure Energy News Service. Allen is also a sales and business associate of Rossi’s.

Brandon, citing Allen, identified researcher Paul Swanson as the SPAWAR representative who attended the Oct. 28, 2011, demonstration.

According to Fallin, Swanson did not travel to Bologna on official SPAWAR or Navy business, and he paid his travel expenses out of his own pocket.

Swanson did not attend the Oct. 28 demonstration. Rossi had claimed that this demonstration was performed so the “customer” could verify his device. Instead, Swanson attended the Oct. 6, 2011, demonstration.

In his story, Brandon also borrowed and republished a two-year-old quote from another SPAWAR LENR researcher. The quote was irrelevant to the Rossi story, but Brandon’s inclusion of it gave the misleading impression that the researcher’s work was relevant. That connection may have contributed to the commander’s decision.

One of the sources told New Energy Times today that he was concerned about the implications of this type of reaction.

“Imagine the impact on the Department of Defense if a foreign power could effectively cancel a research program by embarrassing some of its top brass,” the researcher said.

A LENR researcher who was aware of the commander’s orders wondered whether he had been influenced in part by the internal factionalism in the LENR field. The SPAWAR researchers’ reports of energetic alpha particles disprove the D+D –> 4He hypothesis.

“The commander’s reaction seems extreme, over the top,” the researcher said. “It makes me wonder.”

[March 1, 2012 Correction: We have removed “neutrons” from the statement about SPAWAR researchers’ reports.]

Several weeks ago, I received some excellent questions about low-energy nuclear reactions from an engineer and New Energy Times reader who blogs at La Mentira Esta Ahi Fuera blog in Spain.

The reader asked a logical progression of questions that began from an attempt to understand theory and what impact theory may have on LENR energy and, eventually, LENR technology. Here, I will answer his questions as he asked them.

1. Do you think the Widom-Larsen theory is plausible?

Yes, certainly. Once you have neutrons in the system, it’s simple. The key is explaining how neutrons could be created in the LENR system. For two decades, lots of people in the field knew that, if you had neutrons, the rest of the process would be a no-brainer. These people included Peter Hagelstein (MIT), Tadahiko Mizuno (Hydrogen Engineering Application and Development Corp., Yasuhiro Iwamura (Mitsubishi Heavy Industries), Stanislaw Szpak (SPAWAR Pacific), Larry A. Hull (see news clip), and Fangil Gareev (Joint Institute for Nuclear Research). Some of them speculated that virtual neutrons were involved.

But Widom and Larsen figured out how, through collective effects, real neutrons are created. They knew the neutrons were real because experimentalists observed real isotopic changes. They also knew the neutrons had to have ultra-low momentum because researchers had never observed high fluxes of neutrons emitted from the experiments. Throughout the history of the field, researchers have observed and reported small bursts of neutrons. In hindsight, with the understanding of the Widom-Larsen theory, we can easily explain these neutrons as spallation neutrons that are knocked off of neutron-rich nuclei.

I first learned about the Widom-Larsen theory from professor David Nagel in 2005. Nagel was very excited about it and told me that he thought it could explain what, until then, I had called “cold fusion.” He sent me a set of slides he made to help people understand the theory. I had been so unimpressed with “cold fusion” theories at the time that I told Nagel I wasn’t willing to spend my time learning about it. But he was very persistent. Finally, he offered to tutor me on it. He spent an hour with me on the phone.

Of course, one hour was not enough to understand so many new concepts, but it got me started. But what I did understand is that, once you had the neutrons, it changed everything. No more “miracles” or “new physics” to overcome the Coulomb barrier. This, as well as Widom and Larsen’s paper in a mainstream peer-reviewed journal, was enough to get my attention.

Once I began to see the third-party support, I got excited. This was the first time since the beginning of my investigations in 2000 that I had seen even moderately supportive comments from third parties about any LENR theory.

However, I did not anticipate that the theory would create a firestorm or that Nagel would later retract his enthusiasm for it. I don’t know what his reasoning was, but it became clear to me that, although a viable theory of LENRs was a great thing for the field, for science, and for the general public, it was not necessarily a good thing for Nagel’s friends and colleagues who had been trying to convince the world about the reality of “cold fusion” for two decades.

In retrospect, I can see that the Widom-Larsen theory represented their worst nightmare. If LENR, with the help of the Widom-Larsen theory, is accepted and goes mainstream, the big labs will take over.  The existing group of LENR researchers, most of whom are retired, probably won’t play a significant role in the next phase, but of course they will be remembered for their crucial role in bringing the field this far.

2. Do you know how the massive surface plasmon electrons are created?
3. Is the mass of the electron increased?
4. How much energy is required to create these plasmons?

I think you probably have read my articles “Widom-Larsen Theory Simplified” and “Where Does the Energy Come From in LENR?”

But, as you may have noticed, we do not get deeply into the matter of surface plasmon electrons there.

The general answer is that the massive surface plasmon electrons are created as a result of the correct physical conditions, collective effects, triggers and other key factors that exist in working LENR experiments. For a more complete and technical answer, I refer you to the paper I wrote with Joe Zawodny for the Wiley Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia.

5. Does the surface plasmon process liberate more energy than consumed?
6. Doesn’t the creation of a neutron by inverse beta decay require energy?

I have created a spreadsheet for you that provides a visual answer. I’ve appended it to the bottom of “Where Does the Energy Come From in LENR?”

7. How can gamma radiation be converted into infrared heat?

I don’t have the answer to that in my head, but I believe Larsen explains it in his U.S. patent 7,893,414, issued Feb. 22, 2011.

8. Do you know the current status of this technology?

I think it is ready to become a technology, but there is still a lot of science to learn. I don’t know too many people who really understand the mechanism. I also do not believe that anybody has mastered the required material control and nanotechnology fabrication skills. But I am very optimistic that it will happen and that we will see a LENR revolution in our lifetime.