My mentor and predecessor in the reporting of low-energy nuclear reactions and cold fusion history, Gene Mallove, was murdered eight years ago. A judge in Connecticut is making plans for the trial soon.
Greg Smith of the Norwich Bulletin has been covering the story for eight years. Click here for his latest.
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.
The best experimental evidence and the clearest theory for low-energy nuclear reactions suggest that the physical mechanisms for LENRs are not a simple single-step process, but rather a network comprising a variety of possible reaction pathways.
On Jan. 12, 2012, we published “Where Does the Energy Come From in LENR?” which gives a general introduction to our understanding of the reaction mechanisms.
We have recently added the following table of one set of possible reaction pathways to that article. It provides a more detailed accounting of the steps and energy gains or losses in each step.
[Update, Feb. 24, 2012: This set of reaction pathways was based on the SRI International replication of the Case deuterium gas experiment. The energy cost of 0.78 MeV is for creating the heavy electron which then reacts, depending on the experiment, with either hydrogen or deuterium to make one or two neutrons and a neutrino. If it reacts with a proton, the effective cost is 0.78 MeV per neutron. If it reacts with a deuteron, you get two neutrons for the price of one; 0.39 MeV per neutron.]
| Feb. 11, 2012 |
| University of Missouri Gets $5.5 Million for LENR |
| The Columbia Daily Tribune reported that Sidney Kimmel, the philanthropist who funded Energetics Technologies, donated $5.5 million to the University. |
| Feb. 12, 2012 |
| Vice Chancellor Duncan to Purchase Two Energy Catalyzers |
| The Columbia Daily Tribune reported that Rob Duncan, vice chancellor for research at the University of Missouri, intended to purchase two of Andrea Rossi’s Energy Catalyzers. |
| Feb. 12, 2012 |
| Rossi’s Australian Investment Opportunity Falls Through |
| Solihin Millin, from Australia, asked potential investors for money to acquire the Australian rights to Rossi’s Energy Catalyzer device. One of the potential investors was Dick Smith, a successful Australian businessman and philanthropist. Millin asked him for AUS$200,000. Smith said no. Millin sent an e-mail to Smith and threatened to sue Smith for “damages” of AUS$100 million if Smith didn’t give him AUS$200,000 by the next day. |
| Feb. 14, 2012 |
| Smith Offers $1 Million Prize for Successful E-Cat Demo |
| Dick Smith, an Australian businessman, offered to pay Andrea Rossi $1 million for a successful test of his Energy Catalyzer. Rossi declined Smith’s offer. Rossi gave Smith a counteroffer: Smith can purchase an E-Cat. Only problem: They are not available for delivery yet. |
| Feb. 15, 2012 |
| Rossi: No Need for $1 Million; Just Send $131,000 |
| New Energy Times published an invoice from Rossi’s Florida-based corporation. Rossi sent the invoice to a potential investor in Australia. For $131,000, the investor could get “the exclusive commercial license” for the Energy Catalyzers, which Rossi did not yet have on the market. |
| Feb. 16, 2012 |
| Rossi States His $131,000 Invoice Is “Unvalid” |
| Rossi confirmed that the invoice he sent to Millin was real but that it was canceled for nonpayment. Rossi also claimed that he licensed Energy Catalyzers to people in “practically all the world’s territories.” If this were true and if the licensing process were similar to the one shown here, then Rossi took money from people in “practically all the world’s territories” for a product that he did not have. |
| Feb. 16, 2012 |
| Leonardo Corporation Buys E-Cat Rights From Rossi’s Wife |
| New Energy Times reported that Florida-based Leonardo Corporation, owned by Rossi and his wife, Maddalena Pascucci, purchased the rights to Rossi’s Energy Catalyzer device. The rights had been owned by Pascucci, and according to a document filed with the European Patent Office, Pascucci paid the Leonardo Corporation €10,000 for the rights. |
| Feb. 17, 2012 |
| Rossi E-Cat Never Delivered to Customer; Needs Gaskets |
|
The E-Cat, which was supposed to be ready for public sale and delivery in October 2011 and which Rossi claimed was sold and delivered to his first, unidentified customer, was never shipped. The reason: leaky gaskets. A document signed by the customer’s representative, accepting delivery, was typed in advance. |
| Feb. 18, 2012 |
| Rossi Blames E-Cat Delivery Discrepancy on Translation Error |
| New Energy Times learned from readers that Rossi had, in fact, told his fans that he had shipped the 1 MW E-Cat. According to Rossi, the discrepancy was the result of a “translation error” that caused him to think that the big blue box was not in his garage but at the customer’s site. |
| Feb. 18, 2012 |
| National Instruments Denies Relationship With Rossi |
|
National Instruments denied having any business relationship with Andrea Rossi. Rossi fans got their hopes up about the credibility of the E-Cat when he said several months ago that National Instruments was working with him. According to Rossi, his October 2011 customer had purchased the 1 MW E-Cat nuclear plant before it had all the control systems installed. In related news, Missouri University’s Duncan said that, after a closer look, the university “decided not to pursue an E-Cat purchase.” |
National Instruments, a company that manufactures technical test equipment and software, today denied having any business relationship with Andrea Rossi, the inventor of the “Energy Catalyzer.”
Several weeks ago, Rossi wrote that National Instruments was working with him on his 1MW E-Cat.
Earlier today, we reported that two days after the Oct. 28, 2011, inaugural demonstration of his 1MW E-Cat plant, Rossi told his fans that he had delivered his first commercial product to his first customer.
Yesterday, we reported that Rossi never delivered his “1 megawatt E-Cat” to his unidentified customer and that it remains in his garage.
We also reported that, on Jan. 12, 2012, Rossi showed a promotional video revealing that the big blue box hadn’t moved.
We reported earlier today that Rossi explained the discrepancy to his fans as a “translation” misunderstanding.
Rossi has given two reasons why the big blue box remains in his garage. The first is faulty gaskets. The second is that he made a joint decision with National Instruments to make all the control systems for the big blue box with the 50 nuclear reactors in his garage rather than at the customer’s site.
Apparently, his customer had purchased the 1 MW E-Cat nuclear plant before it had all the control systems.
“We decided together with the customer and National Instruments to make all the control systems and all the fixings of the gaskets in our factory in Bologna, instead of the customer’s place,” Rossi wrote. “The delivery will be made within one or maximum two months, when all of the works will have been completed.”
Today, an author who is working on a book about Rossi contacted Julia Betts, the corporate communications and investor relations manager for National Instruments, to inquire about its relationship with Rossi.
According to e-mails the author received from Betts, National Instruments is not working with Rossi.
“Leonardo Corporation/Andrea Rossi is currently not a customer, partner or distributor of National Instruments,” Betts wrote.
The author sent Betts another e-mail asking about a variety of possible relationships her company might have with Rossi or his company.
“Per our previous [news release] from November,” Betts wrote, “we were only in discussions with the Leonardo Corporation regarding the use of National Instruments’ engineering tools. Currently, Leonardo Corporation/Andrea Rossi is not a customer of National Instruments.”
The author retraced his steps to learn how he had become confused. On Nov. 14, 2011, he had seen the news release from National Instruments that mentioned Rossi.
“National Instruments has contributed product solutions to some of the most advanced projects including the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC) and tokomak fusion device control systems,” the release stated. “Additionally, the Leonardo Corporation has intentions to incorporate National Instruments tools in its control system.”
The author had also seen a news report about National Instruments on one of the 80, mostly anonymous, E-Cat promotional Web sites. The Web site said that Sterling Allan, an E-Cat blogger who is also a business associate of Rossi’s, stated that National Instruments was working with Rossi.
“Stefano Concezzi, the director of National Instruments’ Science and Big Physics Segment, also revealed to Allan of PESN … that National Instruments is indeed working together with Leonardo Corporation in the development of the much awaited E-Cat,” the Web site reported.
Allen recently told New Energy Times that he is a sales agent for Rossi. Allen also told New Energy Times that Rossi had offered to pay for Allen’s work on Rossi’s Web site.
On June 14, 2011, Steven B. Krivit, editor of New Energy Times, met Rossi, saw his device, and began asking scientific questions.
On June 16, 2011, New Energy Times published “Preliminary Report of Interviews with E-Cat Trio Rossi, Focardi and Levi.”
On July 30, 2011, New Energy Times published “Report #3: Scientific Analysis of Rossi, Focardi and Levi Claims.” The 200-page report included scientific and engineering analyses from 20 independent experts.
On Aug. 7, 2011, New Energy Times condensed “Report #3” into two pages: “Rossi’s Scientific Failure in Seven Steps.”
On Aug. 28, 2011, New Energy Times distilled “Seven Steps” into the following two paragraphs:
In a seven-month period, the Rossi group sought credibility for its claim of extraordinary levels of excess heat through scientific and academic validation. In seven public attempts, the group tried to demonstrate convincing experimental evidence for its claims.
In all attempts, the group failed. It has no experimental evidence on which to base its extraordinary energy claim. It never did.
Rossi responded on his blog that the marketplace will be his judge.
“In any case, we will start our 1 MW plant in October, and we will see how it works,” Rossi wrote. “Of course, I assure [readers that Krivit’s] considerations are invalid, but I want to say more: Our products on the market will confirm this.”
According to Rossi, his product was “on the market” in October, 2011. But on Feb. 14, 2012, Rossi clarified that “on the market” does not mean “available for delivery;” not even for a million dollars. Today, Rossi said on his blog that deliveries will surely start within 12 to 18 months.
“In Autumn, we will surely send the detailed offers to all the ‘horde’ of pre-orderers,” Rossi wrote. “The deliveries will start hopefully within the next winter, surely within 18 months.”
A week ago, Rob Duncan, vice chancellor for research and a professor of physics at the University of Missouri, announced to a general audience at the university’s Saturday Science series that he intended to purchase two of Rossi E-Cats, according to the Columbia Tribune.
Today, the author contacted Duncan by e-mail and asked him about his purchase plans.
“I took a closer look at this,” Duncan wrote, “and we have decided not to pursue an E-Cat purchase at this time, but we will be very interested to track how this progresses.”
**************************************************
Background Facts on LENRs
Steven B. Krivit’s LENR Publications and Presentations
**************************************************
[Feb. 21, 2012 Correction: We wrote “Allen recently told New Energy Times that he is a sales agent for Rossi. Allen also told New Energy Times that Rossi had offered to pay for news stories on Allen’s Pure Energy News Service.” We have corrected the sentence to read “Allen recently told New Energy Times that he is a sales agent for Rossi. Allen also told New Energy Times that Rossi had offered to pay for Allen’s work on Rossi’s Web site .” We apologize for the error.]
| © 2025 newenergytimes.net |
