AP Reports on U of Missouri Cold Fusion Program

I haven’t yet seen the Associated Press publish anything about the recent cold fusion revival, so I was a little surprised to find an article from the AP about research the University of Missouri’s Sidney Kimmel Institute for Nuclear Renaissance.

The article, titled “MU professor revisits decades-old fusion project” has been published on the Kansas City Star’s web site and focuses on the work of Mark Prelas who is picking up on cold fusion experimentation that he abandoned in 1991 when he lost funding.

Few details are provided about the experimental setup, but the article does talk about results Prelas obtained.

In the original experiment, the team created an emitted neutron-recording device and expected to count about 10 neutrons a second. The card’s storage was used up in less than one-hundredth of a second. Then, the team used a counter with the capacity to track up to 1 million neutrons and timed it again. They reached a million neutrons in a second.

“This was incredible to us,” Prelas said in an email. “The neutron production went on for five minutes and then I decided to put the device back into liquid nitrogen to shut the reaction down. We thermal shocked the device two more times and each time we produced large neutron bursts.”

Prelas’ research will now be able to continue thanks to funding provided the University of Missouri by the Sidney Kimmel foundation. Next summer the university will host the 18th International Conference on Cold Fusion where I would expect this research, and other projects carried out at the Kimmel Institute to be highlighted. Maybe the AP will be there!

  • freethinker

    I find the reaction to this news is diverse. Some are very enthusiastic, some more cautioius. To me this is the very worst kind of information if pushed by MSM. Like have been said in this forum by others, if this is something that is branded “dangerous” by authorities, it may halt lenr in its tracks – again.

    Checking the background of Prelas in LinkedIn, is viewing the CV of a distinguished career, no doubt.
    As such he would be an amazing asset to lenr research.

    I can’t help asking myself some questions.
    1. Has any of his finding from 1989 in any way been published, or otherwise documentation (data, etc) been archived?
    2. Has anybody else in the Lenr community published any data even remotely close to neutron counts like this?
    3. What has he done lately in Lenr?

    I note from he CV he is a government guy. Two years at a homeland security project (EPA) when adjunct professor at M.
    Not that it would be a problem by itself, but it still makes me wonder, by whom and why P&F were stopped in 1989 really.

    Is he a blessing, or is he the big bad wolf?

    Can anybody help straighen my angst out?

    • Omega Z

      freethinker

      He would be a blessing.
      His Boss at the time cut off his funding even after being informed of his results.

  • captain

    from ROSSI’S JONP

    Pekka Janhunen
    October 31st, 2012 at 12:45 PM

    Dear Andrea,
    Has some customer plant already been run for full 6 months and then have its powder changed, so that the same reactor has continued to run with new powder? If so, did the powder change operation go well?
    regards, /pekka

    Andrea Rossi
    October 31st, 2012 at 12:49 PM

    Dear Pekka Janhunen:
    Yes and yes,
    Warm Regardsm
    A.R.

    Hi Frank, this too is waiting for mod.n?
    Why?

  • http://www.synergetx-hp.nl SynergetX-HP .nl

    Also note that the referred to expiriment(s) communicates a neutron burst when the reactor is shockcooled.
    This could indicate that the effect the shockcooling has on the lattice is a case for coulombbarrier overcoming force due to hydrogen (of it’s resultant) being squeezed to migrate.
    Perhaps the neutron emitting effect comes more from the inner part of (nano)particles and the softer less (ionizing)radiant effects come from (near)the surface part?

    • Peter_Roe

      Both your suggestions seem reasonable to me, i.e., that sudden distortions of the lattice may provide localised forces that might overcome Coulomb repulsion, resulting in complex fusion-fission events, and that some other more benign processes may take place nearer the surface of the lattice, probably within lattice imperfections.

      Shock cooling would probably have a similar effect on a metal lattice as violent physical forces (Carpinteri) and magnetostriction (GEC) and possibly electrostriction, all of which seem to result in neutron production.

  • Andrew Macleod

    Proof and evidence keeps coming in from legitimate sources, good news. Hopefully the snowball keeps rolling and Rossi produces some ironclad or should I say nickel-clad eveidence of his own.

    • Jarvis Cooper

      “Nickel-clad” very funny lol.

    • http://www.american-reporter.com Joe Shea

      The AP has been partly responsible for suppressing progress in cold fusion, and to read this article you’d think research was only taking place at MU. Robert Duncan knows better, because “60” minutes flew him to Israel to see devices there in operation (that technology has been relocated to MU). The AP didn’t mention, for instance, that thje US Patent Office granted a patent for a cold fusion device a few months ago to U. of Ill. Prof. George Miley, a pioneer in this field. Andrea Rossi in Miami at Leonardo Corp. just started selling cold fusion industrial-sized 1MW reactors in Italy, and Robert Godes of Brillouin Energy and Randell Mills of BlackLight Power both seem like they are on the very of offering commercial cold fusion technology. Even high school students at IIS Pirelli high school in Rome have demonstrated a owrking cold fusion device, and Dr. Peter Hagelstein with Dr. Mitchell Swartz of JET Energy have been demonstrating a working cold fusion device in Bldg. 36 at MIT since January. The AP, as usual, is the last to report the news, follolwing on the heels of substantial reports in Forbes Magazine by Mark Gibbs, and other in WIRED’s UK edition, Fox News, MSNBC, Scientific American, US News & World Report, Business Week and scores of smaller publications like The American Reporter, which features a novella about deployment of the work and regular coverage of the technology.

      • GreenWin

        Yes, Joe, AP has proven to be little more than a tool of nervous PTB. I’m still waiting for their explanation of why they refused to publish coverage of October 28th ecat demo. AP = Antique Press.

        • Rockyspoon

          Or “Antiquated Press”. They’re slow or non-existent on a lot of subjects.

  • http://www.synergetx-hp.nl SynergetX-HP.nl

    Also note that the referred to expiriment(s) communicates a neutron burst when the reactor is shockcooled.
    This could indicate that the effect the shockcooling has on the lattice is a case for coulombbarrier overcoming force due to hydrogen (of it’s resultant) being squeezed to migrate.
    Perhaps the neutron emitting effect comes more from the inner part of (nano)particles and the softer less (ionizing)radiant effects come from (near)the surface part?

    • GreenWin

      Shock, by cooling or other energetic stimulus could cause proton energy to suddenly expand in a relativistic way. Such expansion de-coheres the nuclear charge (does not decrease it) by spreading it toward its incoherent potential – like an electron’s superposition. The sudden decoherence eliminates the Coulomb barrier long enough for fusion with a nearby H atom, which proceeds normally as the shock decays and proton returns to a coherent state.

  • Karl

    This was obviously presented in Korea according to an article in Columbia Tribune (http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2012/oct/28/professor-revisits-fusion-work-from-two-decades/):

    “Prelas — who presented his findings at the 17th International Conference on Cold Fusion in Korea in August — has theories but doesn’t know yet exactly what’s causing the presence of the neutrons. He’s now testing various types of titanium to identify the metallurgical properties in which this neutron production phenomenon occurs.”

    Strange that Cold Fusion researchers virtually haven’t detected radiation of neutrons at least outside of the metal-lattice used? Thus, in spite of the low gamma radiation – I have read it.

    • Karl

      Anyone, what could be the conclusion? Are the article trying to say that is its working but it radiates dangerous neutrons? In such a case on the contrary to what Rossi et al have confirmed, using another method, metal and gas.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Did he see any tritium?

        • robiD

          No, they didn’t (in statistically significant quantity):
          http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/PrelasMAneutronemi.pdf

          Anyway it seems to me that there are, somehow, analogies with the piezo-nuclear work made by Carpinteri. Obviously the setup, the materials and the approach is completely different, but the shock caused in the lattice by the sudden temperature variation remember the shock caused by the Carpinteri’s mechanical press. In both cases they measured neutrons burst.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            Thanks robiD. So, it doesn’t look like d + d > t + p
            It’s probably not the following but I thought I’d crunch the numbers for neutrons from d-Ti reactions anyway.

            H(2) + Ti(46) > V(47) + n 2.9 MeV

            H(2) + Ti(47) > V(48) + n 4.6 MeV

            H(2) + Ti(48) > V(49) + n 4.5 MeV

            H(2) + Ti(49) > V(50) + n 5.7 MeV

            H(2) + Ti(50) > V(51) + n 5.8 MeV

            • http://www.electric-sailing.fi Pekka Janhunen

              Million neutrons per second is still less than a microwatt. It’s possible that neutron production is in the energetic sense only a side reaction compared to heat production, even in this case.

              As is well known, reactions with two output particles (such as you listed, e.g.) would be easier to understand than p+Ni->Cu, for example, because they need not emit radiation to conserve energy and momentum, and they can have larger cross sections because only the efficient strong interaction is involved. But if this would be the case, one would expect deuterium to react stronger than protium and to emit neutrons at a prodigious (lethal) rate. That this doesn’t happen and instead Ni+p reacts strongly, might suggest that perhaps something more exotic is going on, e.g. there might be effectively more than one input hydrogen nuclei, such as p+p+Ni->Cu+p.

              • Alan DeAngelis

                Good point. Would most of the energy be transferred to the ejected proton?

                p+p+Ni(58)>Cu(59)+p 3.4 MeV

                p+p+Ni(60)>Cu(61)+p 4.8 MeV

                p+p+Ni(61)>Cu(62)+p 5.9 MeV

                p+p+Ni(62)>Cu(63)+p 6.1 MeV

                p+p+Ni(64)>Cu(65)+p 7.5 MeV

                If so, could they be detected (maybe with CR-39 plastic)?
                PS John Hadjichristos said that Ni(61) doesn’t undergo a LENR.

                I’m using up a lot of space. So, I’ll shut up after this.

                • Ged

                  No, no need to shut up! This is a very great discussion, and I, for one, thank you for your contributions.

      • Omega Z

        Rossi has noted neutrons at Very high COP. Thus his limiting the COP.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Fantastic! Is Mark Prelas using the same type of setup that F&P originally used?

    • Alan DeAngelis

      PS
      Got my answer. It’s deuterium in titanium.

      • Ged

        We had expected titanium to work, based on its lattice sizes and orientation; really cool to see that baring out.

  • Sandy

    Last week I came to the conclusion that LENR technology has been deliberately suppressed. The comments below indicate to me that more and more people are coming to the same conclusion.

    Clearly, the powers that be have been swindling us for more than two decades. They have extracted hundreds of billions of dollars from us by keeping us addicted to their oil and gas and coal. They are pure evil.

    • Omega Z

      Sandy

      Trillions.

  • Peter_Roe

    ?

    • Methusela

      That’s a good question.

  • clovis

    Hey, guys,
    To me, this is the big news,

    Omega Z on November 4, 2012 at 9:09 am
    Another interesting post.

    Paul, November 3rd, 2012 at 8:24 PM

    Andrea, In previous discussions you have expressed an interest in high energy photon direct conversion by means of a photo electric cell similar to the one described in expired U.S. patent 4178524.
    Have you made any progress in this regard? Paul

    Andrea Rossi November 3rd, 2012 at 10:26 PM

    Dear Paul:
    We have a team who is working specifically on this issue. Yes, we made progress, even if we are not ready with a working prototype, bu we have obtained a direct current someway. Much work to do. Honestly, we started from an idea of yours that I read on a paper you sent me.
    Warm Regards, A.R.

    actually, this was my thought as well but paul put it to Mr. rossi better than i,ever could, with a white paper and all,
    But still this is where the E-cat is headed, now do you see why i say that Dr. Rossi is leading the field, –smile.

    • clovis

      BTw, Frank.
      Your post was great news as well, I thought that University of Missour had been working on lenr for some time now, do they not have an lenr project all ready running?

      • Omega Z

        Clovis

        They have an ongoing project run by Professor Duncan that is funded by the Kimmel Institute. Started about a year ago. Mark Prelas is working under Kimmel’s funding.

  • http://www.synergetx-hp.nl SynergetX-HP

    This might change the perception of the danger nature of LENR.

    Up untill now the focus has been lying on the miracules lack of dangerous radiation, which would make it also easily usable from domestic use.
    When there is danger found in the production of harmfull radiation the usage might be limited to a industial one only where skilled personal run the reactors in safety controlled environment.
    This would not stop the implementation of LENR based eneryproducion, and so the energy problem for the moment can be solved nevertheless, although it will take a bit longer before it is going to be used in domestic environment.
    One could estimate that the proof of neutron production under certain process circumstances would boost alround acceptance toward LENR by the science community since the lack of radiation is what they have been whining about to accept the phenomena as real,

    • Peter_Roe

      I agree that intense neutron emission (also claimed by GEC in connection with their GeNiE reactor – a microwave driven deuterium-palladium CF system) could be used by those who would like to see CF contained within state monopolies to generate ‘safety issues’, and I think there is a good chance that this will in fact be the method used by TPTB to assume control in the near future. The alternative – an ‘accident’ in a pilot plant – could be seen as a bit obvious, but remains a possibility.

      http://www.globalenergycorporation.net/Tech.aspx

    • Robert Mockan

      Suggesting there are neutrons without irrefutable proof may have the opposite effect for acceptance. Controversy about neutrons has happened many times before, going back to when Rutherford described his ‘neutral doublet’ hypothesis, or neutron, in 1920. (The actual discovery, and confirmation, of the particle, did not happen until Chadwick in 1932).

      Here is an interesting article about the subject.

      http://www.i-b-r.org/NeutronSynthesisNCA-I.pdf

      Before Borghi in teh 60s there was Sternglass in the 50s. A lot more recent experiments also.

    • Pedro

      Safety is a great excuse to surpress a new technology. For example, if microwave ovens would have been a thread for big vested interests, they would certainly have surpressed that technology ounder the pretext of “dangereous radiation”. This could very well be what is going to happen to LENR. No LENR in homes until the safety issues are fully understood. This could give the current energy producers a 10 or 20 year window to transfer their power plants to LENR.
      I guess, currently, nuclear power plants are a monopoly of energy companies… No privat company is allowed to run a nuclear reactor just to generate its own energy.. Maybe the same is going to happen to LENR… Because of safety reasons, LENR will become the monopoly of large energy companies? Or am I to pessimistic?

  • georgehants

    I read the above report and come to the conclusion that I must be living in some kind of crazy altered reality.
    They describe the results of experiments and go on to say that the research WAS ABANDONED.
    Would somebody pinch me hard to bring be back to some kind of normality, where science is not run by completely incompetent twerps with an apparent I.Q. that would be shamed by a glass of cold water.

    • Peter_Roe

      George

      I think the department administrators knew exactly what they were doing when they cut off Prof. Prelas’ funding for his CF experiments. This is just straightforward suppression rather than stupidity.

      According to LinkedIn he seems to have gone to Australia immediately after this episode, then returned to the US and risen to a height (Professor and Director of Research, Nuclear Science and Engineering Institute (NSEI) at U. of Missouri) where he can probably do more or less what he wants. Lets hope that as Associate Editor for International Scientific Journal for Alternative Energy and Ecology that we might see him publish his work on cold fusion.

      http://www.linkedin.com/in/markprelas

    • Peter_Roe

      The irony is that he now probably occupies the same position in the U of M as the individual who hacked off his funding in 1991, and may even have replaced his erstwhile nemesis!

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      I smell the strong odor of oil and gas and big money.

      • http://www.lenrforum.eu Alain

        no need of oil, not even of money (will came later, do you know that SAIPEM is interested by e-cat).

        Stupidity, comfort, selfishness, ambition, fear, fear of change, is much more efficient that long term greed…

        It is more comfortable to deny than to accept and oppose.

  • Voodoo

    Dear LENR believers, I am too LENR believer and I have neverending problems understand some business logic etc.

    I need help from you to understand WHY official licensed distributors in such big and important country as Germany is refusing show on his own business webpage his distributed planet breakthrough product 1MW Low-Temp E-Cat ?

    Dobler Heiztechnik http://www.dobler-heiztechnik.de/

    Folks I am analysing companies and R&D only last 39 years, I urgently need your professional advice/help.

    • Peter_Roe

      The official site of the German licensee consortium is http://www.ecat-deutschland.org run rather amateurishly by Gerd Neumann. The site you link to is Dobler’s retail site for home heating and water treatment, and you would not expect anything about e-cat to appear there.

      I’m pretty certain that you are aware of these facts and are using the pretense of having difficulty understanding things to make the usual skeptic points. If you are not a troll, please stop behaving like one.

      • Jim

        Concur. Supplicating attitude, open ended question, no suggested answers or explanations, “39 years”…much trollsign.

      • Max S

        Wrong. The used car dealer Mrs Stechl also has a ecat distributor website, not only Neumann.
        link : http://ecat-vertrieb.de/index.html, Interestingly Stechl shows different specs for the same device.
        Neuman himself clearly stated he is only one of the distribution participants. He also does not claim he is the official German ecat site. So it does not seem like Neumann site is the official one.
        Peter, although the crowd seems to enjoy it, there is absolutely no need to offend people who ask questions.It does not make your arguments more credible, especially when the information you give is wrong.

        • GreenWin

          Max, here we are quite aware of disingenuous commentary cloaked as a “concern” post. In the blog world these [immature] comments are those of a “concern troll.” A troll purporting to express deep concern whilst heaping his doodoo on the subject. Peter offended no one, instead in an overly polite way asked the voodooman to quit behaving like an infant.

  • Jorge

    A nuclear renaissance indeed. It’s good to see a University picking this up. It will help give more legitimacy to the Cold Fusion field.
    J

  • Gérard2012

    I put the champagne in the fridge!!!

    • Peter_Roe

      I drank my bubbly (sadly not champagne) when the hot cat data was published. I had to buy another so I have something ready for the next landmark.