The R.M. Santilli ‘Warm Fusion’ Claim


Here’s something that’s brand new to me (thanks to Adam Lepzcak for passing the information along) — a system known as ‘intermediate controlled nuclear fusion’. The inventor’s name is Ruggero Maria Santilli, an Italian living in Florida (!) who founded a company called Hyfuel, Inc. Santilli states that his interest in this area research is based on his observation that thunder cannot be explained by conventional chemical or mechanical processes, and that the only explanation is that it must be a nuclear fusion process.

The video below was made in 2011 and shows a demonstration by Santilli of the ‘Third Hadronic Reactor’

A paper was published on the Open Physical Chemistry Journal titled “Confirmations of Santilli’s Intermediate Controlled Nuclear Fusion of Deuterium and Carbon Into Nitrogen Without Harmful Radiations” authored by J. V. Kadeisvili, C. Lynch and Y. Yang. (Thanks, artefact) The abstract reads:

We present five independent confirmations of the intermediate controlled nuclear fusion of Nitrogen from Deuterium and Carbon without the emission of harmful radiations or the release of radioactive waste, first achieved by R. M. Santilli following extended mathematical, theoretical and experimental research, and preliminarily confirmed by R.Brenna, T. Kuliczkowski, and L.Ying.

It appears that Santilli has also created a company called Thunder Fusion Corporation which has the objective of “the development of a new clean combustion of fossil fuels (oil, diesel, coal, etc.) with controlled minimal contaminants in the exhaust”

More information about Santilli’s inventions can be found at another of Santilli’s web sites — the R.M. Santilli Foundation. Santilli’s professional experience as outlined in Wikipedia shows him as having graduating with a doctorate in physics from the University of Turin, and having done research at the University of Miami, Boston University, MIT, and having done research for NASA and the U.S. Air Force.

I have no real way to evaluate Mr. Santilli’s claims right now, all this information is new to me, but I post it here in case others are interested in exploring and commenting.




  • NT

    Impressive video and disclosure, being over two year old technology I just wonder where they are today with this technology and their turbine efficiencies. At the stated 300 º Fahrenheit steam temperature, the addition of superheated air, from the reactor, appears to ramp up the turbine considerably. Now with this “Warm Fusion Reactor” these are exciting times indeed – Santilli rocks!

  • artefact

    Santilli:
    A presentation of the third Hadronic Reactor
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qccwba7c9yg

    • artefact

      Mhh sorry, I guess the video is included in the admin post but I can’t see it with two different browsers.

  • Sanjeev

    There have been some studies of LENR happening in atmospheric lightening. Perhaps it produces neutrons and gamma rays.
    http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llcnew-russian-data-supports-wlt-neutron-production-in-lightningapril-4-2012
    There is an article about this on lenr-canr.org also. So its possible that this is some kind of lenr. Looks like Santilli is a heavyweight and has some kind of device under development. More the better.

  • jonnyb

    This guy really does look the business. From what I can see still only a COP of around 5 on his device. Think his theories, on the face of it, are mush more probable than Q.M. and Einstein’s. About time we updated these old and obviously incomplete/incorrect theories.

    • artefact

      “only a COP of around 5″ :)

      • Ivone

        Yes. A COP of 10, but preferably 11 or 12 is necessary for commercialisation.

        • Publius

          6X makes you extremely competitive in Asia where natural gas prices are comparably higher than where most of us live.

      • NT

        This was over two years ago, who knows what COP he is at now…

  • Andreas Moraitis

    My (very limited) knowledge in nuclear physics tells me that W-L theory is not to be taken into account in this case. First, there are no single protons. Secondly, even if we could pull some thermal neutrons from a hat, and 12C nuclei could capture two of them, we had to wait fairly long until the reactor gets hot, since 14C has a half-life of 5730 years.
    I don’t know if D+ could form some kind of “heavy hydrinos”. If not, hydrino theory would have to be ruled out as well.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Not D+ but D, of course. By the way: Rossi has reported that deuterium doesn’t work in his reactors, how to interprete that?

      • Andreas Moraitis

        I must correct myself again. According to Widom-Larsen theory, both protons and deuterons can be involved. But it doesn’t change much in that case. Sorry for the confusion.

  • Curbina

    Well, I have posted comments about Santilli more than once, but never catched on :). I know about him since the 2004, was one of the first new technologies that included the term “over unity” that I learnt about. I once asked DrMike (in the steorn opern forum) about Santilli, and he basically told me that Santilli was so far ahead that just a handfull of people in the world could actually understand what he talks about. He has been praised for his alternative model to Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Chemistry that is called Hadron Mechanics and Hadron Chemistry, which are regarded huighly mostly because of the mathematics that were developped to back the models, that are very powerfull to make predictions. I can’t shake from my mind that Santilli and Mills are talking about the same phenomena, as Santilli has measured his “magnehydrogen” as having densities that are a multiple of the single hydrogen density. Basically he claims that when water and/or other liquids are submitted to a strong plasma arc, the volume of dustribution of the electrons around the atoms collapses from a spherical area to a toroidal area, hence the atoms reduce their size, but also develop a new mode of attraction, which is magnetic, hence he talks about magnecular bonds, that contribute to the higher density of the new forms of hydrogen, Carbon and Oxygen. There is plenty of literature in both peer reviewed and in Santilli’s edited Hadronic Journal. He is unfortunately also at odds with a big part of academia claiming a conspiracy to keep all mew alternative models out of the formal circles, a fact that many here might be aware, but pointing it does not help very much. Santilli has been nominated to the Nobel Prize (Chemistry) more than once.

    • ecatworld

      Thanks for your perspective, Curbina. Very helpful to get the bigger picture here.

      • Curbina

        I even attempted to lease a plasma arc fuel regenerator around 2006, but they were only for sale at that moment, haven’t checked again.

    • Bertuswonkel

      Thanks for the info. Could you also explain how Santilli and Mills theories relate to LENR? This still is not clear to me. Seems to me that they just use different words to explain something we don’t understand yet.

      • Curbina

        I think that the relationship with LENR is just that two people researching hydrogen have managed to get “excess energy” far beyond what is predicted and accepted by current knowledge as it is. Also, Mills did work with Raney Nickel for a big part of his previous developments. Probably they are all working from a different perspective but the underlying phenomena is the same.

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      Very good info, thanks!

      Also yet another example of our current and broken scientific review system.

      • bachcole

        I have read articles about the belief that “cosmic rays” trigger lightning. And I have read articles about gamma rays coming from lightning.

        • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

          Quite possibly he has something. I really don’t know because I haven’t spent much time on him. With my last sentence I was referring to this:

          “He is unfortunately also at odds with a big part of academia claiming a
          conspiracy to keep all mew alternative models out of the formal
          circles, a fact that many here might be aware, but pointing it does not
          help very much”

          To me this is conformation that the current science academia is not open-minded about new or alternative models of the standard theories.

          • bachcole

            I remember in the first or second grade (1951 or 1952) when some science college students (or other) came to our class and played a film about how our solar system was formed by another star passing close by and pulling matter out of the Sun. It was presented as gospel. Kids know what adults are feeling, and I knew that they didn’t really believe that they had all of the answers and that they were unsure of what they were presenting. But they presented it as fact and with much authority.

            Scientists and medical doctors have replaced priests as the all-knowing authority figures in our society. I don’t see this as an improvement. It is merely different. They are not equipped to handle issues regarding justice, mercy, fairness, morality, forgiveness, anxiety, any subjective matter, so our subjective lives are withering. But the original priests were not equipped to handle issues regarding the external world. The two, priests and scientists, are just different.

            Perspective nimbleness, being able to see things from other people perspective, being able to change perspective when given new evidence, being able to trust people, these also are subjective matters.

            • georgehants

              bachcole, A very good synopsis, that you may think can be improved by agreeing that all the “subjective” views you have put forward are always (potentially) in error and can cause untold distress and harm.
              If it is religion or scientists or politicians that are preaching untruths then things must be improved and changed.
              Simply to except that these failings are Human Nature and do nothing, would seem a little to liberal.
              One I think, cannot find Truths by turning ones cheek to every misguided point of view.
              What needs to become part of the vocabulary of these people is the clear statement, we do not know!
              Both religion and scientists and many other areas seem to make any outrageous statements just to make out that they know, when in fact they do not have clue.
              People in general can be effected much the same, as can be seen by some reply’s on these pages.
              Such people would do well to respect Nature and learn a little humility in the face of things far beyond the knowledge of any living person.
              If one looks at religion for example then every harmless and loving, “subjective” view is fair and Wonderful, if a person chooses to worship a jungle log, then that log is as important as any other worshipped thing in any religion.
              That is “subjective”, but if that “subjective thinking leads to people being killed because they disagree with that “subjective” view, then it can be seen that the “subjective” can be used for great evil.
              Only the Truth can be a base from which to build a caring society, tolerant of all “subjective” views that are harmless, but also divisive if not understood that they hold on there own no positive Truth.

              • bachcole

                I agree 100%. I was just thinking recently while trying to actually understand the difference between the Bohr atom and the Mills atom, that if people were a little more philosophical, i.e. a little more detached from their own thinking and able to look at their own thinking, that they might notice that we don’t actually experience the atom directly. No matter how often the Bohr (or Mills) atom is confirmed, we don’t pick it up and hold it and smell it and bounce it. We may not understand gravity, but we living in it and interact with it all day long, 16/7. Our experience of the atom is NOT direct and is likely to NEVER be direct. But the skeptopathic physicists don’t seem to understand this. They may be experts at running quadratic equations in their heads, but they are philosophical retards. They don’t seem to understand that they are experiencing the atom by experiencing something that interacts with something else that interacts with something else that all fits nicely into a mathematical model. It only proves that the Bohr model works; it does not prove what is actually there. Sort of like reading Braille with boxing gloves on.

        • Chris I

          There is no doubt cosmic rays could have a role, at least in part, in the triggering of lightning bolts, although surely it wouldn’t be the whole picture because lightning is a very complicated phenomenon. Yet there is no doubt that, by leaving a trail of ionization, cosimc rays can cause electric discharge where there already is an electric field (as when the thunder cloud becomes negatively charged).

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpW08xV3RI8

          I’ve occasionally seen such contraptions working, as demonstrations set up by the physics dep’t where I graduated.

          • bachcole

            Thank you. That is exactly what I meant. The article said that the existing electric fields were not strong enough to start the cascade, so they thought that it was “cosmic rays” triggering the cascade.

            Another very strange but interesting aspect from another article was that something, gamma rays I think, would build up before the discharge, as much as a couple of minutes before, and peak just about 1 second before the discharge, and then they would go back to zero. I may have even found that link here at ecatworld.com. It was a Japanese study I believe.

  • Chris I

    What’s that Santilli says? Thunder has long been considered well explained. Even if it gets confirmed and accepted that some nuclear process occurs in voltaic arcs, I doubt it being so highly relevant to the energy balance in known cases of the phenomenon.

    The acoustic effect of arcs has long been exploited for the geekiest audiophiles in plasma speakers.