Russian Nuclear Physicist Vitaly Uzikov on the E-Cat: ‘The Train has Left’

Many thanks to Gerard McEk for posting this in the Always On thread

A very interesting development I found on Andrea Rossi’s blog:

DTravchenko
November 8th, 2014 at 10:07 AM
Dr Andrea Rossi:

Did you see the article on Proatom written by Dr Vitaly Uzikov?

http://www.proatom.ru/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5595

This is a peer reviewed nuclear physics magazine and Dr Uzikov is a preminent figure of the Russian Nuclear Physics world. Congratulations to the Professors of the ITP, this is an important endorsement from the mainstream Russian scientific environment. If you come in Russia you will find friends of much higher level than you can even imagine.

From Russia, with love and with the regular Warm Regards,

D. Travchenko

Andrea Rossi
November 8th, 2014 at 10:33 AM
D. Travchenko:

This paper is becoming viral and I am very honoured of what you say:
yes, I agree totally with you in regard of the inportance of this
publication.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

As you can read an important nuclear site published a (positive) plea to take attention to the Ecat. I Google translated the article, which is obviously in Russian, but the quality was not very good. I hope it will be better in English.

Below is a translation (via Google with edits by Frank Acland) of the article.

A Brief History of New Nuclear Energy Andrea Rossi

V.A. Uzikov, engineer-technologist, NIIAR

A second report on the results of a long-term test of the “hot E-CAT (Energy Catalyzer)” invented by Andrea Rossi was published Oct. 8, 2014, and caused some shock to those who follow this “saga of cold fusion,” but especially to the detractors of Rossi. Why specifically? Yes, for a simple reason – this 53-page scientific report is not easy to refute and rebut, but oh, how I want to ….

Earlier, for almost 4 years detractors managed to do it casually, beautifully and impressivelyy. It was enough to say the magic word “fake”, and the problem with the discussion of the generation of energy in the strange nickel-hydrogen systems could be removed without any effort.

It is worth recalling some of the basic steps of this “saga” about E-CAT … On January 14, 2011 there was a demonstration of a new energy device in Bologna with online translation. Here we first heard the names of Andrea Rossi and Sergio Focardi. Rossi is an engineer and Focardi a Professor of Physics at the University of Bologna … The Focardi demonstration was successful, and simple thermal calculations confirmed that the input energy is several times less than that spent on heating water flowing from the reactor [1] .

First, it seemed that the key figure in the creation of this wonderful reactor was a professor, but then it turned out that it was just the opposite. Those who want to quickly refute the demonstrations phenomenon exhaled with relief. All the same tezhelo and dangerous rogue called Professor prestigious Bologna universiteta (and even the former dean of the Physics Department) and with a long list of scientific achievements, and the engineer Rossi no such problem exists. Therefore, “the highest academic authorities”, such as the chairman of the “Committees on pseudoscience” in Alexandria, only deigning to provide short comments declaring Andrea Rossi a pseudoscientist [2] .

With this background, almost unnoticed, a 1-megawatt installation on 28 October 2011 passed acceptance testing; it worked for 6 hours without electricity input [3] (although at only half of the declared capacity – “only” 480 kW). The world’s media has successfully ignored this event, except for several articles (for example, in “Forbes”), which provide a fair share amount of skepticism. It should be noted that there were even Nobel laureates, who called to treat reactor Rossi seriously, but soon these were declared crazy old men and the problem is also closed ..

A further table even easier -privivka of curiosity (one of which was the fate of injections sad invention Fleischmann and Pons) gradually began to act. In addition, the constant comparison of Andrea Rossi with a mad inventor, “perpetual motion”, and other strange persons did not allow all these years to help separate the wheat from the chaff, and the people, hearing about E-CAT, already accustomed to waving his hand – “Heard ! Yes they are crooks! “.

And hardly noticeable event in the information field has passed presentation of “hot E-CAT”, even though a photo was published of a red-hot device. There was a surge of emotion at a reviving E-Cat was observed only after the publication of the report of the May [2013] [4] of short-term trials of a “hot E-Cat” by a group of Swedish and Italian scientists who conducted the test without Andrea Rossi, but after a brief confusion opponents quickly recovered and posted a heap of claims about this report. They did not dare declare these very respected scientists to be rogues, but presented the matter as the magician Rossi cheating by luring these scientists onto his territory, and catching them in his trap, as they did not notice hidden wires, some radiators and so on.

Not directly accusing scientists of fraud, they, nevertheless, were accused of incompetence, with the inability to perform an experiment, and the main argument was that Rossi provided them with “black box” magic, which is not allowed to be looked into, and if so, this is the usual illusion. And all was quiet again for a whole year, until the spring of 2014. And in the spring there were reports that already held a new, long-term experiment with E-CAT. And this time all claims debunkers were considered bitter experience of scientists fully: testing device was carried out on the territory of experts, during the entire time of the experiment (32 days) round-the-clock surveillance of all parameters was carried out, as well as video surveillance, with all data permanently recorded by recording equipment.

The condition of the pilot testing was only one – A. Rossi would have no effect on the course of the experiment, and experts would publish the results whatever they may be – positive or negative. In the following months after the experiment, interested supporters and opponents Rossi looked forward to the results, constantly asked him about it, but Rossi’s response was always the same – I have no idea about the results, I only know one thing – they will be published, positive or negative.

And then, finally, on 8 October 2014, on Internet sites like e-catworld.com appeared the long-awaited report. And this report met expectations Rossi supporters, and probably plunged into deep gloom of his opponents. The report results were surprising indeed even his supporters. The most stunning result was not even that 1 gram of nickel with natural isotopic abundance – and 0.011 grams of lithium 7 for 32 days produced 1.5 MWh of thermal energy (by this, many were ready on previous tests), but the radically changed the isotopic composition of nickel and lithium before and after the experiment (see Table). By the way, shutting the reactor off after 32 days was agreed beforehand, and at the time of shutdown of the reactor, it showed no signs of reducing the power output.

Table – The measured distribution of the isotopes of Li and Ni in the source and spent fuel, as well as the natural distribution of isotopes :
proatomtable

The explosive strength of this table is that only a madman would further argue that in the E-CAT is a lack of response at the level of the nuclei. And here it is worth recalling, in early 2014, the current head of the RAS Forts said [5] : “I am a staunch supporter of that pseudoscience – a very dangerous thing – said fort. – … The theme requires constant attention. I recently received in the mail a hefty parcel. Opened – and there of a conference on cold fusion.”

He should have kept quiet, because sooner or later, when already clear evidence of the existence of low-energy nuclear reactions, gentlemen academicians have to report, what it is, after all, they were doing all these years, digging in an empty project, millions and billions of people’s money. Of course, you can string up again and declare that all the scientists who participated in the experiment for testing, purchased cheater Rossi, and the results are forged, but too late – the train has already left.

The next day after the publication of the report, October 9 2014, CEO of Elforsk (Swedish institute engaged in research in the field of energy) Magnus Olofsson wrote an article [6] in response to the report of the test E-Cat. Here are some of the key points that he highlights:

– Changes in the isotopic composition of the analyzed fuel shows that nuclear reactions take place at low temperatures. This suggests that we may be facing a new method of extracting nuclear energy. It is possible to obtain energy without ionizing radiation and radioactive waste. The discovery may eventually become very important for the global energy industry;

– If it is now possible to receive and safely control these nuclear reactions, it is likely to eventually happen fundamental transformation of our energy system. This could open up opportunities for decentralized power generation and thermal energy can be obtained from relatively simple components. Energy is very cheap;

– Elforsk initiates comprehensive research in Sweden. Need more knowledge to understand and explain the observed phenomena. Let’s do more research in the study of the essence of these phenomena, which would then explain how it works.

Our academic science can certainly continue to pretend that nothing happened, that’s only if there is more to the point?

Loner engineer Andrea Rossi in the long struggle for the recognition of his discovery did the seemingly impossible. But it only seems impossible, unless one is aware of one of the episodes [7] in his biography. At the age of 19, Rossi would do what in some ways symbolizes his future life. The challenge was a “simple”, run as much as possible in the track stadium 400 m for 24 hours without interruption. On April 24, 1970 Andrea Rossi completed the race in the stadium Kalsevi in ​​Brescia. Within 24 hours, he ran 175 kilometers and 144 meters, breaking the previous Italian record set in 1891 by the legendary Luigi Vittorio Bertarelli (this record was held for 79 years!). Probably around this there is a certain logic, and in this scientific marathon Andrea Rossi finishes winner again.

[1] http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/36/Melich-Report-Rossi-Expt.pdf [2] In defense of science, Bulletin number 12: http://moi-vzn.narod.ru/VZN_12.PDF [3] http://pesn.com/2011/10/28/9501940_1_MW_E-Cat_Test_Successful/ [4] http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913 [5] http://www.gazeta.ru/science/2014/02/05_a_5882517.shtml [6] http://www.nyteknik.se/asikter/debatt/article3854541.ece [7] http://novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/forum/forum16/topic11709/?PAGEN_1=120A
  • theBuckWheat

    I understand the isotope analysis of the test was from a sample that was very small. Rossi would do the world a great favor if he would publish analysis from some larger samples of “ash”. He has filed his Provisional Patent. He has IP coverage and nothing to lose.

    • fritz194

      I´m quite sure they made an analysis of the complete ash because AR seemed surprised of the outcome. As long as there is no theory – every information might help a competitor to settle a concurrent IP – so without having the complete picture – you never know if the claims of the IP are essential. Just analyzing a very small sample might be part of their tradeoff.

      • hempenearth

        For new readers: there are lots of theories but no settled theory

  • fritz194

    There´s a long history of people experimenting with quite special material properties and “excitation” like Keely or the young Alfred Matthew Hubbard or Hans Coler. It´s quite difficult to believe that people spent decent parts of their lives on fraud and wishful thinking. Who knows….

  • Allan Kiik

    There is one very interesting comment by someone called Jaderchik (Nuclearist) where he describes “strange radiation” in connection with some earlier russian foil-exploding experiments. This radiation is not like any known form of radiation, is biologically active (what does this mean?), affects the rate of beta decay, moves with speed around 20-40 m/s and leaves very strange tracks on photoplates, something like tracks of traktor. These tracks can not be made with any charged particles but are nevertheless affected by magnetic fields.

    Edmund Storms also mentions “strange radiation” in his book but only briefly, without much description.

  • Allan Kiik

    Yes, by reading russian comments and specifically answers from Uzikov, I get the feeling that he must be a reader of e-cat world…

  • fritz194

    Quite interesting to read the russian comments on the referenced page…

  • georgehants

    Now the ball has been set rolling by Wonderful honest Russian scientists and a quality Russian journal, how long will it be before the proven corrupt and incompetent US and UK scientists and establishment stop their censoring and hiding of possibly the most important discovery since electricity?
    It is unbelievable that after the number of our citizens that have died over the years in wars to protect our children’s freedom, today free speech has been curtailed and censored to a degree that would make all those that fought and died cry.
    Did they all die in vain?
    Will now our obviously corrupt masters allow Cold Fusion to be released, to possible help every person in the World or will these criminals continue to manipulate society for their own undefined gains.
    Will the science establishment and scientists continue to “play along” with these criminals or will we begin to see a reaction demanding the return of freedom to this profession.
    I, judging by the muted reaction on these pages to the crimes being committed regarding Cold Fusion etc. hold out little hope.

  • Obvious

    I worked out why the Professors did the calculations the way they did, with 1/2 I for C2. They are smarter than we are giving them credit for. They are right to use 1/2 I.

    L1Rtot = R1 + ((R2a x R2b)/R2a + R2b) + ((R3a x R3b)/(R3a+ R3b)) + ((R4a x R4b x R6a x R6b)/(R4a + R4b + R6a + R6b)) + ((R5 x R7)/(R5 + R7))

    R1 = 0.004375 = R5 = R7

    R2a = 0.002811 = R2b = R2c = R4a = R4b = R6a = R6b

    R3 = E-Cat resistor = R3a = R3b = R3c

    However, R3c has zero current, since all current is divided between R3a and R3b (there is no voltage drop between R3ac and R3bc in the special case of R3a and R3b each has (1/2) I tot

    Therefore R3c is not included in this equation for one phase.

    • Dr. Mike

      Obvious,
      The 1/SQRT(3) factor comes in because RMS currents are being measured and need to be measured to calculate the Joule heating in the Cu wire (and the heater coils). The current flowing in one C1 line must equal the current flowing into the two C2 lines connected to the Ci line. The 3-phase power supply supplies equal TRIAC chopped voltages to the coils, except each of those phases are 120 degrees apart. For ease of calculation, let’s just assume each coil has a full sine wave across it so that the current supplied to each coil is i= (V/R)sin(wt+a). For one coil we can assume a = 0 deg, and for an adjacent coil a = 120 deg (or 120 deg =2*pi/3 radians) The RMS current to each coil is I = V/R*SQRT((sin(wt))^2) and I = V/R*SQRT(sin(wt +120))^2), respectively. The current in one C1 line is i = (V/R)sin(wt) +(V/R)sin(wt+120), however the RMS current in one of the C1 is I = (V/R)*SQRT((sin(wt) + sin(wt +120))^2). If you work out the math, you will see where the SQRT(3) comes from. when dealing with RMS currents.
      If you read the text on page 13 of the report, you can see that they measured the C1 currents to be 19.7A (these are RMS currents). If they had measured, rather than calculated the C2 currents, they would have found the C2 RMS currents to be 19.7/SQRT(3) = 11.37A.
      Dr. Mike

      • Obvious

        Dr. Mike,

        I believe that the Professors have calculated the Joule Heating incorrectly.
        They have not integrated the current correctly for the entire circuit when
        using the methodology they began with. The correct way is, respectfully, not the way that has been proposed by yourself and/or Ivan. Instantaneous total current is being conflated with the current in one phase at a time, of which the sum is not the simple numeric addition of three phases acting the same as one individual phase at any one time. It is not 3x the total, when using the Professors method in its proper form, when followed properly to the end of the circuit.

        The Professors are calculating as if the C1 phase conduction angle is at 90°. 90° is the average forward conduction angle of a total possible 180° of integrated “forward” conduction combinations per phase. At a 90° conduction angle, the entire 19.7 A in the circuit is passing through one of the “input” phases, and is split equally into each branch. This means that the other two pairs of cable sets conduct ½ of the 19.7 A each. The resistance of the “outgoing” two phases are in parallel, while in series with the “input” set. No current is possibly flowing “in” from the other two phases at this time. This means that the correct total cable Joule heating resistance is 0.008670735 W. At 19.7 A. The resultant Joule heating value should then be 3.36502554615 W (or ~3.65 W). This 3.65 W is the instantaneous, entire Joule heating for the C1 and C2 cables, and is NOT be summed for the three phases.

        This error is propagated in the active run Joule heating values presented in the table.
        This is why the Joule heating values in the table, and in the dummy run, are giving everyone so much grief when attempting to reconcile the values.

        When using the square root of three rules, the integrated, instantaneous sum of Joule heating must include both “forward” and “return” current values for each phase, which then are summed. The instantaneous current in each phase is proportionately positive or negative to the others, the magnitude of the sum of which must be the average total current.

        You can see the effect of this when assuming an alternate conduction angle for instantaneous power and current. If L1 is at 30°, then L2 is at 150° and L3 is at 270°. Using the appropriate sine, cosine, and radians for each phase one can calculate the instantaneous values for each phase accordingly, to arrive at the sum of the total current which must be the same as the total current average.

        At a 30° conduction angle for L1, the “in” current would be (0.5) x 19.7 A, L2 is (0.5) x 19.7 A, and L3 = (-1) x 19.7 A (IE: L3 is the return for the other two Lines). Note that in this case, L1 and L2 are effectively in parallel, and L3 is in series with the other two. The instantaneous “forward” (positive) current is still 19.7 A. Although current is passing in “reverse” through L3, it is still passing through the circuit and so contributes to the Joule heating. It is the magnitude, not the sign, of the sums of current that is used to determine total Joule heating, if all phases’ contributions are to be treated as a single current. Otherwise all of the phases’ simultaneous “forward only” current should be summed, and then multiplied by three.

        • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

          it seems you don’t understand that the Wattmeter are designed to measure complex waveforms, even triac, even with bounces…

          About the estimated losses in the cables, it was done just to show it was negligible. Privided you know RMS current, losses can be esatimated simply, assuming the temperature of the cable don’t change much , and resistant stay stable.

          It remind me the beginning of cold fyusion as described by Beaudetet and Mallove, where beginners in calorimetry were trying to prove experienced chemist have done student mistakes… and they were themselve caught incompetent, as it is logical.

          as McKubre said, the serious point is lack of full range calibration.
          This cast doubt on the precision, but not on the full result. simply the evidence that COP>1 needs more reasoning, sincerity and competence and this are scarce resources.

          • Obvious

            Alain,

            I understand that the wattmeter can measure power very effectively.

            The cable Joule heating, I also agree is nearly negligible.

            What I was trying to do is re-examine the Joule heating calculation to see if it can be calculated differently, or if it was done properly. If the ratio of Joule heating were modified, then perhaps the active run current x resistance of the reactor may be calculated differently than what several others have suggested, and return a simple result consistent with the reported output. At this point I am not disputing the reported conclusion of the test.

            During some preliminary calculations, I determined that the when Joule heating value for C1 and C2 wires have equal current in both C2 wires, that are also 1/2 of the C1 current, is equal to the combined resistance of C1 with C2 wires in parallel (treating the all wires as one single resistor). Therefore the effective resistance of C1 (0.004375 Ohms) and the C2 (@ 0.002811 Ohms) wires in parallel ( 0.0014549 Ohms) in series with C1 = (0.004375) + (0.0014549) = 0.00578049 Ohms.
            0.00578049 x 19.7^2 = cable Joule heating for one set connected to one line = 2.245 W.
            This is 1/3 of the value used by the report, which 6.7 ohms.
            The professors multiplied their value by three to account for all three sets of cables.
            Therefore considering the C1 cable in series with two parallel C2 cables is equivalent to calculating the power when 100% current is through C1 and added to 1/2 current through each of the two C2 cables separately calculated.
            Using this equivalence, I calculated the remaining part of the circuit as though it was sections of a long series and parallel circuit to test the results. I also examined the reasons why the circuit would be calculated this way.

            • Obvious

              Continued….
              The case that satisfied the version where the entire reactor wiring circuit is a long series and parallel circuit (as follows, below) is the 90° conduction angle of an individual line. (= is two wires, – is one wire, “.” is a space)
              C1…….C2…….. R…………C2………C1
              ——–+=====+=====+======+———
              ……………………………..r ======+———
              One of the R is across the R to second C2 junction, and does not participate in the current (small r)
              I posit that the instantaneous total power calculated with a L1 conduction angle of 90° is equal to the total instantaneous power of all other possibilities of conduction angles of appropriately divided current through all three Lines, since both the current is constant, and all the resistances do not change (the 3rd R would then participate in all other variants of conduction angle).
              All other conduction angles are complex 3 phase delta circuit mathematical versions of the above drawn circuit, except two other cases, where L2 is at 90° or L3 is at 90° conduction.
              90° conduction is the average “forward” conduction angle of all lesser and greater conduction angles for each Line, which consist of a range between 0 and 180 degrees.

              • Obvious

                Continued….

                19.7 A (in the dummy run) never flows through a circuit containing all of the C1 and C2 cables at the same time, except at 90° conduction of a Line, when 4 C2 cables are in parallel, and 2 C2 cables in parallel, and then respectively in series, on the opposite side of the resistors as the one set of 1 C1 and 2 C2 cables.

                So the resultant total of the Joule heating for all of the C1 and C2 cables
                cannot be 3x the Joule heat one set of C1 and 2 C2 cables at maximum Line current.

                There is no case in which 19.7 A flows simultaneously through all three individual C1 cables, then 1/2 19.7 A through each individual C2 cable.

  • Achi

    Maybe he does, and maybe he sees the chance to get ahead with LENR and is taking it. You can suppress information but an idea is like napalm, once it’s spread out everywhere you’ve got a problem. It’s suffice to say that even if this instance of LENR fails there is a whole new generation of lenr scientists waiting on the sidelines.

  • Dr. Mike

    ivanc,
    I calculated the same 1.23 ohms for each heater coil, and the factor of R change of 3.3. The revision of the Lugano report needs the Joule heating calculation corrected to include the 1/SQRT(3) factor in the Cu wires going to the heater wires and an explanation for how the effective resistance of the heater wires decreased by a factor of 3.3. I hope they don’t try to explain the resistance change with the temperature coefficient of resistance and will provide data to back up whatever explanation that they give.
    Dr. Mike

  • Daniel Maris

    I’m sure it’s on their radar, along with solar, another big threat.

  • Obvious

    Very nice table, ivan.
    I’ll go over it, and give a solid reply this time.

  • Charles

    1989-1993 I dealt with leaders of the Scientific Group that was a leader in the Russian Inertial Space Guidance System. Very impressive people. Staggeringly brilliant. 4 PhDs living in a small 4 Room apartment in Moscow. Mendelev forward, I consider them the most brilliant scientists in the world. I believe they know science far better that us but are politically suppressed.

    Believe them.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    There is a more cynical explanation of what the signing of accords can accomplish. Watch the fish.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Gi0VDZzjtQ

  • pelgrim108

    Rossi = Росси … Russia = Россия , the word used in that sentence is Росси , also its in line with what we know happened.

  • GreenWin

    One of the authors of last year’s Proatom.ru E-Cat Report, Yuri L. Ratis, d.f.m.n Professor, Samara Aerospace University, has published his own paper on “dineutronium atoms” and their role in cold fusion. It is clear now that Russia is accepting LENR into their mainstream physics community. Several steps ahead of the US and EU.

    “Our preliminary analysis shows, that such properties of dineutroneum as: metastability, electrical neutrality and small sizes, allow nuclear reactions of dineutroneum with nuclei in condensed matter.” Concepts of Physics, Vol. VI, No. 4 (2009)

    http://merlin.phys.uni.lodz.pl/concepts/2009_4/2009_4_525.pdf

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Larry A. Hull (in a letter to Chemical and Engineering News, May 15, 1989, page3) thought that “dineutronium” might be playing a role in the formation of helium.

      “Sir: The detection of helium-4 by the University of Utah group in cold fusion experiments would seem to confirm that fusion reactions have definitely occurred. However, there remains the question of mechanism. I would like to suggest the following electron tunneling reaction in an electrostatic field, which is a version of

      the p+ + e- n nuclear reaction nuclear
      reaction:
      np+ + e- > nn
      diffusion of nn to hit np+
      nn + np+ > [n3p+] > e- + [n2p2++ = 4He++]

      This would essentially be a catalytic fusion process, which would have the advantage that the neutral nn particle could circumvent the electrostatic barrier to np+ + np+
      fusion. Any nn escaping fusion would likely degenerate back to np+ + e-.
      Also, the presence of Le-7 + nn could lead to Be-9 and B-11
      production by similar processes. It will be interesting to learn if the electrodes are stable enough for long-term fusion of whether the electrodes need to be frequently recycled by baking or refinement. I do not know if this process can be scaled up to practical large-scale energy production, but cold fusion may just be the answer the world needs for its greenhouse effect, energy shortages, and environmental pollution problems.”
      -Larry A. Hull
      New Sharon, Iowa

      May 15, 1989 C& EN
      (F&P made their announcement on March 23, 1989)

      PS
      This is from a hard copy I saved. I hope I transcribed it well enough (the eyes aren’t what they used to be).

      • Dr. Mike

        Alan,
        Thanks for pointing out this theory from Larry Hull. There always seemed to be a basic problem for me with the theory in the Ni-H system that the primary initial reaction was p+e -> n. This seems to be a good theory in that there is no need to overcome a Coulomb barrier and therefore no need to have to explain the Coulomb barrier “problem” by a tunneling mechanism or by a change in the shape of the Coulomb barrier from the classical spherical shape model (even if it actually does not have a spherical shape). However, it seems logical that the Ni-H nuclear mechanism will be found to be similar to the Pd-D nuclear mechanism in the system investigated by Pons and Fleischmann. I had assumed that the Pd-D mechanism required two deuterium ions reacting, which requires overcoming a Coulomb barrier. Therefore, the nuclear reaction in the Ni-H system probably needed a mechanism requiring the overcoming of a Coulomb barrier. However, if it assumed that “dineutronium” is first formed in the Pd-D system per Hull’s equations, there is no need to overcome a Coulomb barrier in this system either.
        Although I’m sure it will be some time before we have a proven theory of LENR, the formation of “dineutronium” in the Pons-Fleischman reaction does provide a theory for LENR that gives an explanation for a similar theory for Ni-H and Pd-D systems without a need to overcome a Coulomb barrier. It will be interesting if this relatively simple explanation for LENR turns out to be correct.
        Dr. Mike

        • Alan DeAngelis

          If Larry Hull is still with us, I wonder what else he’s been thinking about for the past quarter of a century.

        • Alan DeAngelis

          So, how much energy would it take to create dineutronium from a deuteron and an electron?
          Energy equivalences of rest masses of:
          Deuteron: 1875.612793 MeV
          Electron: 0.5109906 MeV
          Neutron: 939.56563 MeV

          D + e > 2 n would require 3.01 MeV

          And subtract the binding energy of the neutron and proton in a deuteron (2.2 MeV)?
          Would this be it or did I screw something up?
          3.01 – 2.2 = 0.8 MeV ?

      • Sanjeev

        Dineutron emission seen for the first time.
        http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2012/mar/14/dineutron-emission-seen-for-the-first-time

        It seems plausible.

  • georgehants

    Seems to be a strange lack of congratulations for Mr. Rossi receiving this endorsement by a good and honest scientist in what must now become the premier peer reviewed science journal in the World.
    Well done Mr. Rossi it is good to see your work at last recognised by competent scientists peer reviewers and journals.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    And Gandhi understood this too.

    “Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.”

    -Mohandas Gandhi,
    An Autobiography, pg 446

  • Billy Jackson

    Ecclesiastes 3:4
    “A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance.”

    We are almost there…the weeping of frustration at repeated set backs and disbelief will be offset by the joyous laughter brought forth from the cleansing relief of success. We will mourn the death of the pathological skeptic, yet neither gloat nor deride his beliefs in his stance. We invite you back into the fold once more for you provided us with the motivation, the courage, and incentive to push forward in the face of adversity.

    We are not there yet. but soon we will have our time to celebrate, and yes, our time to dance!

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Yes Billy, I want to celebrate but I have to admit that I’m really not ready to bury the hatchet. Some of the characters were not just honest skeptics (I could live with that). But some of those slime balls were disparaging F&P in public while behind the scenes they were seeking funding for cold fusion! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htgV7fNO-2k
      see 26:15 min

    • psi2u2

      Wow. Count me in for that. 😉

  • pelgrim108

    Thanks to Andreas Moraitis and Gerard McEck for bringing this forward

  • pelgrim108

    Last one 🙂
    perform an experiment, and the main argument was that Russia provided them with “black box” magic, which is
    =
    perform an experiment, and the main argument was that Rossi provided them with “black box” magic, which is

  • NT

    It is way past time for USA scientists, major universities, government and main stream media to WAKE UP and smell the roses! Cold Fusion is a reality that you will soon all choke on if you do not take the medicine NOW….

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Yes, I know it’s not that simple. ~ 6:40 min.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSVWXmZB1wc

    • bachcole

      Yes, we are funding these astonishing $H1T-bags by buying gasoline. They have captured oil fields and are selling that oil on the black market. Little do they know that the E-Cat is going to shut them down. I hope people have the good sense to not tell them. The E-Cat is still too fragile.

      • mytakeis

        Conquer corruption by leaving nothing left to corrupt. The elimination of oil sales profits makes those who would exploit look for other means to profit. Thankfully I believe unsuppressed knowledge about it and its near free cost render the E-Cat not exploitable in a corrupt way.

  • Gerard McEk

    Thanks Frank and pelgrim108. This is a lot better to read than the Dutch translation. I believe this is a milestone in the history of Cold Fusion. Let us hope the fire will now spread more quickly.
    The ‘West’ cannot ignore what the Russians now will do (and rightly so!), that would be totally irresponsible to our whole community.

    • bachcole

      Don’t underestimate the snootery of the scientific elite.

      • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

        Indeed.
        but don’t underestimate the courage of crazy entrepreneurs ready to eat potatoes today hoping to build a revolution…
        don’t underestimate the greed of capitalist to risk their wealth to get more wealth later.

        don’t underestimate the furor of the people when they will know that some rent owner try to prevent them to save painfully earned money, helped by corrupted politician.

        Today is the time for the entrepreneur.
        in 5 years it will be our time, to make politicians know who is the boss.

  • pelgrim108

    “Russia” means Rossi everywhere in the article. Frank just delete these comments of mine.

  • pelgrim108

    which provide a fair share скептицизма.Справедливости it should be noted that there were even Nobel laureates
    =
    which provide a fair amount of skepticism. It is fair to note that there were even Nobel laureates,

  • pelgrim108

    необорот is a misspelling from наоборот wich means on the contrary.

    So the scentence would be:

    First, it seemed that the key figure in the creation of this
    wonderful reactor was a professor, but then it turned out that it was just the opposite.

    • ecatworld

      Thank you — very helpful. That was a confusing part. I will edit.

  • Alan DeAngelis
  • georgehants

    While virtually every person on page has been blaming the media,
    governments and old nick for the delay and hiding of Cold Fusion I have
    been saying that it is the fault of science and the western science
    comics.
    This is what should of happened here, now in Russia one can
    start to blame other people if they do not follow this scientific lead.

  • georgehants

    Where most of the corrupt and incompetent western science establishment
    still hides Cold Fusion, our Wonderful Russian friends are more honest
    and uncensored.
    How times change.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Frank, this article has been mentioned on the Always Open Thread already two weeks ago. Something is wrong with that thread. Comments disappear some minutes after having been posted and reappear much later. Therefore, they can easily be overlooked. A possible reason is that the sorting algorithm of the software is not capable to process such an amount of comments without problems. I think it would help to split the thread into two or more parts.

    • pelgrim108

      Yes I am experiencing the same problem on the Always Open Thread.