Rossi: E-Cat Energy Comes from Isotopic Shifts which is ‘Not Fusion’

In the interview conducted yesterday with Salvo Mandarà on the Italian web TV channel Salvo5puntozero.tv there were some interesting issues brought up. Vessela Nikolova has provided a nice translation of the interview on her E-Cat “The New Fire” web site.

One question that I found particularly interesting was when Mandarà asked about how excess energy is produced by the E-Cat.

Rossi responded:

“The physical process by which the E-Cat works is a process of so-called ‘Low Energy Nuclear Reactions’ or LENR, that is, reactions which take place in the nucleus of an atom at temperatures ‘low’ compared to those normally required for a nuclear reaction, which does not need to be a fusion. In fact, after these years of experimentation, testing, measuring and analysis, we noticed that the main source of energy in our reactor is not so much a fusion, but a shift of the isotopic composition of the atoms contained in the fuel charge. The origin of the thermal excess energy is due to the fact that in such process there is a very small loss in mass, that is transformed into energy according to the famous Einstein’s equation E = mc^2″.

So here we have quite a succinct condensation of what Rossi thinks is the source of energy in the E-Cat. He does not explain exactly what he thinks is the cause of this reaction — we can only guess at this point. Rossi — and also Bo Höistad — has been very complementary of the ‘neutron tunneling’ theory of Carl Oscar Gullström, which could give us a clue.

  • LCD

    But if they did know I think they wouldn’t have control issues. So I don’t think they know and frankly he’s wasting time for himself.

    • clovis ray

      There are no control issues,the ecat has been put through it’s paces, it is now producing a product for a costumer, as we type. just a few detail’s left , i wish Dr. rossi would clean it up a bit cosmetically, with logos and the like, and let someone come and see it in operation doing work. only when the time is right, of course.

      • LCD

        It was he himself who said that under load out was misbehaving. This was only a few months ago. It’s hard to imagine that control issues have been figured out since then.

        I think he has a mode that works reasonably well but he doesn’t know why my friend.

  • Obvious

    A more staged-looking photo I have rarely seen.
    Lets just put this waveform on the table, just-so. Interesting book here, clean lab coat on, strike contemplative pose…. oops what’s that shadow?…ah ha!… flatten down hair lick….OK good to go for photo shoot. Get a nice angle from way up there…

  • clovis ray

    I like how you put it better, that is how i see it as well,

  • Bob Greenyer

    Please read the rationale as presented in the link by Stoyan Sarg.

  • Axil Axil

    Regarding: “Applying an abruptly alternating magnetic field — the cut-off sine wave on Rossi’s desk — adds further to the chaos.”

    If a Bose Einstein condensate is formed in a gas, Quantum vortexes will form in the gas where dispersion is matched by non linear amplification. The vortex will remain constant. This vortex will form a dark mode soliton. The sharp cutoff sin wave seen on Rossi’s dest is a magnetic “vortex startup pulse” to get the magnetic vortex established.

    Because the gas is a BEC, it is a superfluid. Once we’ve reached our desired BEC condistion, what happens? If it were a normal fluid, then once the gas stoped rotating unter the influence of the magnetic pulse the gas would stop rotating, the would also soon come to rest due to viscosity. But the superfluid? It will continue circling around a long, long time.

  • Omega Z

    Rossi doesn’t actually rule out fusion.

    In a response to Herb Gills:
    —————————————————————
    Andrea Rossi December 13th, 2014 at 9:03 PM
    “All I meant is just that the main nuclear reactions are not necessarily fusion.” Warm Regards, A.R.
    —————————————————————
    Aside from this-“are not necessarily fusion.” ?
    You also need to consider-“All I meant is just that the main nuclear reactions”

    It may be several levels of reactions are taking place. Some of the extra heat may actually come from fusion.

  • Kevin O

    why in particular is NI used
    ***Prior to Rossi arriving on the scene, the vast majority of LENR experiments were in Pd/D, which is more expensive. It was easier to get results in Pd/D. Since then, most of the focus has been on Ni/H. Rossi’s “catalyst” was a way of separating H2 gas into monoatomic H1 gas, according to Focardi. Somehow H1 gas works better in Ni/H.

    and why is AC current used
    ***Another way of separating H2 gas into H1 monoatomic is to apply AC waveforms.

    why is a certain temp used to start the reaction,
    ***Unknown

    he is the best authority, after all it is his discovery,
    ***No, LENR in Ni/H was discovered by Piantelli and Focardi. But it was very difficult to get the effect to work. Rossi came up with a way to generate the effect more readily.

    when things are squeezed together they do weird things.
    ***Yup. It’s the strangest thing to watch Physics dudes insist that how matter behaves in a plasma is the same way it will behave in a condensed hydride.

  • Omega Z

    yeah, it happens to all of us occasionally clovis. 🙂 We Bad…

  • Omega Z

    Jappha Nakhanny

    “Andrea Rossi is trying to transmit wrong information to the readers”

    Are your relatively new here because most at ECW are aware of this. However, you need to replace the word “readers” with competitors who likely follow every word they can find.
    Note: Rossi hasn’t been granted a patent to protect his IP. I would do the same as Rossi.
    ———————————————————————-
    As to the discussion at the link provided & Rossi’s posts on JONP about the Standard Model. It is suggested that Rossi stands by the Standard Model due to his loyalty to the Focardi Dream.

    That Is:
    “Prof. Focardi told that it is possible to find a theory based on the Standard Model”
    This is as “Focardi’s dream” is to stick his finger in the Eye of MS Science that Cold Fusion “can” happen under the Standard Model.
    ———————————————————————-
    My comprehension of what Rossi has said is this-
    Before you look to the Exotic theories, You must Explore All the possibilities of the Standard Model first. Only after this avenue has been exhausted should you explore the Exotic possibilities.

    I Fully agree with Rossi. This is precisely how it should be done. This is not about “Focardi’s dream”, It’s just good science.
    This is actually conflicting for many of us. We would like to see Focardi’s dream come about, but we also like Exotic. 🙂 This is our conundrum.
    ———————————————————————-
    Now, Understand that Guglinski is working on his own theories & trying to poke holes in the Standard Model. Good for Him. Science should push the limits. That is in essence real Science. Push the boundaries of Knowledge.

    However, I think he is wrong to expect Rossi to just jump to the Exotic possibilities just to support his theories. It’s Bad Science & could be very damaging to all concerned. Especially if it is not from an Exotic source. Guglinski should let things be & let it play out. Positive or Negative.

  • Omega Z

    stefenski

    I’m quite sure clovis ray misunderstood your post.
    I think it is a fair & accurate assessment of the present state.

    As in all battles, beware of friendly fire. 🙂
    My assessment of this 1 post is, Your uncommitted, yet fully open to new possibilities.

  • LCD

    Just more information that indicates Rissi and co have no clue

    • bitplayer

      No basis among the available information for that inference.

    • psi2u2

      And your argument is? *You* do? You might want to edit your post to make that point clearer.

    • Omega Z

      I think Rossi Inc have a much better sense of what’s taking place then any of us,

      However, providing any details would only help the competition. If you had such details, it would narrow down where to look & how to go about getting similar results.

      Rossi’s understanding may or may not be right, but to say he has no clue is just wrong.
      I believe even the professors of the TIP has said it may not be fusion, but some new type of nuclear reaction previously unknown.

  • LCD

    There are no definitive answers

  • Stefan Israelsson Tampe

    I’ve been off the discussions about Ecat for some time. Just saw that there was a lot of discussion about the Joule heating. I then looked at the report and it seamed that the report used assumptions about the wave form and dynamics that might not be valid for such a calculation. One thing is that at the dummy run I would expect the current to be very spiky. Also the heater is a spiral, e.g. you get some inductance there, can’t you then get power jumping back and forth the circute and causing these simple calculations to be wrong. I would not dismiss the report because these calculated values seamed inconsistent, their error bounds are not included and it is not as thoroughly founded in measurement as the raw input no? I’am I off?

    • Obvious

      I agree that the reported measurements trump the reported calculations. Anyone that knows what they are doing can re-do the calculations themselves and see if they are acceptable, given enough data. The given values are averaged over 20 to 48 hours, so spiky or harmonic waveforms will be smoothed out considerably. All input power should have been captured by the PCE-830 regardless. I don’t think this a beat the meter test.

      • Obvious

        We should start a beat the meter Olympics with CF, high COP, negative COP contests, intentional fake new science tricks with competing debunker judges and crowd support judges….

        • Dods

          Or a TV show called the eXcess Factor.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      I posted the same idea (regarding the influence of the waveform) recently on the Replication Thread. Whether this effect is significant or not depends on the relation between the ohmic resistance and the inductance of the coils. The results of MFMP’s first test did not show a gradual drop of the apparent resistance, so it looks as if the influence of the waveform is negligible. The sharp drop at the end of the test has presumably been caused by a short-circuit. However, MFMP’s setup was not yet an exact copy of the Lugano experiment, so we will have to wait for further results.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Finally, I made some calculations (too lengthy to be posted here) and it looks as if the inductance of a coil without an appropriate core is too low to be of significant influence when the waveform changes. This might be different with a core of very high magnetic permeability (>> 1000). We do not know how the fuel behaves during the reaction, but since the reactor in the dummy test has been empty (alumina makes no difference in comparison to air), the higher resistance in the dummy run can probably not be explained by a larger amount of harmonics in the applied voltage.

        However, a lower apparent resistance in the active runs could possibly be caused by strong magnetic fields that are generated by the reaction itself (according to Hadjichristos & Kim). Simpler explanations are based on modified connections, short-circuits within the coils, or the use of SiC heating elements. All these hypotheses have been discussed during the last weeks. The assumption that there might have been an inverted ammeter clamp has been ruled out by the testers.

  • georgehants

    O’ to have the Quantum group back, Einstein, Schrodinger, Bohr, Heisenberg, etc etc. to hear what they would have made of Cold Fusion.
    I do not believe they would have tried to hide it away.
    Instead we are stuck with an academic community, who’s highest capabilities, seem to be limited to preaching their scientifically laughable, erroneous teachings, that they know there is no creator etc.

  • clovis ray

    It’s easy to ridicule but quite another to say something helpful, want to try again.

    • stefenski .

      I think you must have misunderstood , I was in no way ridiculing.
      I’m sorry if I give that impression.

      • psi2u2

        I found your post quite witty, Stefenski. But I can see how it would be easy to misunderstand it. That is what you get for metaphors, no matter how well intentioned and apt they may be. But I think your metaphor is enlightening. I said something similar once about how you would think that someone who lived beside a waterfall with a mill was getting “free” energy until you accounted for his location and knew something about the relevant Newtonian principles. Who knows what other waterfalls might exist in nature, but we have not found them. Who knows, for that matter, if water is always only behaving in accordance with Newtonian physics. Maybe water has its own emergent physical properties that are poorly understood. Sure looks that way…..

  • GordonDocherty

    So, transmutation – or, rather, transmutations – which makes sense. Smearing of nuclei as they come close, not smashing them together. On the macroscopic scale, think what would happen if two planets passed close by, or galaxies “collided”. Of course, this does provide strong evidence that the Coulomb barrier is not perfectly spherical, for the nuclei still have to come close enough to create virtual bridges between themselves – the smearing – across which energy and mass can travel. With such a model, of course, the likelihood of fusion does also go up (the odd planet or two colliding) but the majority of nuclei are now seen as passing, by transfer, constituent parts of themselves (with neutrons being “neutral” in terms of em field interactions and hence top of the list of likely suspects). In this scenario, the hydrogen nuclei, located in the Brillouin zones, are capturing the neutrons (possibly to tritium) and then, either stabilizing in fusion reactions to form Helium 4 (or 3 or both?) or losing their captured neutron to an adjacent larger nuclei “with more pull”. So, the Rossi reaction looks like Brillouin+. I still believe that hydrino formation on or around the cracks in the lattice (as well as slow neutron formation) is also happening, suggesting a way to really “crank up” the output power…

  • ecatworld

    Andrea Rossi:
    Since you believe the energy source in the Ecat is isotopic shifts, can you give us any guidance at all about the role the hydrogen plays? Do you think that at some point the hydrogen could be eliminated?
    Kind Regards;
    HRG.

    Andrea Rossi

    December 13th, 2014 at 9:03 PM

    Herb Gills:
    The issue is much more complex than you say; isotopic shifts are caused by reactions and themselves cause further reactions, about which, obviously, I cannot give information, as I wrote many times.
    The role of hydrogen is foundamental. All I meant is just that the main nuclear reactions are not necessarily fusion.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • Ged

      But the initiating reaction with hydrogen must be fusion.

      This would imply, since fusion of hydrogen would just be the cue ball that sets the rest of the neutron shuttling dynamics in motion, the energy out from the e-cat would probably fall somewhere between fission and fusion on the energy density scales.

    • Omega Z

      “All I meant is just that the main nuclear reactions are not necessarily fusion.”

      Wasn’t this mentioned in the 1st TIP. Something to the effect of a New unknown type of Nuclear Reaction.

  • Oceans2014

    the reaction is still a cold fusion, as it will become know.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Yes, we posted his pre-lugano report release Lithium cycle on FB – and it is an interesting conjecture. But like the ones I took from Wiki as valid Fusion paths, it is largely not tested.

  • Sean

    Question,, is this isotopic shift composition as good as theoretical fusion meaning the total mass conversion of nickel direct to energy? or is it a watered down style of reaction that is limited in its output? Personally I would like to squeeze all the available energy I can from the nickel atom.

    • bitplayer

      Mostly likely not mass conversion. The descriptions below are probably more like rolling rocks off a cliff (the nucleons going into the energy wells of the nickel nuclei) where they go bang when they hit, releasing energy, but not breaking.

    • http://lenrftw.net LENR G

      It’s really really good. On par with fission and approaching fusion.

      See LENR For the Win – Comparing Energy Sources
      http://lenrftw.net/comparing_energy_sources.html

      • Sean

        Really interesting link. Thanks for that. There is still a lot we don’t know about LENR, its only the beginning. My feeling is that we will find super heavy elements in space which may produce millions of times more energy than the chart states. The BBC has had programs about quantum physics, this must be explored as I think we will find boundless energy there too, amongst other strange things.

  • Bob Greenyer

    My proposed complete *current* understanding of the Hot Cat reaction:

    A) Partially reduced Fe2O3 or similar H2 splitting catalyst in/on standard nickel helps to create P+ in the lattice. Fe3+ Al3+ helps to capture electrons – see here:

    http://bit.ly/1yNwUY2

    B) 7Li is attached to metal lattice and energetic P+ cause the release of Neutrons from 7Li so that it becomes 6Li (as per Stoyan’s structural theory) low energy gamma is released that is thermalised in reactor and possibly stimulates further reactions, therefore no gamma outside reactor. See page 16 of this presentation:

    http://slidesha.re/1DtabU0

    C) Slow Neutrons transmute Nickel

    D) Any Neutrons not absorbed by the Nickel are absorbed by the 6Li in the energetic vapour around the reaction (Net result = no Neutrons seen outside reactor)

    E) Nickel continues to play a role, facilitating reactions from standard fusion, examples that could apply are (8) 4 MeV & (9) 16.9 MeV here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion

    Here is an image of the relevant paths:

    http://bit.ly/1AuQmWn

    F) several of the processes above might occur in parrallel.

    G) The byproducts are Ni62, any *unburnt* 6Li, Hydrogen and Helium.

    Question surrounding Ni64 – could the 6Li strip the Neutrons from the Ni64?

    Notes:

    i) standard non-radioactive isotopes as fuel, and no Deuterium in the Hydrogen please!
    ii) no radiation during operation or afterwards
    iii) large net yield of energy from Nickel transmutations to Ni62
    iv) thermalisation of gamma may allow self-sustain mode
    v) reaction will continue after Nickel is all Ni62
    vi) all positive yield from 6Li + P+ and 6Li + 3He reactions means reactor gets more efficient (in always stimulated state) as reaction proceeds and this becomes the predominant mode.
    vii) when opening the reactor, the Hydrogen and Helium is lost

    • psi2u2

      Cool.

    • bitplayer

      Cool. And if LENR eventually validates Stoyan’s proposal that spatial structure exists as an additional layer of information inside the fog of QM statistical mechanics, that could open other doors.

      • Fortyniner

        Scary ones.

        • http://lenrftw.net LENR G

          Why scary?

          • Fortyniner

            According to Einstein, our reality is just a ‘persistent illusion’. Sarg’s theory downgrades it to a signal buried in chaos, like snatches of music heard in the white noise of a badly tuned radio. Isn’t that a scary idea?

    • Sanjeev

      So what will happen if we take Ni62 and bombard it with neutrons ? Will it cause LENR?
      Just use an off the shelf lab neutron source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_source

    • NT

      Hi Bob,
      You seem to have a good theory of the reactions in play with the “Rossie Effect”. When can we expect the MFMP dog-bone to implement and hopefully perform your reaction theory in real time? I realize the one step at a time process to the opening curtain call, but you must have some time schedule in mind…

      • Bob Greenyer

        Well there is still the question of where the Aluminium (though this may partially become aluminium oxide/nitride) and Iron go – and If “LENR for the win” is correct – then these also become Ni62, which could support the “elemental soup” / Axil Axil propositions

        https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JJjNVq_2euIwwmfOlVb4MK_UigkcoriisW5VsB7hu5c/edit#gid=0

        http://lenrftw.net/assessing_ecat_report.html#.VIzr45Xcm0k

        Could the above affects be due to a sampling error? without a full bulk mass audit of the elements in the fuel and the ash it is impossible to be sure.

        We have at least five weeks before we can properly determine the thermal assessment methods used in the Lugano experiment as we will not have an Optris PI160 sooner. In the meantime, we will condition and test our first candidate fuel component sample (Higgins powder) in the Powder calorimeter which has concluded its live calibration.

        https://www.evernote.com/pub/marpooties/powdercalorimeter#st=p&n=b2fc2083-9c78-40bd-84b4-7061ad7438c2

        Only after properly conducting the thermal assessment tests can we be confident that there is reason to believe there was excess energy being produced. On a personal level, the first live testing results look positive for the Lugano reactor – this is encouraging.

        I think that it is valuable that in the time we have before we can realistically start testing powers, we have a robust discussion about what is going on, it is extremely unlikely that any individual will have all the answers, but it will be useful to come up with a range of testable theories.

        Just like baking / cooking – depending on the way you do it, temperatures, pressures (pressure cooker), microwave etc, you could end up with just your ingredients, a cake or carbon/ash residue. Axil Axil is on the money when he says that “The nature of this energy transfer will change based on operating conditions inside the E-Cat which range from mild to extreme.”

        So we also need to discuss as much as possible what the operating environment is.

        • http://lenrftw.net LENR G

          It’d be very helpful if the investigators could give us an indication of whether the ash sample was, in their minds, representative of the entire ash mass or if instead the ash resembled the fuel with only pockets of larger granules or other differences. The analysis is sensitive to the how representative the ash sample extracted and tested truly was.

          Just about all we can say with certainty is that Ni-62 blobs grow and fuel particles lose their metal (iron and aluminum). But that could be because of rearrangement and not transmutation. We just can’t be sure unless we know what’s in the rest (99.8%) of the ash.

          • Bob Greenyer

            This is the real key that is missing. Without the full audit, you are right – about the only thing for certain is that Ni62 blobs grew – that in itself is incredible and cannot be understated. Other than an opinion on how representative their sample was, the testers cannot answer that – only IH can – I think the first time we will have an answer is when a group can openly recreate a similar outcome.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Stoyan puts forward a BSM-SG structure based explanation for the Iron depletion from fuel to ash

            “[The Fe56 in the fuel] may become Ni58 by capturing consecutively 2 protons. If you look the nuclear arrangement of protons and neutrons according to my models in the Atlas of Nuclear atomic structures you will see one very important feature. The consecutive increase of z-number (number of protons) with one does not involve refurbishing of the atomic nucleus. Every new proton (often with one neutron) attaches to the well define position with tendency to preserve the symmetry. Therefore nuclear reactions are quite more probable when following this trend.”

            Therefore, Protium (providing the protons) and 7Li (providing the neutrons) would enable the transmutation Fe56 into Ni58, which would then progress to Ni62. This would fill a hole in my earlier postulation.

            He goes on to add colour on the Ni64 question

            “Ni64 is much less abundant than Ni62. Ni64 is at the edge of unstable isotopes with the larger neutrons. The abundance of isotopes is a natural tendency for more symmetrical nuclei and one may speculate that at the created LENR environment there is a tendency of Ni64 to decay to Ni62. (In some plasma experiments also a tendency is observed toward stable isotopes). Losing a neutron it may Ni64 pass through Ni63, which is unstable with a half lifetime of 100 years (beta- decay to Cu63(stable)) and then losing a second neutron to become Ni62.”

    • Axil Axil

      A fundamental concept of universal validity is that impedance governs
      the flow of energy. In the Ni/H reactor, energy flows from one or
      more nuclei to an electromagnetic wave form: heat. In simple terms,
      the E-cat sets up a full duplex quantum impedance matched energy
      transfer pathway from the nucleus to a comparable EMF waveform
      structure that the E-Cat also sets up. The nature of this energy
      transfer will change based on operating conditions inside the E-Cat
      which range from mild to extreme. The results of this energy transfer
      process will vary widely and are not important in understanding the LENR process.
      It is the nature of the energy transfer process that is essential to
      understand and utilize in the engineering of the E-Cat.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Stoyan Sargs initial response to my postulation was

        “E) the “relevant path” you cite is not experimentally confirmed, and from the point of view of BSM-SG models is less probable, because involving too much nuclear refurbishing.

        G) I don’t think the neutrons from Ni64 could be stripped.”

        Stoyan is not saying that these things are impossible, which is scientific. In your understanding Axil, how do you feel about the phrase “is less probable, because involving too much nuclear refurbishing.”?

        • Axil Axil

          The products of the LENR transmutation process vary widely from system to system and even with a single system over time. In my opinion, it is a mistake to make an effort to deduce the cause of LENR from the transmutation products of the reaction.

          The degree in which “nuclear refurbishing” happens is a system
          specific parameter. For example, in exploding foil systems in liquid,
          20 elements and isotopes are input to the reaction and 20 different
          elements and isotopes come out of the reaction. That is a huge amount
          of “nuclear refurbishing” Yet IMHO, the basic cause of LENR is
          the same over all LENR systems.

          The amount of “nuclear refurbishing” that can take place in any given
          LENR system is a function of the power of the LENR reaction. A
          powerful LENR system can produce a wide spectrum of transmutation
          products. On the other hand, a relatively weak LENR system will
          result in a very few transmutation products.

          A valid LENR theory needs to explain how this variability and wide
          range in the transmutation products generated from one LENR system to another can occur.

          This power of a LENR system involves the amount of EMF the system can produce. But lately, I am fascinated by a new idea called quantum
          impedance what reflects resonant character of the EMF. The EMF is
          strongest when the frequency and phase of the EMF matches the EMF
          character of the nuclei that the EMF falls upon. A highly impedance
          matched LENR system will be more effective than one where no
          resonance conditions are present.

          For example, a LENR system that uses 5 micron particles will produce a better result than a LENR system that uses nano-powder at 400C. In a 1000C system, 2 micron particles are optimum. But such impedance matching varies as a function of temperature. In a very high temperature LENR system such as produced by an electric arc, nanoparticles might work better.

          • Bob Greenyer

            I agree on the impedance matching, though I would call it high Q or resonance between stimulator and receptor.

            I am uncertain about your phrase “On the other hand, a relatively weak LENR system willresult in a very few transmutation products.” – surely this would define the Lugano ash as a weak system as there are very few products.

            • Axil Axil

              the Dennis Cravens Golden Ball experiment is a weak LENR system..

              http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NIWeekCravens.pdf

              Also A NANOR device developed at MIT is also weak, so is electrolyzing palladium.

              The Ni/H reactor is a mid level system.

              The Exploding foil systems and Proton 21 are strong systems.

  • Chris I

    Call it a tomato.

    • bitplayer

      tomahto

      • Gerrit

        here on e-catworld, we might as well call it tømætö

        • bitplayer

          enastående!

          • Allan Shura

            Some call it patato I call it potato.

      • Chris I
        • bitplayer

          There’s some nuclear forces! Thanks!

  • Donk970

    The obvious test of this theory is to load the reactor with 100% Ni62 and see if the reaction still goes.

    • artefact

      .. and Li7

  • Ged

    This does’t explain how isotope switching occurs, or why a single nucleon, the proton of hydrogen, is vital for the reaction. If hydrogen is involved, it has to be fusing into nuclei of other atoms, so fusion would have to be the starting mechanism.

    In fact, if the hydrogen proton fuses to nickle or lithium, it could then undergo beta plus decay, turning into a neutron and giving off a positron (will not leave reactor, but will make heat by annihilation into two low energy (0.511 MeV) gamma rays) and a neutrino. As low energy gamma rays are hard to detect (gotta factor in detector efficiencies and distance, as well as very minor gamma stopping power of alumina cement in the hot-cat case) and would occur relatively infrequently based on the slow rate (comparatively low heat) of hot-cat and other LENR reaction, their only occasional detection in LENR experiments is no surprise. Neutrino detection would be another way to test these pathways.

    The mechanism could be more complex, where hydrogen fuses to lithium, and then lithium shuttles the proton as it turns into a neurton to the nickle. This leaves lithium as a catalyst (shuttling proton-neutrons), hydrogen as the fuel source, and nickle as the fuel sink.

    And if hydrogen turns into a neutron somehow before rather than after fusion to another nucleus, it’s still fusion of nucleons.

    No matter how we look at it, if hydrogen is involved, so is some sort of fusion, even if a new type is discovered. Otherwise, 1) where are the neutrons coming from, 2) how are they adding to nuclei if not by fusion, and 3) why do we see no evidence of neutron shuffling (net neutron change = 0), but rather neutron additions to both lithium and nickle isotopes while hydrogen is supposidely consumed (no hard data on that or if it’s just escaping)?

    If you’re adding mass to atoms by consuming other atoms, it’s fusion.

    • bitplayer

      From Rossi’s statement: “the MAIN source of energy in our reactor” (my emphasis on “main”).

      Are there any scenarios in which some hydrogen/quadrinium/lithium-type fusion were taking place, providing energy to facilitate isotope shifts in the nickel nucleus?

      Regardless of that though, I’m assuming the added nucleons could not be created from pure energy (e= mc2 = big boom, so big non-boom required to create m of a nucleon).

      From that it seems clear as you state that isotope shifts (presumably by adding neutrons to get to N62) could not take place without the addition of an external nucleon.

      • Ged

        I completely agree with you on all points.

        And it’s possible quite rare fusion events occur that are required to start the neutron shuttling chain, thus most energy comes from the movement of neutrons down the energy gradient into a final Ni62, which would be the point of lowest shuttling energy (tightest nucleus). Thus indeed, the majority of the energy release would likely be the funnalling of the neutrons, not the rare fusion events; but the fusion would still be absolutely required to start the process, and thus inseparable from the mechanism.

        It would make radiation rare compared to background, and keep the low rate of energy release seen in LENR experiments. But it’d still be unequivocally cold fusion. Unless, as you say, one redefines “fusion” to exclude proton fusions as in this mechanism.

        • bitplayer

          So if we call it potato instead of potahto, then, if I may pursue this with my sophomore year physics…
          There has to be a fairly energetic event to push the added nucleons into the NI…or does there? When I originally speculated on this I imagined “loose neutrons” that kind of “drifted” into other nuclei (which Lugano would say are NI nuclei.) This begs several questions, toward the next level of a feasible model.
          1) How much energy is required to “push” a neutron into a NI nucleus?
          (note we’re not talking about pushing protons into NI nuclei). Or is it actually pulled in?
          2) How much energy is required to loosen a neutron from LI? (Or H4?)
          3) Is it most likely that the neutron comes flying out of whichever source with sufficient energy that it is able to get into the NI nuclei, overcoming whatever resistance there might be?
          4) What in the Lugano setup could produce such energies (1 and 2 above)? The imputed “phonons”, induced by the EM pulses? Or infrared vibratory heat? Or both? (Which starts to look like Brillouin again.)

          • bitplayer

            What Bob G said, above.

      • Achi

        I asked Rossi earlier if he believed there could be more than one type of reaction occurring in the e-cat. He replied with he doesn’t believe so, but the reaction can have different effects (results) depending on how the control system handles it. He also left open the possibility of him being wrong about it only being a single reaction though.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Sorry Ged, but by convention „nuclear fusion“ means “fusion of nuclei”, not “fusion of nucleons”. Adding a neutron to a nucleus – either by neutron capture or by a stripping reaction – has (as far as I know) never been considered as nuclear fusion. Neutrons are not nuclei.

      Why should we try to save at all costs the term “cold fusion”? Only in order to end up being “right”? In case that nuclear fusion is involved, we might call this part of the process cold fusion – otherwise, we should call it what it is. It’s only the truth that counts.

      • Ged

        But hydrogen is what’s being used as fuel, so is believed, and there are no neutrons in hydrogen, just one nucleon proton. Do not stars fuse hydrogen with hydrogen, and is that not called thermal nuclear fusion? That’s just one nucleon fusing with one nucleon.

        So if we follow your definition, then stars are not nuclear fusion events, until they start fusing elements heavier than hydrogen. So I’m sorry, but I don’t accept anything as a definition that says stars are not doing nuclear fusion.

        You also didn’t explain my three questions.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          Single protons are an exception since they are particles, nuclei (of light hydrogen) and (in a certain sense) ‘nucleons’ at the same time. So if two protons fuse with each other, or one proton fuses with a larger nucleus, you would of course call it nuclear fusion. The decisive point is that there are two nuclei with a mutual Coulomb repulsion that has to be overcome.

          If a free neutron enters a nucleus, there is no such repulsion between the neutron and the nucleus. That is, if a proton captures an electron and becomes a neutron, the reaction of that neutron with the target nucleus should not be called fusion, but neutron capture.

          Stripping reactions of the Gullström type are a borderline case: Since the neutron is bound to its source nucleus, there is an effect of repulsion (both nuclei contain protons) that has to be overcome when the nuclei approach each other. But since they finally do not form a new nucleus, using the term “fusion” would certainly not be the ideal solution.

          One could speak of fusion, however, if a “virtual neutron” – a hydrogen atom where the electron “screens” or “shields” the charge of the proton – enters a target nucleus. In this case, the Coulomb barrier still exists, it is only lower than usual.

          Normally, terminological questions are of a rather secondary nature – essential is to understand what happens. But when it comes to discussions, terminology is important. Imagine that somebody bets with you that there are black geese. As soon as he brings you a real black goose, you would grant him that he won the bet and give him his money. Now imagine that he comes with a white goose whose feathers have been blackened, or with a black swan and tells you that he has just changed his definition. Would you still agree? And with cold fusion it’s exactly the same thing. We should wait until we see a genuine black goose before we finally accept it.

          • Ged

            I agree. And since hydrogen atoms are being consumed by incorporation into other nuclei, it is fusion that is the principal, key driver of the LENR process (and all subsequent neutron shuttling actions that have been proposed are not possible without the initial fusion event). As long as hydrogen is being consumed at the nuclear level, this is an inescapable conclusion, and that is what all evidence points to (such as the occasional gamma ray detection (beta plus decay), and the source of neutrons creating heavier nickel and lithium isotopes). For instance, Bob’s proposed mechanism, as you see in their facebook diagram and his comment above, is fusion initiated. So far, this fits all the available data I know of. Maybe I am just ignorant of some data, and you can show me the contrary. I am always looking for more data.

            Maybe more evidence will come along to suggest hydrogen is not being consumed, and the neutrons are being stripped from some other source we’ve not accounted for, but as it stands I have no evidence for that. So, once again we return to the fact that since an entire atomic nucleus, hydrogen, is consumed, it is fusion.

    • Frederic

      @disqus_WZ8AEr6Uwu:disqus
      “The mechanism could be more complex, where hydrogen fuses to lithium, and then lithium shuttles the proton as it turns into a neutron to the nickel. This leaves lithium as a catalyst (shuttling proton-neutrons), hydrogen as the fuel source, and nickel as the fuel sink.”
      ——–
      The mechanism you describe does not seem to be consistent with the Lugano report results as Li7 appears to be transformed into Li6, while Ni58 and Ni60 into Ni62.

      So there are (at least) 2 concurrent mechanisms : the one you described, and the one described by Andrea Calaon and Wladimir Guglinski where Ni and Li exchange neutrons and where H2 is not a fuel.

      How do you reconcile “your” mechanism with the Lugano report results ?
      Lithium is not a part of the fuel ?

      Best wishes
      FM

      • Ged

        1) hydrogen or deuterium are an absolute requirement for LENR. Hydrogen is greatly superior to deuterium, and has no neutrons, just the single proton. Hydrogen based LENR is suggested in other metal systems (e.g. palladium, tungstan) and lithium is not required.

        2) There is much more nickel than lithium in the reactor, so lithium cannot supply energy as a fuel. There is also 4x more hydrogen than lithium (LiAlH4).

        3) Not all the starting Li is Li7, but only a natural percentage, once again meaning there is no where near enough Li7 to isotopically shift as much nickel to Ni62 as seen.

        4) Li and Ni alone cause no reaction that is known. Nor do atoms trade neutrons in the absense of a nuclear reaction driving force (fission or fusion).

        Li is not required, hydrogen is. Li and Li7 especially are in far too low in molar abundance at the start to allow for the results, while hydrogen is at the very least 4x more abundant, and could be much more if the nickle has some preloaded.

        So, the Lugano report fully supports the provisional mechanism sketch provided by me and even better by Bob, and does not support any mechanism involving just neutrons or not involving hydrogen.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Perhaps these sorts of exothermic reactions are taking place in the Papp engine that was dismissed as nonsense.

    For example:
    Kr(83) + Kr(83) > Kr(82) + Kr(84) 3.05 MeV

    Kr(83) + Ar(36) > Kr(82) + Ar(37) 1.32 MeV

    Ar(40) + Ne(21) > Ar(39) + Ne(22) 0.50 MeV

    Et cetera …

    Eugene Mallove talks about Papp (1:00).
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvni1yvGmxc

    • Warthog

      This also fits with the Mitsubishi and Toshiba “LENR” transmutation experiments, which apparently affect a whole slew of heavier elements.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Especially the first reaction looks interesting, since all involved isotopes are stable. In addition, the natural abundance of Kr(83) is high enough (11.6%).

      I read somewhere that Papp had initially used steam (H2O) before he switched to noble gases. The reaction path in this case might be

      2 O(17) > O(16) + O(18) (3.9 MeV)

      One would have to break up the water molecules first and reduce the influence of the electron shells (this is also a problem in the noble gas variant). Besides, O(17) is a relatively rare isotope (0.038% natural abundance). But if such reactions were really possible, Gullström would have hit the jackpot.

  • Curbina

    I think that, based in the Lugano isotopic analysis, this is kind of the obvious conclusion, with the caveat that we still don’t have much idea of what happens that alows the isotopic shift. It is also clear that there is a whole lot of stuff that is unknown because other researchers report transmutation as a result. So, as always, more questions than answers, but that the phenomena is real and greatly exothermic, no doubt stands still.

  • Stranno

    Why was this unknown untill now? there are so many experts in this field! Or was it well known that this isotopic change caused the heat production?

    • http://lenrftw.net LENR G

      It’s not the heat production they don’t believe; that follows from the isotopic changes and is known physics. They don’t believe the isotopic changes and transmutations can be driven by a magical heater.

      It all boils down to E-Cats creating the conditions for nucleons to go square dancing in crevices or boundary layers. Two independent* tests, one including detailed analysis of the reactor’s ash, and internal verification and continued activity by Industrial Heat scream yes. Scientists maintain that it’s not possible and are still in “prove it” mode.

  • Gerard McEk

    It is clear to me that slow neutrons play a major role in this. Question is why also hydrogen atoms (protons and deuterons) play a role. I cannot remember that Gullström’s theory makes it clear how these atoms are involved, but without it, it does not work. Maybe that these atoms more strongly attract the neutrons of the nearby metal atoms than these metal atoms, through which some metal neutrons ‘tunnel’ to the protons and deuterons if you bring these metal and proton/deuteron atoms sufficiently near to each other?

  • Andreas Moraitis

    This is no surprise since ‘real’ fusion reactions could explain at the most parts of the results. My guess is that fusion – in case that it plays a role – happens mainly in the “runaway mode”, where it causes more problems (overheating, radiation) than advantages.