Open Power Association Publishes Report on Production of Anomalous Heat and Electricity

The Italian Open Power Association has published the full text of a report it was hoping to present at the ICCF19 conference in Padua, Italy. The communication I received is prefaced with this remark:

As you can see in Our newsletter of April, in PDF attachment, the Committtee of ICCF19 decided not to give voice to the Open Science Research in Italy! And We of Open Power.

Do not Hide Our bitterness, disappointment and disbelief, for this decision, which has no scientific basis, in our opinion. We have already officially asked the reasons for this negative decision, but we are still waiting for feedback from the organization…

As it is in our style, and thanks to the Internet, we promptly decided to disclose the full text of what would be our intervention to ICCF19, if we had been invited. Also, last but not least, we also publish the full text of the patent connected and already filed.

The paper is titled, “Experimental Tests on Energy Localization: Anomalous Effects of High Voltage, Narrow Pulsed Electrical Discharges on Metal Powders, in Electrolysis and Gas” and is written by Ugo Abundo, A. Burgognoni, Q. Cuccioli, M. Di Lecce, P. Pieravanti, F. Santandrea, L. Saporito.

The report also included the text of a patent: “Apparatus and method for the production of energy by means of pulsed electro-compression of light elements in nanostructured ceramic-metallic composite matrices” which the association is filed “to protect Open Science against mere business: in prospective, free licenses will be distributed to selected major protagonists.”

The report can be read here: http://www.hydrobetatron.org/files/ICCF19_ABUNDO_Pubb.pdf

From the abstract:

“With the goal of determining the conditions to promote some anomalous effects (thermal and electrical) shown by metals in the presence of hydrogen gas or during electrolytic evolution, we focused the attention on the use of high voltage, narrow electric pulses, with low repetition rate, on small sized metal powders.

“The experimental data collected during the experimentation, relative to cathodes made from tungsten micrometric powders subjected to electrolytic regime (solutions of K2 CO3) at voltages up to 350 V and the average power of 200-300 W, show the spontaneous formation of pulses of high instantaneous power, up to 30 – 40 KW, in conjunction with abnormal development of heat.

“Moreover, we was able to perform a direct extraction of a part of the electric energy contained in such plasma pulsations, by a suitable circuit, inth e so called “negative resistance” region.”

  • Axil Axil

    Joe Papp was a bad man and a nut. He taught the Rohners boys how to do the con. But this has nothing to do with the validity of the Papp engine. This engine was a marketing toll for the Papp con. That con was the best there has ever been because the engine worked. That engine could never has been turned into a personal energy product because it was radioactive but it could have been used as a micro nuclear reactor.

    • clovis ray

      OK, enough said on this, not the best topic, lol,

  • Axil Axil

    Only John was charged, Bob hated John and would have nothing to do with him.

  • Axil Axil

    Was that the RWGresearch replication attempt by Russ Griss

    • clovis ray

      Does, John or bob, Roner, ring any bells.

      • Axil Axil

        John has trouble with the SEC, he never worked with Papp. Bob was part of the Papp engine build team and is now a replicator.

  • Axil Axil

    The Papp engine passed a independent third party test as ordered and controlled by the patent office and a patent was granted. A con could not have passed such a test.

  • bkrharold

    Mike McKubre has tested and validated several other LENR devices.

  • bkrharold

    That is a good point. The open power device should be subjected to the same level of scrutiny as Rossi’s e-cat, before being endorsed by ICCF and the LENR community. It is up to them to provide the proof.

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

    you are right.
    science is a myth, people just trust authorities, and funding… forget evidence.

    the business guys of oil, or industry, know since the 1990s, like the militaries, nuke, and the space agencies that LENR is real. they know also it was not usable at medium term until… until Rossi.

    now shell have done tech watch, airbus join the gang, MHI, toyota, Tohoku,UniMizzou, TTU, Statoil, prepare something…

    when it will be funded academic will believe their paycheck.

    evidence are overvalued… nobody cares of evidence in reality, except the businessman.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Charles Townes, the inventor of the maser was told that he was wasting his time when he was working on it.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_H._Townes
      And I think (I could be wrong) that one of people who said that he was wrong was even more pissed off at him after he received the Nobel Prize for it and wouldn’t speak to him.

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

        Shechtman and his crystal pissed of no less than his boss the nobelized Linus Pauling.

        funny to hear all the crowd of wikiscientists claim it is exaggerated, while hearing the victim say it was very nasty…

        as what is saying one of the DNA inventor…

        funny to see people deny the reality of denial of innovation in science while Thomas Kuhn, historian, explain that history is regularly rewritten to hide those episodes…

        it is documented, but everybody claim the opposite…

        It remind me the fabled peer reviewed papers, the fabled results, the fabled autoradiography, the fabled COP, of LENR….

        all is done in public and it can be a fable

        http://invention.psychology.msstate.edu/inventors/i/Wrights/library/WrightSiAm1.html

  • bkrharold

    I am one of those who have a very high regard for Feynman. First Bill Cosby, and now this. I can’t take much more

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Here is something from 2012 but I don’t know what’s happened since then.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dS1MsymF8hc

    • Axil Axil

      The real killer for the commercialization of the Papp engine is based on the fact that Papp used radium in the electrodes to gather excess current production. The electrodes or pots as Papp named them were hollow. These pots were filled with radium to produce intense alpha radiation when activated by arc discharge.

      http://www.amper.com.tr/the_radioactive_lightning_rods-167.htm

      This is a process that came from the technology that came from radioactive lightning rods that Papp took with him from Europe. It was said that Papp had a bottle of radium buried in his back yard that he brought with him from Europe to fuel his engine. To make the Papp engine a salable product, this “negative” current attraction must be relapsed with another current enhancement attraction technology that does not involve radioactivity.

      Papp knew that he could never get his engine approved because of the radiation that it produced. so he made an excellent living by attracting venture capital.

  • bkrharold

    If they have a working LENR system they should let an independent third party lime Mike McKubre test it, and publish the results. He has extensive experience in testing, and if it passes that would convince me

    • Mats002

      Yes and THEN he can present at ICCF.

  • Freethinker

    The information is vague as to why.

    There is the question, what Open Power Association requested as in format, for partaking. It is not by itself given that you get to make an oral presentation at a conference. Maybe they rejected a poster slot.

    ICCF19 may prove to be a true pivot point in terms of MS science taking
    this seriously. Possibly the ones deciding the merits of participating
    material felt it did not have what it takes at the moment.

    Are the results so far convincing enough? Or is the main drive for the participation, presentation and a paper in the proceedings, to generate leverage in a patent application, and less on robust results and the science?

    Was there a fallout on matters like these?

    As weird as it seems, there would be a reason. So let’s not get over board on this. Let’s focus on the things that are actually presented there, and appreciate Ugo Abundo et.al’s presentation on the side. Good on them to make it public, any way.

    Side note:
    I tried to get a grip on the misc affiliations that are listed in the rejected presentation, and I found little or nothing about “J. Von Neumann Foundation” or the “Neural Calculus Lab”. Does anybody have info or good links on those two?

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Yeah, we do see the general public (the children) respond this way to a “trusted adult”. Another example of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BemTGkjl6U

  • Alan DeAngelis
  • Alan DeAngelis

    Those young folks are doing wonderful work. If they can get that 30-40 KW nanosecond pulse to drive a piston in a closed system, they could have an aqueous version of the Papp engine that could be hooked up to an electrical generator. Turn a Papp type engine upside down so that the piston is above the electrolyte solution. The adiabatic expansion of steam that would be generated in the nanoseconds pulse in a fixed amount of fluid would cool itself as it does work to move a piston (at least that’s what I think is happening in a Papp engine. See my comments here: http://coldfusionnow.org/plasma-engine-reproduced-now-optimizing-for-efficiency/
    And here is what Eugene Mallove had to say about the Papp engine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvni1yvGmxc

    • Axil Axil

      The Papp engine produced more electric current than it used to produce the reaction. The engine had an even number of cylinders whereby each cylinder of the pair fired the other so that each acted as an over unity capacitor for the other.

      Papp had a circuit that controlled the flow of current between cylinders. When Feynman disabled this control circuit by pulling the plug to the control box, the overunity current flow gradually increased over some minutes without constraint from the control box until the engine exploded.

      • James Andrew Rovnak

        Yes Axil! All true!

  • Gerard McEk

    I do not see much evidence that I can understand to support further development. The presentation is very complex and not suitable to convince outsiders of this technology, maybe that is the reason not to allow it at the OCCF?

  • Bob Matulis

    Read the conclusions and was unable to determine if a COP >1 was accomplished.

    • Sanjeev

      Slide#18 mentions a COP of 1.26 for one of the experiment. But as far as I know this is from some old experiment (hydrobetatron ?). Couldn’t find any mention of COP for their new arc reactor. The photos show that great amount of work and effort went into it, but its not clear (to me) what was achieved.

      Note that instantaneous power of 40KW for nanoseconds doesn’t mean that any excess energy was produced. The pulse can be of KW but since it lasts for a nanosecond, the energy will be almost nil. Its sad that they fail to give a proper COP. May be this caused the rejection of the paper from ICCF.

      I was hoping for some results from their E-Cat replication attempt, a really nice setup they had. I wonder why they got distracted by this arc and plasma thing.

      • Bob Matulis

        Great summary. Thanks. I agree they put a lot of effort in their tests. Will be interesting if and when they produce clear positive results.