Article on Cold Fusion on Chapel Hill, NC Local News Site [Update: Part 2 — Cold Fusion History]

Thanks to Leo Kaas for sending the following link to an article on cold fusion.

http://chapelboro.com/columns/common-science/cold-fusion-part-i-the-science/

It’s an article written by Jeff Danner on the Chapelboro.com website, which covers news in the Chapel Hill area of North Carolina (where the University of North Carolina is located). Danner writes on a blog called Common Science, and this is the first in a three part series on cold fusion. The first part published at the link above is on the science aspect of the topic. Next week he will cover the history of CF/LENR and the last part will be on the “potentially world-changing implications” of the technology.

Last month Italian inventor Andrea Rossi was granted a U.S. patent for a fluid heater. At first glance, that’s not a particularly gripping opening sentence for a lively or interesting science column. But there is more to the story, a lot more. First off, the heat source in Rossi’s invention is purported to cold fusion. If Rossi really has mastered cold fusion, the world is about to become a very different place. There is also a local angle. Rossi is a partner in the Raleigh-based Industrial Heat, LLC who have been operating one of the patented fluid heaters at an undisclosed location for the last six months.

As far as the science aspect goes, Danner focuses on the classical nuclear fusion process in which huge amounts of energy are required to get nuclei in close enough proximity to fuse (hot fusion approach), and he doesn’t really cover some of the more recently proposed theories discussed in LENR circles. He does not seem dismissive of cold fusion as field, but does end the article by saying next week he will explain why he thinks “Rossi’s invention may have an important flaw.”

I’m not quite sure why he says that, so it will be interesting to find out next week what he means.

UPDATE: (Sept. 20, 2015)

Thanks to Veblin for sharing that Jeff Danner has published part 2 of his article on cold fusion — this one covers the history of cold fusion here: http://chapelboro.com/columns/common-science/cold-fusion-part-ii-history-1869-to-2015/

Regarding the “important flaw”, mentioned in part 1, Danner states the following.

Rossi states that he nickel in the device must be replaced periodically. The fact that the activity of the nickel is used up over time is consistent with neutron capture and/or hydrogen-nickel fusion being sources of heat generation in the device.

In Part I of this series, I told you I would come back this week and comment on what I considered to be a “flaw” in Rossi’s device. In retrospect, “shortcoming” would have been a better word choice. Based on the correspondence I received from the LENR community, I believe that I created an expectation that I would be delving into the physics of the device and attempting to refute some quantum physics related aspect of the process. In fact, what I was attempting to foreshadow was, that whatever the merits or flaws of Rossi’s device, it is not performing cold fusion in the commonly conceived manner of hydrogen being used to create helium. Therefore, rather than being a clean and nearly infinite source of energy based on water, Rossi’s device seems to be dependent on one-time use of nickel. While this would not detract from any potential scientific achievements, this approach brings along some extra baggage such as the need to mine nickel as fuel.

  • Veblin

    Cold Fusion Part III: Conclusion and Implications
    By Jeff Danner September 27, 2015
    http://chapelboro.com/columns/common-science/cold-fusion-part-iii-conclusion-and-implications/

  • Omega Z

    1% of current production would replace current energy requirements. Current energy production needs to double to bring the non developed world up to speed. 2%
    Transportation will double that to 4%. We’ll find new uses for energy. 8%.
    It’s cheap & plentiful. We will waste it. We will now need 50% of current nickel production. You electric costs will skyrocket to $1 a kilowatt.
    So much for cheap energy.

  • Albert D. Kallal

    I also had this concern and stated as such. However, two
    things occurred that put my mind at ease.

    First, Rossi just stated that the fuel in the reactor has
    not been changed yet nor had the need occurred. So the nickel remains as a catalyst
    and enabler of the LENR effect, not the source of fuel.

    The isotope changes in the 3rd party test were
    rather worrisome in that the nickel isotope was changing. This gave rise to the
    possibility that the nickel was being used up as fuel.

    The second good set of news was as the isotope changed
    towards NI 62 they noted in the 3rd party test that performance of
    the reactor was improving over time. This suggests that the nickel is NOT the
    fuel nor is it being used up. In fact this means that the nickel actually increased
    in mass (at least anytime nickel below 62 changed “upwards” towards NI 62.

    As the isotope changed towards NI 62 then nickel seems to
    become MORE useful, and the LACK of isotope change was viewed as the reason for
    the increase in the reactor performance. Thus the neutrons and energy used to change
    the isotope were now available and free to result in the energy output of the
    reactor increasing over time.

    So the jury is not out nor clear that the nickel is in
    fact being used as a fuel source. And the jury is not out if the nickel is
    being used up as a catalyst either. (so the nickel is a catalyst or enabler of
    this effect, but it does not seem to “wear” out at any kind of appreciable
    rate.)

    So while I VERY much share this concern, the concern has diminished
    based on the results of the third party test, and also that Rossi stated the
    fuel has not required a change in the reactor so far.

    Rossi also stated the nickel could be re-processed and
    used again (and this could well be an assumption on Ross’s part – not a given).

    If anything it seems such an isotope change results in better
    performance of the e-cat reactor.

    As a result the assuming that the nickel is being
    consumed or used up is not a given or known issue.

    So far, it looks like the nickel will last a considerable
    of time.

    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Oh no, a LENR novice with a pen and a paper.

    • Omega Z

      That be everyone here at ECW. 🙂

  • Obvious

    I think there is a misunderstanding regarding the nickel needing to be replaced. (Perhaps my misunderstanding). As I understood it, it is the reversible H delivery material (presumably the LAH +/- pure Li) that wears out, not the nickel. The reversible reaction loses its effacy over time. The nickel, although isotopically upgraded, does not become a problem. Perhaps the H gets stuck somewhere, or slowly diffuses out.

    • Axil Axil

      Regarding:

      “Rossi states that he nickel in the device must be replaced periodically. The fact that the activity of the nickel is used up over time is consistent with neutron capture and/or hydrogen-nickel fusion being sources of heat generation in the device.”

      Rossi states that the nickel is a catalyst that does not usually participate in the LENR transmutation. But neutrons will be added to nickel as an ongoing process at a low but relatively constant rate. Through beta decay, the nickel with very many excess neutrons will transmute into copper and then zinc to balance the proton/neutron mix when a neutron is converted into a proton.

      Copper and zinc do not reflect heat as well as nickel, that is, nickel gradually loses its nanoplasmonic potency. Therefore being subject to continuing transmutations, the performance of the nickel catalyst will decrease over time as more and more copper and zinc replace nickel atom by atom in the microparticles.

      • Gerard McEk

        AR and Cook assume that the main energetic reaction is Li7+p->Be8->2He4 +17,26 MeV. So where do the neutrons come from you are mentioning, Axil? May these come from the collisions of the energetic alpha’s with the nickel?

        • Axil Axil

          The neutron came from Li7 to Li6 when that neutron tunnels into the nickel nucleus as witnessed by what happened to the 100 micron nickel particle’s transmutation to Ni62 in the Lugano test.

          The Li7+p->Be8->2He4 alpha did not produce the Ni62 micro particle in Lugano.

          • Gerard McEk

            Thanks Axil, Can you also explain how the lithium7 neutron is released?

            • Axil Axil

              Everybody with an opinion will tell you that the neutrons tunnel into the nucleus of nickel because no free neutrons were observed. When a Lugano type of nickel microparticle comprised of a trillion atoms is converted to pure Ni62, it is natural to expect that at least a few neutrons would escape the reaction zone near the particle and be detected outside of the reactor by the radiation detectors, however no excess neutron radiation was observed by the neutron detectors.

              It is unreasonable to expect that nuclear reaction produced by LENR will look similar to the nuclear reactions seen in orthodox nuclear physics.

              I believe that the nuclear reactions that occur in LENR are based on black hole physics and the entanglement that black holes produce, this is called worm hole tunneling.

              I beleive to produce such a pure Ni62 particle, all the nickel atoms were converted though neutron worm hole tunneling in one collective reaction entailing all trillion atoms. The entire 100 micron particle must have been entangled in a collective superatom with all the surrounding nickel. All the nickel atoms were effectively the same atom. Something triggered the collective nuclear tunneling reaction were all trillion atoms of nickel were converted to Ni62 in one collective nuclear reaction. This is the only why that the nickel particle could have been transmuted is such a uniform way.

              • Gerard McEk

                Thanks Axil, that was not a direct answer to my question, but a very interesting insight. Your assumption also implies that there were Ni particles in the ash, still in their natural isotopic composition state with no isotopic change at all. Has that also been found? ( I cannot remember that these were mentioned in the Lugano report).

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

      As I understand his patent, there is a problem but with lithium, which is a resource like Uranium or Nickel, that is not rare if you put the price (since energy density is huge it is valuable at- today’s energy cost).

      If Rossi have found a Li+H LENR reaction, it may be nice as an interim technology , but I expect H+H, or D+D LENR to take over.
      From the data of previous experiments I feel that there is few doubt that D+D and H+H+ LENR exists, but they seems more elusive and apparently need stronger triggering than E-cat.

      • Axil Axil

        There seems to be two types of LENR reactions that are possible, a high powered reaction that might produce a muon an associated muon catalyzed fusion and a low powered reaction that might produce proton and/or neutron tunneling.

        Both these types of LENR reactions are produced by the same fundamental reaction mechanism.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Yeah, the Mitsubishi process could be used to transmute the more abundant
        element molybdenum into palladium (making it competitive with nickel systems).

        Mo + 4d > Pd

        Or from strontium

        Sr + 4d > Mo

        Mo + 4d > Pd

        http://coldfusionnow.org/dr-melvin-miles-on-helium-4-excess-heat-new-interview/

  • Veblin

    Cold Fusion Part II: History 1869 to 2015
    By Jeff Danner
    http://chapelboro.com/columns/common-science/cold-fusion-part-ii-history-1869-to-2015/

  • Veblin

    I see that a Monday audio interview with the author has been added to this Sunday article.
    http://audio.chapelboro.com.s3.amazonaws.com/2015/09/14/COMMON%20SCIENCE%20FULL%20091415.mp3
    Right click on link and save to have a copy of the mp3 file.

  • Ged

    We already know it takes next to nothing to prep the fuel–orders of magnitude less energy than is released (more energy than is absolutely possible with chemical is released, which means no amount of fuel processing costs can come close to the gain unless fuel was having to be processed by nuclear reactions; same is true for fission fuel rods. The only problem would be if the fuel used an exotic metal that was very rare and hard to obtain). The writer is most likely using the patent itself as the basis of his statement, so we know there’s nothing surprising about the fuel there.

    Most likely, this “flaw” has something to do with economics: either 1) application, 2) difficulty of automation, or 3) prospects of commercialization (e.g. competition compared to other sources). I am intrigued, and we shall see soon enough what the writer means. Maybe he has seen something in the economics we have not.

  • Owen Geiger

    Mr. Danner: please search E-CatWorld carefully and you will likely find the information you’re looking for. This site has very extensive documentation on everything related to the E-Cat.

  • Omega Z

    Considering what it takes to produce fuel rods for nuclear power plants, I can’t see how that could even be a remote possibility. On top of that, Rossi wouldn’t be talking about $10 for a 6 month fuel recharge. Probably Rossi’s number is to low as I think safety certifications will require special handing by a technician. But still, it will be cheap energy.

    Likely he will bring up something long past discussed here at ECW that amounts to nothing. Or the lack of a coherent theory. Most of the people who write articles spend very little time collecting info & get much of it wrong.

    As an example, nearly every article “Still” includes references to the transmutation of nickel to copper. Something that Rossi himself discarded long ago as a probable contamination.

  • Albert D. Kallal

    Yes a bit perplexing as to the “flaw”, but it not clear in
    terms of what context or issue one is talking about.

    As noted, until deliveries of this technology occur, then
    a long and hard road of acceptance of LENR will remain, and I think that is understandable.

    And skepticism of Rossi should and does exist (at least if one not
    followed him for so long). So hopefully the “flaw” is in terms of Rossi or some context. However, the reporter being from that area of the country, there could be some new and interesting
    information he’s dug up.

    However, in the context of LENR and some flaw? LENR does
    not need Rossi at all – many other independent sources have seen heat due to
    gas loading of metals. So I don’t think the flaw in question here is LENR, or
    at least it should not be.

    This year so far been great for LENR with patients being
    awarded. Also VERY significant is CERN hosting a talk next month. (they hold a
    lot of credibility). CERN alone openly talking about LENR likely will do MORE to
    the science crowd then ANY other event this year – include the patient awards.

    And articles like this will only server to spark even
    more interest in LENR – this is good!

    I am close to the point here that the ONLY really
    remaining event we want is commercial deliver to occur. My spider sense says
    with CERN starting to openly talk about LENR, we might see some of this “thunder”
    of LENR coming from the science community as opposed to Rossi making a commercial
    delivery.

    If the science community does not start making some noise
    on this issue, then many people will VERY much question what the heck is the science
    community doing and why fund such large research labs when they MISSED THE
    LARGEST story of our lives? Same goes for NASA.
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • Omega Z

      “with patients being awarded.”

      I’m quite sure you mean patents.
      But there does tend to be a lack of patients so if some were awarded, that would be welcome also… 🙂

    • Alan DeAngelis

      I’m trying to come up with an appropriate metaphor.
      Like pushing your finger into a bump in the wall paper and finding a termite infestation,
      the E-Cat will have everyone wondering what else the gatekeepers of official science have missed.

      • bachcole

        Too great a dependence upon theory, no matter how often it works and no matter how well the equations work or how simple they are.

        • Alan DeAngelis

          I was also thinking about one of your favorite topics (if my memory serves me) : Health care.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            PS

            I think you’ll like this one bachcole.

            The holistic doctor who committed suicide by shooting himself twice in the chest with a rife and then dragging himself into a nearby river:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sixN6DMQHkk

  • Veblin

    Thanks Leo and Frank.
    I’m Always Open to Threads like this that give us the Newest links to articles like this.

    Now if someone would take on Mary Yugo’s numerous comment lies.

    • Omega Z

      I agree, And someone needs to start a new blog.
      Exposay-> Mary Yugo & Gary Wright Etc…
      Including the various Pseudonym’s & all the dirt that can be found.
      All is fair, is it not.

      M.Y.(G. Hody) is good at pointing out that certain info doesn’t come from Scientific Journals & such, but doesn’t hesitate to use highly questionable Blogs himself as proof including Gary Wrights.

      I wonder If I could get away with something like that.
      I swear what I’m telling you is true & comes from a highly credible source. Just go to my Brothers Blog. Oh, And I personally vouch for his blogs integrity.

      • timycelyn

        How about we set up a “Shut down George Hody” site?? 😉

        • bachcole

          I dare you.

        • Frechette

          Please don’t shut down George Hody’s site. We are too close to seeing Lenr being proven in an industrial application. I would hate not to observe the reaction of Hody when the results are made public. Will he just slither back under his rock or will he claim it’s all one big scam?

          • Omega Z

            He will claim ignorance as to whom this Mary Yugo is & disappear.

        • http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/ barty

          We should not play into their hands by going to such a low level.

          The cleverer give in.
          Just ignore them.

        • radvar

          Simply suggest that readers google “Mary Yugo George Hody”

  • Daniel Maris

    Any discussion is good!

  • bachcole

    Same story, different outlet; but this is good.