Posted on 04/09/2011 2:06:23 PM PDT by Windflier
This FAQ covers Andrea Rossi's technology, which combines small amounts of ubiquitous and safe Nickel and Hydrogen in the presence of proprietary catalyst under pressure and heat to generate a large amount of heat. It also addresses questions about the commercialization under way.
FAQ
What is the Energy Catalyzer?
It is a "Cold Fusion" device developed by Italian engineer and inventor Andrea Rossi. It produces heat by placing nickel powder of very small particle size (nano-meters to micro-meters) in a pressurized hydrogen environment along with currently undisclosed (for proprietary reasons) catalysts that enhance the reaction. When this environment is heated to approximately 450 - 500 C, a nuclear reaction starts taking place. This reaction releases a large amount of energy while consuming very little hydrogen and nickel powder.
How much energy does this system produce?
There is currently only one model of reactor that has been disclosed. It is designed to produce 10 kW of continuous thermal energy in the form of heated water or steam. However, this is not the upper limit of the energy the system can produce. It can be throttled up to 130 kW or higher, but that is avoided except during experimentation for safety reasons.
What proof do we have this technology works as claimed?
Andrea Rossi has used one of these devices to continually heat one of his factories for two years. In addition, recent publicized tests performed by third party scientists at the University of Bologna have verified that the output is far beyond any chemical reaction possible, that there are no hidden external sources of energy feeding the reactor, and that the output far exceeds the energy input. In one test, the device self sustained with no input for a period of time before the short experiment was ended. Another experiment allowed the reactor to run for 18 hours producing a constant average output of 15 kW utilizing only an average of 80 watts of input. Successful tests such as these have impressed scientists and have inspired the one year research program at the University of Bologna .
My understand is that fission can be encouraged by slowing neutrons down (thermal neutrons) by surrounding the fuel elements with a "moderator" like graphite. The first controlled chain reaction was observed in a "pile" of graphite blocks interspersed with the uranium fuel rods. There were also "control rods" used to regulate the number of fission events by absorbing neutrons. Elements like boron or xenon gas come to mind as neutron absorbers. Rods all the way in to quench the reaction completely, partly withdrawn to permit fission events, all the way out gives one a "Chernobyl".
Regards,
GtG
PS Old timers still refer to nuclear reactors as "piles", old memories die hard.
Yes, you use dense matter as speed bumps then you use other mediums to soak them up once they are slowed down.
Graphite is the speed bump, Boron are the absorbers.
It takes many feet of graphite to slow them down or a similar element.
If you go to some of the links, these guys have nothing that would be able to take of this.
Neutrons can go right through lead, the guys running this experiment seem obvious to this fact.
The Great Fermi became a lover of all things American, after exile from his native Italy. This included American cutoms, and its language (loosely based on English ;).
He searched for a colloquial English word for his giant stack of carbon bricks and uranium slugs. He came up with the word "pile."
PS Old timers still refer to nuclear reactors as "piles", old memories die hard.
Here is a high level description of the theory from a NASA conference on Aviation Unleashed NASA Aviation Unleashed
Widom Larsen Theory Overview
When Hydrogen is "charged" into a metal like Nickel, the electron joins the electron sea, and the proton (Hydrogen nucleus) separate. When one of these free electrons has enough energy, there is a chance that one of the free protons will capture the electron and form a neutron.
Because of the conditions at the time of the creation of the neutron, it has almost no kinetic energy. Because it has very low energy, it is absorbed by one of the local atoms
So one of the Nickel atoms grabs the neutron, and the new isotope of Nickel may be unstable
This table shows nickel capturing one neutron
The current state of the art is like the understanding of magnetism was 300 years ago. You needed a lodestone to make a magnet. Now we understand how to turn electricity into magnetism. Once the theory catches up with the experiments, we will learn how to reliably recreate the conditions that allow the electron capture that creates the ultra low energy neutrons
An Electron + a Proton = Hydrogen not a Neutron
This is so freaking funny, I have to read the link you gave me
Looked at the NASA Aviation Unleashed presentations, they don’t describe Rossi’s experiment, they describe the work of other scientists as has been discussed on this very thread.
I looked on Google at all the Aricles (Widom-Larsen +Rossi), Just because an article references Widom-Larsen doesn’t mean it is relevant or Widom-Larsen was an endorsement of the experiment.
This would be the same as if I was mentioned in an article with Steve Jobs, it adds what appears to be instant creditability because they mention me along side Steve Jobs but in reality it is meaningless.
Widom-Larsen describes a theoretical way in which low energy nuclear reactions could take place that hasn’t been demonstrated, it is also not fusion, and it was hoped it may explain some of the claims of cold fusion.
It is a thought experiment.
dila813 is correct.
The combination process of (proton + electron) to produce 1 neutron VIOLATES the law of conservation of Lepton Number. Electron has a lepton number of +1 and anti-neutrino has a lepton number of -1. Neutrons and protons (in fact, all baryons) have a lepton number of zero.
The free neutron has a 1/2 life of 15 minutes and produces 1 proton, 1 electron, AND (VERY IMPORTANT!) 1 anti-neutrino. We are immersed in a sea of neutrinos (anti- and otherwize).
There is absolutely nothing special or particular to Nickel to facilitate the (proton, electron, anti-neutrino) combination. No matter how low the rate of this “spontaneous” production of neutrons from hydrogen atoms alone, the cosmos would awash with free neutrons.
I know that some say that well, the Universe started being all hydrogen and later one has all these atoms with plenty of neutrons in them. The answer lies in the weak anti-symmetry of the weak force, thus pushing the Universe (at least the part we observe) to be mainly matter and not anti-matter. (anti-neutrino, neutrino) can be produced spontaneously from photon-(zero-point radiation
field) interactions but in time - since all particles have some nonzero interaction with all forces - production of one neutrino type predominates.
So people are grasping at straws in trying to come with a mechanism for Rossi’s scheme.
Some interesting Q&As today on Rossi’s site:
Q: I think one of the great attractions of your technology is that it seems to be mature enough to be able to fit in with the existing energy infrastructure without too much modification.
We hear so much these days about the problems that coal fired power plants present. It would seem logical that your technology could be incorporated into an existing power plant — instead of burning coal for heat, just use the E-cats to provide the heat to drive the turbines.
Do you see any problems with this approach?
Rossi’s A: I agree perfectly. The integration of our reactors with existing power plants is one of the easiest applications we have ready. We are working in this very promising direction.
Good question, thank you,
Q: What would be the real danger if an E-Cat system would be subject to a hard physical shock ? (also – we could say – an earthquake with the collapse of the building where the E.Cat is working).
Rossi’s A: The E-Cat, when turned off, is just a piece of metal with Ni inside, plus some other substance which doesn’t start any kind of reaction. By the way: we are far from automotive applications, as well as from household applications, for which many barriers have to be resolved. We are ready to produce heat in industrial or centralized distribution, right now, or to integrate heat production in existing power plants.
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360#comments
You’ll never convince those that refuse to face facts and want to be fooled.
There has been only one colder fusion experiment that got anywhere close and actually released neutrons.
*** “Our finding is very significant,” says study co-author and analytical chemist Pamela Mosier-Boss, Ph.D., of the U.S. Navy’s Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR) in San Diego, Calif. “To our knowledge, this is the first scientific report of the production of highly energetic neutrons from an LENR device.”
It is a near certainty that there will never be true cold fusion unless some exotic matter is found.
***It is a higher certainty that you don’t know what you’re talking about. I’ve noticed that naysayers who talk the loudest all scurry away when the time comes for them to put their money where their mouth is.
#1 LENR device aren’t fusion devices cold or other wise
LENR = Low Energy Nuclear Reaction
LENR don’t call their experiments cold fusion
My comment was on cold fusion and still stands.
I've often wondered how a skeptic might "put his money where his mouth is". It would be an easy way to make money, if a mechansim were available.
Personal bet? Transaction costs too high, market too thin, chances of welshing significant.
Pure stock play? I've never heard of a stock in any of these technologies that was publicly traded and thus could be sold short. Even then, as with all short selling, there's the matter of timing.
Index fund? There, you could bet against the technology regardless of there being no actual investment to bet for or against.
Does an index exist for the E-cat?
Again, dila813 is correct, kevmo.
Pamela Mosier-Boss’s work does not show proof of cold fusion, namely nucleon-nucleon fusion. The triple track is indicative of an impact of a high energy electron to a carbon nucleus to produce 3 alpha particles.
Here, the issue is not so much that the elements are Nickel or Palladium per se but the surface topology on the electrode surface. The electric field is most intense where you have sharp edges and points. Now, what Mosier-Boss needs to do is to embed into the plastic elements other than carbon to see if one finds quadruple tracks, quintuple tracks, etc..
You see Kevmo, the main difficulty with fusion is the electrostatic barrier of 2 nucleons which are positively charged. There is no such barrier between electron and protons, especially when the electron is very high speed with respect to the nucleon (ah no: A ground state hydrogen atom will not collapse to a neutron (without an anti-neutrino) or to a hydrino (and I have talked to you about both the contradictions from a mathematical and physical point of view)).
If anything, Pamela Mosier-Boss’ work demonstrates facilitated FISSION, not fusion.
Sorry Kevmo.
They don’t, because that would expose the con to legal jeopardy.
But I will take your money.
#1 LENR device aren’t fusion devices cold or other wise
***Easily refuted by just posting the first sentence of the same article that I posted from before:
Researchers are reporting compelling new scientific evidence for the existence of low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR), the process once called “cold fusion” that may promise a new source of energy.
If your comment still stands, that means you don’t even read the first sentence of articles. Why should we listen to you?
I’ve often wondered how a skeptic might “put his money where his mouth is”. It would be an easy way to make money, if a mechansim were available.
***Here was my mechanism:
How I Made Money from Cold Fusion
Saturday, January 23, 2010 12:28:49 PM · by Kevmo · 28 replies · 1,013+ views
Exclusive Article for Free Republic | 1/23/10 | Kevmo
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2435697/posts
I’d be happy to discuss Pamela Mosier-Boss’s work on one of the threads dedicated to it, like this one
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2212864/posts
My comment was towards the “near certainty” that there will never be true cold fusion unless some exotic matter is found. If you’re saying he’s right, then prove it. The remainder of your post was about other things besides what I wrote.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.