• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Cold Fusion Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
This url was posted at Delusional Idiots forum:

http://pesn.com/2011/01/17/9501746_Focardi-Rossi_10_kW_cold_fusion_prepping_for_market/

Simply put, the effect involves pressurized dihydrogen gas (2 bars is the lowest mentioned in the patent and 80 bars is what was used in the demonstration) is placed in metal tube with nano powdered nickel and a heating element (resistor). Somehow the dihydrogen gas is split into atomic hydrogen. When heat is applied the atomic hydrogen reacts with the powdered nickel to produce energy up to 400 times the input energy. Undisclosed catalysts are used to increase the efficiency of the cell.
Click to expand...
At first glance this sounds like a weird variation of Nickel Hydrogen battery with energy in put as hydrogen and output as heat. Most batteries will heat in overcharge conditions -- NiCD batteries are monitored for heating and chargers shut off automatically as soon as slight temp rise is detected, as that provides end-of-charge cycle data. In other words, the heat output might be a result of a chemical reaction, not some kind of fusion.

But . . . also in this article it says
* Regular Ni is used even though other isotopes may provide better efficiency. They think all the isotopes work to produce the effect.
* For some unknown reason, not all of the Ni in the cell reacts with the hydrogen to produce energy. The percentage of the Ni that reacts is very low.
* Even though the percentage of the Ni that reacts with hydrogen is very low one kilogram of nickel powder should deliver 10 kW of energy for 10,000 hours. The consumption rate of hydrogen and nickel are 0.1 g of Ni and 0.01 g of H to produce 10 kWh/h. Note that for every picogram of nickel that is actually fused or reacts to the hydrogen, much more must be added. Not all the nickel added will react. So if you add 0.1g of Ni to produce 10kWh/h only a small fraction of that Ni will actually be utilized. When the device shuts off due to running out of fuel most of the .1g could be remaining.
* Tungsten is in no way used. However, "other elements" are used.
* Radiation is produced. However in the device demonstrated which is made for commercial use no radiation escapes due to lead shielding. The fact that radiation is produced is proof of a nuclear reaction.
* In the demonstration device for every unit of input there was approximately 37 units of output.
* A small percentage of the nickel is transmuted into copper. The amount of copper found in the cell is far greater than the impurities in the nickel powder. None of this copper is "unstable."
* There is no radioactivity in the cell after it is turned off. No nuclear "waste."
* All of the information needed to successfully replicate a self sustaining system is in the patent application (which is being held proprietary presently).
* The power density for thermal energy only is 5 liters per kilowatt.
* The hydrogen has to be all hydrogen with no deuterium or heavy hydrogen. Apparently, any heavy hydrogen stops the reaction.
* This current system never goes below 6 times more energy out than in. During the test it produced 20 times more energy out than in. In the lab they have done similar tests and obtained 400 times more out than in, but it produced explosions.
Click to expand...
Bolding added

I'd like to know more about this "radiation" output, and I'd like to see the production of Copper by "transmutation" verified by outside sources.

Given the lack of neutral outside sources, I don't think I'll be sending them any of MY money.
 
Last edited:
The Nickel/Copper transmutation should be pretty easily detected by examination of metal.
If they're saying Nickel fuses with a proton to form Copper, which seems extremely unlikely especially at the energies involved, there should either be detectable traces of Copper formed, detectable decay products (positrons mostly) or detectable changes in the isotopic composition of the Nickel.
 
ApolloGnomon said:
This url was posted at Delusional Idiots forum:

http://pesn.com/2011/01/17/9501746_Focardi-Rossi_10_kW_cold_fusion_prepping_for_market/
Click to expand...


Also, to understand the source of the process of energy production, they sought to ensure that hydrogen was not being burned, by measuring the mass at the beginning and end of the experiment.
Click to expand...


Well, that's just stupid.

  1. If it's a closed system, even if they are buring hydrogen, the mass will still be the same
  2. "Burning hydrogen" isn't the only chemistry that might be happening
  3. "Burning hydrogen" isn't even the most likely chemistry that might be happening


The more I read, the more it sounds like classic pseudoscience. "It can't be this one thing I suggest as an alternative, therefore, FUSION!"



All of the information needed to successfully replicate a self sustaining system is in the patent application (which is being held proprietary presently).
Click to expand...


They received PCT patent number WO/2009/125444 on October 15, 2009, with an additional patent having been filed. Once the second patent is awarded, then the information about how they achieve their results will become public knowledge. Meanwhile, they are keeping that information proprietary.
Click to expand...


Well, I'm not sure how many wrong things there are in just these few lines.


  1. A "WO" document isn't a patent, it's an application for a patent. They haven't been "awarded" anything yet.
  2. Any WO document will be made public (that is, not proprietary) long before any actual patent might issue based on the application
  3. There's no point in keeping it proprietary now, if the application has been filed. That protects their interests everywhere they will care to get patents
  4. So, they admit that the currently published application doesn't contain enough information to produce a working device? No Patent For You, then!


This sort of nonsense is why I make the effort to educate people about what patents and patent applications really mean. Just about everything they've said here is ******** of some sort or other.
 
I'm still trying to understand what, if anything, might be actually happening in this "experiment."

Could the high pressure H2 be reacting with residual oxygen bound to the nickel particles? Does anyone here know the chemistry of NiH batteries in general?

I suspect the device is in essence a crummy battery that's simultaneously charging and self-discharging for a net increase in heat. It seems like the most likely source of heat in addition to the "resistor" (and 400w) they list as part of the device.

But without seeing any data it's just guesswork. The lack of clear data coupled with claims of fusion/transmutation seriously undermines my confidence in their methodology.
 
They claim that a commercial power plant using this technology will be on line in three months.

If so, we will know that they have something real at that time. You could not fake that in any way I can imagine.
 
BenBurch said:
They claim that a commercial power plant using this technology will be on line in three months.

If so, we will know that they have something real at that time. You could not fake that in any way I can imagine.
Click to expand...

Well, there's outright subterfuge---power laundering, so to speak. You rent two buildings and run a cable between them. One building acts as the "power plant", and you invite everyone to watch its meter spin backwards, to watch the utility company hand over a big check, etc. The other building (say, rented by a shell corporation) buys power from the power company and pays for it normally---maybe it pretends to be an electroplating company or something with large power needs. But all that the power is actually doing is going in one meter and out the other.

I can imagine two ways of profiting from this. First, you've got a convincing demo with which to fleece another round of investors. Second---are there places where utilities (or governments) pay a premium for renewable energy? Maybe your "electroplating business" could be buying fossil power at $0.20/kWh, laundering it into the "fusion" which can sell "clean power" for $0.30/kWh. I would hope that there are inspection/verification ways of preventing this, but who knows.

(ETA: or, of course, you have diesel generator hidden in the basement and you sneak the fuel in at night.)
 
Last edited:
Let's not forget the possibility that the "3 months" claim is simply marketing, to be followed by engineering "just wait a bit longer" as the funds trickle in.

Then they blame the lack of funding for their failure to produce the results they claim possible.
 
ApolloGnomon said:
Let's not forget the possibility that the "3 months" claim is simply marketing, to be followed by engineering "just wait a bit longer" as the funds trickle in.

Then they blame the lack of funding for their failure to produce the results they claim possible.
Click to expand...



This is what I'm betting on. Faking a power plant has the potential to be caught out if someone is paying attention - buildings really do have to be rented, and power bought and sold, and at every step of that process, the possibility exists that someone in a position of authority might take a real interest in you, and discover what you're really up to.

Meanwhile, the "Any day now!" investor scam has worked well for other companies, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars over the last 20 years or so in at least one case, and you're largely immune to lawsuits, as the investors are told up front that this is a speculative investment, and "Oh, so sorry, unforeseen difficulties, no royalties for you this year!" is pretty much a get out of jail free card. So long as they can't prove you know you're full of ****, you can claim you've been working diligently to bring this to market, but have unfortunately failed in you efforts.

There's really no upside to these guys actually trying to build anything significant. If there was, one of them would have done so by now, I think.
 
ben m said:
I would hope that there are inspection/verification ways of preventing this, but who knows.
Click to expand...

As the device is no larger than a suitcase and is "capable" of generating 15kW, it should be easy to demonstrate in a medium sized fish tank.;)
 
Horatius said:
There's really no upside to these guys actually trying to build anything significant. If there was, one of them would have done so by now, I think.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. They'll never build a power plant, they'll just solicit investment for the powerplant that they promise they'll build as soon as they have enough investment.

The only fraudster I've heard of who actually faked the machine was Keely, who had some elaborate "aether powered" demonstrator. After his death his laboratory was ripped up and they found all the hidden pneumatic piping that had actually powered it.

(Steorn just went ahead and left a visible battery plugged into their "demonstrator"; you were supposed to accept their word for the fact that the battery wasn't discharging.)
 
There was another great elaborate free energy fraud.

A guy had a device that was sealed in a box. He had observers measure the current and voltage coming from a wall socket and going into the box and the current and voltage going out into a load that consisted of many light bulbs. The box was less than a cubic foot in size. The output power was around 500W, the input around 200W.

He was able to take his setup to any location and reproduce it with much more power seeming to come out of the box than going in with the box running for days. The box was sealed with the exception of the cables. The box got warm but otherwise had no obvious changes.

His gimmick was ingenious. The device drew large amounts of input power in short spikes too quick for the current meter to read and too quick for a circuit breaker to react. Essentially, the inertia of the meter movement made it appear that the current never exceed a particular amount while the average current actually vastly exceeded that amount.
 
shadron said:
Fusing nickel seems to be an excessively hard way to go...
...unless it is in a NiCad battery? :)
Click to expand...

I'd say. Nickel-62 has the highest nuclear binding energy per nukleon of any isotope and the other nickel isotopes aren't much better.
 
JoelKatz said:
His gimmick was ingenious. The device drew large amounts of input power in short spikes too quick for the current meter to read and too quick for a circuit breaker to react. Essentially, the inertia of the meter movement made it appear that the current never exceed a particular amount while the average current actually vastly exceeded that amount.
Click to expand...

Brilliant! But evil. Do you have any more info on that?
 
soylent said:
I'd say. Nickel-62 has the highest nuclear binding energy per nukleon of any isotope and the other nickel isotopes aren't much better.
Click to expand...

Yeah---odd choice, isn't it? (Nevertheless, Ni-H fusion would still be exothermic.)
 
ben m said:
Yeah---odd choice, isn't it? (Nevertheless, Ni-H fusion would still be exothermic.)
Click to expand...

It would probably not be exothermic. If fusion did occur, the binding energy would decrease and so it would require energy.

glenn
 
Hindmost said:
It would probably not be exothermic. If fusion did occur, the binding energy would decrease and so it would require energy.

glenn
Click to expand...

No, it's exothermic. The binding energy of 62Ni is 545259.118 MeV. The binding energy of 63Cu is 551381.562. http://ie.lbl.gov/toimass.html

You're thinking of the binding energy per nucleon, which is indeed slightly higher for 62Ni than 63Cu. But the thing you want to calculate is the binding energy per nucleon of "62Ni + p" vs. the b.e.p.n. of "63Cu".
 
ben m said:
No, it's exothermic. The binding energy of 62Ni is 545259.118 MeV. The binding energy of 63Cu is 551381.562. http://ie.lbl.gov/toimass.html

You're thinking of the binding energy per nucleon, which is indeed slightly higher for 62Ni than 63Cu. But the thing you want to calculate is the binding energy per nucleon of "62Ni + p" vs. the b.e.p.n. of "63Cu".
Click to expand...

I am too lazy to run the calc, but Ni with a be/n of about 8.7 or so, the mass change you get with adding a proton would be less. So you would have to add 8.7 MeV to get something less out.

glenn
 
Hindmost said:
I am too lazy to run the calc, but Ni with a be/n of about 8.7 or so, the mass change you get with adding a proton would be less. So you would have to add 8.7 MeV to get something less out.
Click to expand...

Binding energy per nucleon of the large nuclei is not the conserved quantity in this problem. Total binding energy (all nucleons) is conserved. The binding energy per nucleon of the unbound state (p+62N) is 545259.118/63 = 8654.906 MeV, while the binding energy per nucleon of the bound state (63Cu) is 551381.562/63 = 8752.088 MeV. (Or multiply both sides by 63 to get the answer I gave before.)

Therefore this fusion is energetically favorable, radiating about 100 keV per nucleon or 6.2 MeV total.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom