Merged Cold Fusion Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
The capture rate of protons by Nickel nuclei cannot depend on
the mass values of different isotopes: in fact they possess the same
nuclear charge and the same distribution of electrons in the various
atomic shells.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Everything in nuclear physics depends on the isotope.
The authors seem to think that "if you can get over the Coulomb
barrier, which is the same for all isotopes, you fuse". Not in the
slightest. For an easily-understood counterexample, note that (say)
131Xe and 132Xe---two objects of identical size, with identical
probabilities for a neutron to get near them---have neutron-capture
probabilities that differ by a factor of 2000.

Copper formation and its successive decay in Nickel, producing Ni59,
Ni60, Ni61 and Ni62. Because Cu63, which can be formed start- ing by
Ni62 is stable and does not decay in Ni63, the chain stops at
Ni62.
Click to expand...

Again: what the heck? They think that the fusion happens in
"chains"? This makes no sense whatsoever. If you take a target of
6x10^23 atoms of 58Ni, and run one single fusion reaction in it, you have a target
of almost-perfectly-pure 58Ni plus (in this case, after a decay) one
atom of 59Ni. If you want to run a 2nd fusion reaction, what are the
chances that that reaction picks up your one new 59Ni and turns it
into 60Cu? All but zero. The second reaction has a
99.999999999999999999999% chance of finding another 58Ni, not picking
up the lone 59Ni and continuing the "chain".

Other than that, there is approximately one paragraph of a "theory"
for H-Ni fusion:

In our case, the proton-electron system might be shielded by the nuclear Coulomb potential, with the possibility of penetrating the Coulomb barrier. Shielding e§ect would also explain the anomalous situation observed since 1938 [19] in nuclear reactions, between accelerated protons and Ni63occurring at 3 Mev, below the expected 4; 6 MeV threshold.
The effect of electron screening on low-energy fusion processes has been investigated by Assembaum et al [20]: they report the increasing of the Coulomb barrier penetrability and calculate, for some reactions induced by protons (p + Li7 and p + B11) quantitative e§ects, that look very relevant, though probably not sufficient to interpret our experimental results .
More recently, in a series of interesting papers [21-23], Raiola et al
confirmed experimentally the signiÖcant increase of nuclear reactions
cross sections in metals due to electron screening.
Click to expand...

What can I say that isn't already said? There's this electron
screening effect which could increase the fusion probability, but
"probably" (an understatement) not enough to allow room-temperature
fusion. And the result of such screening would be ordinary
fusion, i.e. fusion that creates excited 63Cu* that gets to the ground
state via gamma rays, and 59Cu* that decays by gamma rays and
positrons into a long-lived radioactive Ni isotope. If this
model was true, and was occuring in Rossi's tinfoil blob, it
explicitly predicts gamma-ray emission.

As a general impression, this paper looks like the sort of thing you get if you
find a minimally-competent undergrad, point them to the Wikipedia
article on "isotopes of nickel", and say "write a 2000-word report on
proton-nickel fusion".
 
I don't recall this being posted before:

More Cold Fusion
Steven Novella
21 Jan 2011

Yet another cold fusion claim has surfaced, this one from two Italian scientists – Andrea Rossi and Sergio Focardi. You may wonder why this story is not all over the mainstream media, as (if their claims turn out to be true) the world’s energy problems have just been solved, not to mention global warming. It might have something to do with the fact that cold fusion claims are nothing new, and every previous claim has fizzled under close examination.
Click to expand...

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=2745#more-2745


(Apologies if it already has)
 
pteridine said:
The Rossi-Focardi paper provides some basis. The Dufour paper "Is the Rossi energy amplifier the first pico-chemical reactor?" postulates an alternative mechanism that you may find unconventional but that I would like opinions on.
Click to expand...

That's utter nonsense---it's "hydrinos" again. Hydrinos do not exist; the "analysis" in the paper, vaguely putting classical electrons into classical potentials and "calculating" classical potential energies, is complete nonsense---it utterly ignores quantum mechanics.

And I'm not saying "they should repeat their calculation using quantum mechanics, then we'll have another look." I'm saying that quantum mechanics proves that their equation is nonsense. There is a limited set of possible wavefunction for an electron near a nucleus. I have a book on my desk with those states exhaustively listed, and it's trivial to prove that the list is correct and exhaustive. The hydrino state (or whatever this guy renames it) is not on the list.
 
max T=110C??

Yevgen Barsukov said:
Regarding the temperature inside, it is actually unknown - there was absolutely no access available for Levi to measure
anything inside - only output water temperature was measured, and it was 100C. So it is consistent with laminar water flow along large surface heaters (such as batteries under thermally induced self-discharge) which temperature is not much higher than 100C. Btw it is technically very difficult to water-cool at atmospheric pressure anything which has surface temperature much higher than 100C because of extreme bubble formation and cavitation that disrupt heat flow and build virtual "blanket" between water flow and surface. Think about a drop of water fallen on a hot fry-pan.

Regards,
Yevgen
Click to expand...

Here is a comment from Rossi himself on his forum:

#
Andrea Rossi
February 16th, 2011 at 2:53 PM

***************
Dear Mr Neri:
The max T reachable with a single reactor is 110 Celsius. Theoretically is possible to couple it with a Sterling engine, but there are many problems to resolve, under a practical point of view. I think is premature.
Warmest Regards,
A.R.
***************
It sound like he is reading our discussion and just found actual
limitations of his apparatus before it blows up... again, I hope this thing is for real, but it starts to look a lot like overheated NiMH to me...

Regards,
Yevgen
 
BenBurch said:
Ahem; http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?page_id=2
Click to expand...

Interesting to say the least. One of the names listed seemed vague familiar, that of George Kelly, so I did a little digging.

  • According to the University of New Hampshire there is no faculty member of that name on staff. Especially not in their Physics department.
  • They did have a George Kelly on staff; some decades ago.
  • This George Kelly.
  • The psychologist1.
  • The psychologist who died in 1967.
  • Interesting how he seems to be the "Board of Advisors" for this "journal".
  • I have contacted the institution to enquire further about their association with this journal and these highly dubious claims.
Is there an explanation?


1 This is probably why he seemed slightly familiar; my sister and one of my cohabitees are psychologists.
 
I've heard back from the University of New Hampshire; they have no-one on staff named George Kelly or any logical variation of that name, certainly not at professorial level. Likewise they have no knowledge of any of their staff being involved with this "journal" nor are they involved in any experiments that could be connected their these cold fusion claims.
 
catsmate1 said:
I've heard back from the University of New Hampshire; they have no-one on staff named George Kelly or any logical variation of that name, certainly not at professorial level. Likewise they have no knowledge of any of their staff being involved with this "journal" nor are they involved in any experiments that could be connected their these cold fusion claims.
Click to expand...

Nothing says "fraud" like made-up scientists.
 
catsmate1 said:
I've heard back from the University of New Hampshire; they have no-one on staff named George Kelly or any logical variation of that name, certainly not at professorial level. Likewise they have no knowledge of any of their staff being involved with this "journal" nor are they involved in any experiments that could be connected their these cold fusion claims.
Click to expand...

We're talking about a bunch of quack engineers who don't particularly care about the distinction between a "peer reviewed journal" and "a self-authored webpage whose title makes it sound like a journal". My guess is that they similarly don't care about the distinction between a UNH student and a physics faculty member.

I.e. (again, just my guess): they once got a sympathetic email from a UNH student who identified himself as "a physicist" or "studying physics" or something. They slapped his name up on their web page and didn't ask about the details. Or, similarly, maybe they got such an email from an actual physics teacher somewhere else in New Hampshire (maybe a CC? Maybe a high school?) and carelessly guessed that 'Physics teacher at New Hampshire Collegiate Academy' (or whatever) was a weird American synonym for "Physics professor at UNH".
 
ben m said:
We're talking about a bunch of quack engineers who don't particularly care about the distinction between a "peer reviewed journal" and "a self-authored webpage whose title makes it sound like a journal". My guess is that they similarly don't care about the distinction between a UNH student and a physics faculty member.

I.e. (again, just my guess): they once got a sympathetic email from a UNH student who identified himself as "a physicist" or "studying physics" or something. They slapped his name up on their web page and didn't ask about the details. Or, similarly, maybe they got such an email from an actual physics teacher somewhere else in New Hampshire (maybe a CC? Maybe a high school?) and carelessly guessed that 'Physics teacher at New Hampshire Collegiate Academy' (or whatever) was a weird American synonym for "Physics professor at UNH".
Click to expand...
The student idea seems possible, I doubt the university's student list is public information (and I don't care enough to bother them further). A little searching finds only one George Kelly with a physics degree and associated with the UNH, the deceased psychologist.:rolleyes: Between him and the Rossi garbage spammed across the net the signal-to-noise ratio is too poor for further searching to be worthwhile.
I wonder will pteridine be clarifying this matter?:rolleyes:
 
Richard Noceti, another advisor listed on the "journal" website is a real scientist with a real doctorate from a real university:eek:.
However it's in organic chemistry, not nuclear physics or anything related to the alleged scope of this journal. The only vaguely relevant work is an American Nuclear Society conference paper from 2007; "Synthesis of Hydrocarbon Fuels using Renewable and Nuclear Energy". This was only peripherally related to nuclear energy.
He has done some solid work in alternative energy sources and published quite a bit; however they're all related to techniques like CO2 sequestration, coal gasification and hydrocarbon production from non-standard sources. I've actually got some of his stuff (on German synthetic fuel production) here.
His current employer appears to be Leonardo Technologies Inc., who have no involvement with nuclear energy; I'll email them and ask them if they have any connection to Rossi and this "cold fusion" nonsense.
 
catsmate1 said:
His current employer appears to be Leonardo Technologies Inc., who have no involvement with nuclear energy; I'll email them and ask them if they have any connection to Rossi and this "cold fusion" nonsense.
Click to expand...

http://leonardocorp1996.com/

Domain registered by Rossi in September 2009, supposedly incorporated in 1996.

I guess it is this mentioned on his page
"The rebirth
In December 1996, Andrea Rossi, without a penny, emigrated to the USA employed in a company specialized in systems that derive energy from biomass, the Bio Development Corporation, Bedford, New Hampshire. He put his previous patents at the company disposal and a few months later he was appointed Chief Scientist"

The other supposed partner is Defkalion something. Defkalion is greek spelling of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deukalion I think so it's nice "historical" common generic name, which helps to create confusion, like Leonardo.
 
Last edited:
Teemu said:
http://leonardocorp1996.com/

Domain registered by Rossi in September 2009, supposedly incorporated in 1996.

I guess it is this mentioned on his page
"The rebirth
In December 1996, Andrea Rossi, without a penny, emigrated to the USA employed in a company specialized in systems that derive energy from biomass, the Bio Development Corporation, Bedford, New Hampshire. He put his previous patents at the company disposal and a few months later he was appointed Chief Scientist"

The other supposed partner is Defkalion something. Defkalion is greek spelling of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deukalion I think so it's nice "historical" common generic name, which helps to create confusion, like Leonardo.
Click to expand...

Noceti is associated with Leonardo Technologies, incorporated in Ohio for 12 years. It appears to be legit; it has connections with the US DoE, the IEA, the Royal Academy of Engineering including some consultancy contracts (such as this and this). If it is legit Rossi could be using the name of one of its employees to legitimise his "journal".
My interest is piqued; time for a few emails:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom