Profile Network Activity Comments Articles Blog Bookmarks Contact
 

Low Energy Nuclear Reactions: 2.5 Million Watt-hours from a Nickel?

By Thomas Blakeslee
March 31, 2011   |   40 Comments

Do you like this blog post?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Share
 
Content Technologies
 

The information and views expressed in this blog post are solely those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on this Web site and other publications. This blog was posted directly by the author and was not reviewed for accuracy, spelling or grammar.

40 Reader Comments
No image available
Comment
1 of 40
Anonymous
March 31, 2011
Tom writes: "What most people don't know is that the declaration that cold fusion was "junk science" was really "junk criticism", driven by powerful interests."

If an experimentalist cannot provide a plausible theory for a measurement and the measurement cannot be independently verified skepticism won't just come from "powerful interests". 20 years after the initial reports of cold fusion and after considerable research funding, we are still being treated to media spectacles rather than solid evidence independently verified. If the only evidence of a "black swan" is bird poo I'd say anyone who isn't a skeptic isn't rational.
Steven
Comment
2 of 40
March 31, 2011
Countless experiments have produced phenomena that was unexplainable by current theory, but led to very valuable and innovative technologies.

To understand and measure what takes place inside an atom that is unimaginably small and moving at unimaginable speeds must be kinda hard, eh?

Nobody will let him patten his invention, so why would he explain every technical aspect that he has developed over the past 15 years? He is making a commercial product, if it works, we are all going to be scrambling to pick up our jaws and catch the bandwagon.
Comment
3 of 40
March 31, 2011
Hi:

Interesting article...
Stephen writes of "independent" verification.
When the threat to profit and stakes are so high, as in a discovery of this nature, any organization or corporation of any size is really not independent. If they are big enough to be recognized, then they are big enough to bribe and threaten.
No matter who brings out the data and no matter how true, it will immediately be attacked and media discarded. This is just how the world works as we have created it. You stand a much better chance of success if you can "get it out" and disperse it, before you are even on anyone's radar.
Oh and BTW, its not conspiracy theory its simply business....
I wish the persons involved the best of luck...

.....Bill
No image available
Comment
4 of 40
Anonymous
March 31, 2011
The cold fusion crowd attends conferences and submits (with little success) papers to journals. What they don't actually do is offer any credible evidence or a remotely plausible explanation for how their claims could possibly be true--after 20+ years of study. The notion that they have--and are trying to keep--secrets is inconsistent with their actions and apparent cluelessness. If you hint publicly that a device causes fusion because you detect emission of copper atoms but cannot explain your detection mechanism or specify which isotope was observed, it suggests you are either clueless or interested in attracting clueless investors. The usual order of events for serious scientists is to patent (optionally), publish, and only then hold press conferences or other media events. Other "professions" follow different conventions....

Steven
Comment
5 of 40
April 1, 2011
In your comment, you write :
question : do you known a plausible theory for gravitation???
NASA will be happy to known tnat theory
Comment
6 of 40
April 1, 2011
Science depends upon reproducibility, not explanation. Explanations are only niceties which may lead to further discovery. Explanations are never even correct. I have not heard that the E-cat has yet been independently reproduced, but many other experiments in the field have been.

If Rossi delivers by October then the issue will be settled.
Comment
7 of 40
April 1, 2011
My lecture on cold fusion at the University of Maryland USA in March of 2011 enjoy.

http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chaptere.html

Frank Znidarsic
Comment
8 of 40
Dear Mr.Thomas Blakeslee If Nickel can be used to generate nuclear energy,will the spent fuel have the same problems as Uranium or Plutonium.
Secondly, what about powering vehicles with with nuclear energy other than with Uranium.
I eagerly await your reply.
Comment
9 of 40
April 1, 2011
Upali The spent fuel has no radioactivity. Some of the nickel fuel gets changed to copper and even zinc but lots of it ends up as other isotopes of nickel. The radiation during operation produces heat in the lead shielding but no radiation is left a short time after the unit is shut down. The decay during operation involves antineutrinos and other little-understood particles. Someday they will figure it out completely but, in the meantime, we can use it. We don't know how gravity and permanent magnets work atomically either but we go on using them.
It will be a long time before this technology is understood well enough to be used in cars. The nickel has to warmed up to about 400 degrees C using a heating resistor before the reaction can occur, so the best use now is running continuously in a power station with technicians in control. Be patient!
Comment
10 of 40
April 1, 2011
Actually, two of the current devices in series probably could be used in a vehicle. The high pressure steam would drive a turbine/generator that would keep the batteries of an electric vehicle topped up. An adaptation of the Toyota Prius might work.
The devices weigh 30-50 kg each, which is not too much for a car.
Comment
11 of 40
April 2, 2011
Thanks Dr Blakeslee for your good article on this important issue (that has been virtually ignored by the mainstream media).
I want just stress that:
1) in this case they are not searching funds, because the inventor, Andrea Rossi, has put his money on the stakes;
2) the indipendent examination has been made by a University and also by customers;
3) right now, more and more, respected and esteemed scientists are taking seriously the invention of Rossi;
4) in october they will start up in Athens a 1 MW plant (ready for market): you cannot make a 1 MW plant, sell it to a customer that pays you only after successful testing and have a fake product: this should be a way to destroy yourself;
5) Rossi and Focardi published one year ago a scientific hypothesis of how the process works, now the experimental work is refining the theory, and Rossi has announced that the definite structure of the theory - which explains what happens inside the E-Cat - will be published at the presentation of the 1 MW plant (should be normal in science to make a theory based on experimental work - it is called Galilean method - but today it's almost a news!);
6) the inventors made a press conference after 1 year of publication, after 2 years of patent application, after indipendent tests, as correctly you say it has to be done;
7) the next press conference will be after the start up of the 1 MW plant: then I am very curious to know what critics and skeptics will have to say again...

Kind regards
Comment
12 of 40
April 2, 2011
Changing Ni to Cu should be an endothermic reaction becuase the Ni nucleus has a lower binding energy. I think that it is far more likely that they are observing a chemical reaction. I don't really believe a paper that contains only energy blance graphs and no mass spectrometry analyses of thier reaction products.
Comment
13 of 40
April 2, 2011
The Nickle consumes, but the Hydrogen releases. The total reaction would be exothermic.
Comment
14 of 40
April 2, 2011
Well Tom---obviously you've done your research. I don't know exactly what to think of all this.

However, I will say that it all seems VERY reminiscent of the feud between Thomas Edison and Nikolai Tesla.

I think we should taste the cake, and then argue about the recipe.
Comment
15 of 40
April 4, 2011
It matters not what anyone thinks about this method of generating power.
It only matters that they are commercially successful in generating a clean new energy source.
I am all for that.
I wish them every success.
Comment
16 of 40
April 5, 2011
It is ridiculous that people are going to such extremes to discount (almost as a foregone conclusion) this possible boon when there has been so little effort by them either to confirm - or deny - its validity in a truly concrete way.

But on the other hand, it is not unusual that possible new discoveries or inventions have nearly always faced such extreme skepticism. Nor is it necessarily always a bad thing, even when the new discovery/invention turns out to be precisely the thing its inventor(s)/discoverer claimed it was originally.

Nonetheless, one would think that at least the more intelligent in the academic world would at least take a more "empirical" or "let's lets wait and see" attitude before coming to such negative conclusions.

It all comes back to the question, "Does humanity ever remember and learn from the past?" If it had learned, I think we'd be living in a much better world!
Comment
17 of 40
April 5, 2011
I'd like to know why all talk has stopped in the last 6 months concerning Thorium reactors. The positives far outweigh the negatives and the theory has been proven, to my knowledge.
I even understand current and soon-to-be-decommissioned nuke facilities can be converted to thorium plants.
Comment
18 of 40
April 5, 2011
While Thorium reactors are preferable to conventional fission reactors, they still produce a plethora of radioactive daughter products such as Iodine and Cesium. The Rossi reactor is far superior in this regard. Nevertheless Thorium reactors might be a reasonable backup if this technology doesn't pan out.
Comment
19 of 40
April 6, 2011
Thorium would have been a great choice 20 years ago but it doesn't produce plutonium for bombs. That was a very important advantage when today's nuclear plants were designed. They were, in fact, designed as plutonium factories for bomb production and later adapted into power plants.
The problem is that it will take till 2030 before they are ready. That is one big reason why the grandiose gigawatt power plants are a mistake. The other is disaster potential!
Rossi's design is modular and safe. It can be distributed to where the waste heat can be used in a combined heat and power system. Size can be determined by how many modules you use.
In the short term, old coal and gas plants can be retrofitted.
Comment
20 of 40
April 7, 2011
I'm ready to rip the bandages off the cold-fusion scars and run through the streets n a k e d shouting "The energy crisis is over!". I hope I'm not over reacting this time.

After a 1000 years of alchemy, is it true that we can really transmute one element into another using only chemistry and some heat? My scientific mind says "probably not this time either" but the rest of me says "I hope so".

Actually , they had me at the discovery of copper where nickel used to be. Waiting for an independent verification. Someone else building a similar apparatus and getting Ni and H to become copper.

In the next few months, all discussions of energy may be divided into pre-NiH and post-NiH.
Comment
21 of 40
April 8, 2011
I really like the link to the infinite-energy website by the MIT graduate, Eugene Malove provides in Thomas Blakeslee's article here.
This quote from that link puts into perspective the hot-fusion vs. cold fusion competition:

'Tantalizing as the prospect of infinite energy from the oceans
was, the hot fusion program had never generated even a single
watt of excess power in its huge plasma reactors, which cost
hundreds of millions of dollars per year to support. Success—
"break-even" or "more energy out than in"—with magnetically-
confined hot plasma fusion always seemed to be twenty
years away. This led to the perennial joke that hot fusion is "the
energy source of the future. . .and always will be."'

Thus, even if Fleischman and Pons were (and are) wrong (hell, even if they had committed fraud - not very likely!!), the fact that hot fusion has yet to produce ANY excess energy despite the largess of the European and US gov't massive financial support should give a thinking person pause. In addition, I've seen quotes in places like Scientific American by the scientists working on the hot fusion project in Europe who admit that any positive results from it are probably at best decades away.
Comment
22 of 40
April 8, 2011
Here is some late-breaking news! Two Swedish scientists, one is chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society and the other is chairman of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences' Energy Committee just reported on a demonstration of another, much smaller, reactor. They reported: "Any chemical process for producing 25 kWh from any fuel in a 50 cm3 container can be ruled out. The only alternative explanation is that there is some kind of a nuclear process that gives rise to the measured energy production."
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3144827.ece
Comment
23 of 40
April 8, 2011
Swedish Skeptics Society? Is Glenn Beck a member?
Comment
24 of 40
April 8, 2011
If you eliminate the impossible, all that is left is the truth, no matter how implausible.-------Sherlock Holmes(Sir Aurthur Conan Doyle)
Comment
25 of 40
April 8, 2011
Thomas wrote:

"They reported: "Any chemical process for producing 25 kWh from any fuel in a 50 cm3 container can be ruled out. The only alternative explanation is that there is some kind of a nuclear process that gives rise to the measured energy production.""

It isn't quite true that a nuclear reaction is the only alternative. The Hydrino formation process of Randell Mills MD is essentially chemical (though a completely new type of chemistry), and is more than capable of having supplied the measured energy output. Furthermore it depends upon Hydrogen atoms which are clearly present when Hydrogen gas is associated with Nickel powder.
Comment
26 of 40
April 9, 2011
to rvanspaa,
Whether Hydrino reaction exists or not is a red herring. If its true that nickel has transmuted to copper, then by definition a nuclear reaction has occurred. The missing gamma rays just makes the nuclear reaction a lot more interesting (and safer).
Comment
27 of 40
April 9, 2011
Indeed, if it is true that nickel has transmuted into copper.
However the severe lack of gamma rays would argue against that. Furthermore the lack of change in isotopic ratio in *both* the copper and the nickel also apparently argues against it.
However it doesn't make a great deal of difference, as either reaction means a new and essentially inexhaustible supply of clean energy.
Comment
28 of 40
Mr. T. Blakeslee,This is becoming more and more interesting.

With my rusted up knowledge of Chemistry, I studied / taught it last over 40 years ago I was under the impression that Uranium and Thorium were the base and Plutonium the end product.

I have a further question, can other metals in the series as Nickel be used as a base to produce nuclear energy?

I have been associated with the ethanol industry in various capacities in the production field since 1967.

I have nearly completed a study ( spent over eight years).

Conclusions are:
(i) Hydrous ethanol can be supplied at nearly 10% of the price of petrol ( gasoline) or E85 at the pump.- your prices
(ii) Hydrous ethanol can be used in place of Petrol or E85 with similar performance in start up and acceleration. This is based on published research.
(iii) Industrial scale trials have indicated that cost of distillation can be reduced by nearly 50% by structural alteration to the refinery.
(iv) Item (i) can be achieved by dedicated plantations with four types plants in the plantation.
(v) Such a dedicated plantation will self sufficient in water ( or nearly self sufficient) energy and agro inputs.

The hitch is that the plantations will be in the tropics and subtropics.In other words the center shifts to California from the Corn belt.
Comment
29 of 40
April 9, 2011
Neanderthal man could not have explained the empirical process of hydrocarbon combustion.

But that did not stop them from having grilled mammoth steaks and warming their backsides next to a wood fire.
Comment
30 of 40
April 10, 2011
Still waiting for a human translation but it seems clear Focardi is saying
the resultant copper is NOT the natural ratio of isotopes!

Google translation of Focardi radio interview on Apr 5
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&e
otf=1&sl=it&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2F22passi.blogspot.com%2F2011%2F04%2Fil-profe
ssor-focardi-spiega-la-fusione.html

[snip] So we have produced energy, we have produced copper. Copper has two isotopes, the ratio of these two isotopes is not in the natural
concentration, so there is no copper added, the product we have in this way.
So we have produced energy, we have produced copper.[/snip]
Comment
31 of 40
April 10, 2011
Google translation of Focardi interview [ states]

There are no neutrons. Questa è una fortuna, perché essendo un fenomeno nucleare uno se li aspetta. This is fortunate, because it is a nuclear phenomenon if one is waiting for them. Per fortuna non ci sono perché il nucleo del nickel è una ?buca abbastanza profonda?; se fosse meno profonda cisarebbero anche i neutroni, perché negli esperimenti di Siena una volta abbiamo trovato i neutroni e li abbiamo misurati; ma erano materiali diversi dal nickel. Fortunately, there are the core of nickel because it is a "hole deep enough" if it was shallower there would also neutrons, because the
experiments of Siena once we found the neutron and we have measured, but were different materials from nickel . Insomma: l'esperimento è nickel più idrogeno; si tratta di cose molto semplici... In short, the experiment is
more nickel hydrogen, it is very simple things ... [/states]

--- When he says "hole deep enough" and "if it was shallower there would also neutrons"?is Focardi supporting the relativistic hydrogen model suggested by Naudts?
could a relativistic atom or molecule reduce the columb barrier? if the nucleus is displaced as shown http://www.garrityhvac.com/gwell.gif would the radiation coming from the nuclei be screened or translated to a lower frequency?
Comment
32 of 40
April 26, 2011
By October we may refocused from just Sustainable Energy to replacing dirty energy asap.
If you want a starting point to learn more about Rossi's Energy Catalyzer, try this link:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Andrea_A._Rossi_Cold_Fusion_Generator
Comment
33 of 40
April 26, 2011
---------" On January 31st, 2011, Rossi wrote: "The cost to produce the catalyzer is 1 cent per MWh generated; the life expectancy is 20 years; the cost impact is between 1 and 1.5 cents per MWh."----------

He'd better stay well hidden. There is way too much money at stake for this to be a success.
No image available
Comment
34 of 40
Anonymous
April 26, 2011
My lectures and radio talk on cold fusion are linked below.

http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chaptere.html


Frank Znidarsic
Comment
35 of 40
May 2, 2011
My concern over this form of electric generation has to do with whether it will have off grid decentralized uses or just be another form of commercial utility. With dirty nuclear the claims were made that it would be to cheap to meter. Also given the rate of the global spread of radioactive fallout from the Japanese accident this may will be a mute discovery. Who will be alive to enjoy the benefits? The nuclear fuel cycle has already done its damage.
Comment
36 of 40
May 17, 2011
Here is an important late news flash. A solid company has signed to manufacture the E-Cat in America
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3179019.ece
Comment
37 of 40
May 17, 2011
Well, sounds like we shouldn't have long to wait to see whether it all lives up to the expectations---or non expectations.

If nothing else comes of it all, it has been very interesting reading for me anyway.

Thanks for posting this Tom.
Comment
38 of 40
Mr.Blakeslee. This is off the current discussion, however it is based on your publication :Fuel Free.
I refer to page 12- "3: Nuclear Power Safe and easy way"
In the 5th paragraph you say " Geothermal power plants cleanly and safely harness the nuclear power of Uranium, Thorium and Potassium in the ground by using the heat they produce by natural decay...."

I am perplexed by your reference to potassium. Can you please clear that statement for me.

Upali Wickramasinghe
Comment
39 of 40
May 31, 2011
Upali Your body also contains a natural radioactive isotope of potassium that is continually producing radiation as it decays. Here is a reference:
"The source of these gammas is K-40 which has a half-life of 1.26 billion years, and is the main source of radioactivity inside the body...
"There are 1.2 radioactive atoms of 40K for every 10,000 nonradioactive atoms of potassium. There is of the order of 140 g of potassium in an adult who weighs 70 kg, and 0.0169 g consists of the 40K isotope. This amount of 40K disintegrates at the rate of 266,000 atoms per minute. Of every 100 disintegrations, 89 result in the release of beta particles with maximum energy of 1.33 MeV, and 11 result in gamma photons with an energy of 1.46 MeV. All of the beta particles and about 50 percent of the gamma rays are absorbed in the body, giving annual doses of 16 mrad from the beta particles and 2 mrad from the gamma rays." 1 So about 14,600/min of the 1.46 MeV gammas exit the whole body, in all directions."
http://sciencedemonstrations.fas.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k16940&pageid=icb.page102829&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent270775&state=maximize&view=view.do&viewParam_name=indepth.html#a_icb_pagecontent270775
Comment
40 of 40
June 4, 2011
When my wife and I visited Alaska, the tour guide described how the early explorers died from a vitamin deficiency, when they could have saved themselves by simply eating a local plant that proliferated in the area. If only the explorers had known.

Today, we have a similar situation. (Partial formula) Ni + H (heated under pressure) = Cu + lots of heat!! Unbelievable, but here we have been oxidizing carbon fuel for energy and polluting our air with carbon dioxide big time when all along nickel could be used in a low energy nuclear reaction.

To summarize, through history we've labeled different periods in history according to the metal that shapes it. Iron Age, Bronze Age, Steel Age, and now the Nickel Age is dawning. This will provide us the clean and cheap power to routinely escape the Earth's gravity well, and furthermore, to save the Earth's environment by allowing us to curb our carbon emissions.
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Thomas Blakeslee

View Thomas Blakeslee's Profile
About: Thomas R Blakeslee’s books have been published in nine different languages. After serving for three years in the U.S. Navy, he earned a degree from CalTech in P... more »

Advertise With Us

Das Haus: Innovation in Renewables and Energy Efficiency Rich Hessler Solar Business Development Via Expo Puralytics Conergy Inc. ESI Inc. of Tennessee HelioSage
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine North America Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Photovoltaics World Magazine Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters