cold fusion reactor announced by italian physicists

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by DRZion, Jan 24, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. DRZion Theoretical Experimentalist Valued Senior Member

    Italian scientists have announced a working cold fusion reactor!

    “We have passed already the phase to convince somebody,” Rossi wrote in his forum. “We are arrived to a product that is ready for the market. Our judge is the market.”

    Their paper is posted in a journal established by themselves after mainstream peer reviewers rejected their set-up based solely on the fact that they did not understand the theory. Should cold fusion be outside the scope of scientific journals if it does not contribute to scientific knowledge? In other words, just because this discovery was made by scientists, does it necessarily have to be published in scientific journals?

    Also, I would like to know if there has been any other claims that have received massive funding to be established fraud in the future?

    I am posting another thread in the b&e forum exploring the economic impact of such incredibly cheap and clean electricity.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    How the fuck do they not know how it works? That's a little scary.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Rav Valued Senior Member

    This is complete bullshit. It sounds exactly like all the scams we've seen before. A paper rejected by peer review, a patent partially rejected because of insufficient disclosure regarding exactly how the device operates, and a scientist who is of questionable integrity (as evidenced by some previous run-ins with the law).

    I suppose that it is not completely beyond the realm of possibility that they have been lucky enough to accidentally stumble upon a discovery that would upend the general scientific consensus on the issue of cold fusion, but they're screwing about in the media, performing short and unconvincing demonstrations in small controlled environments and making grandiose claims that they can't back up.

    If it's not a scam they're doing an absolutely brilliant job of making it look like one.
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2011
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Cold fusion is back.:xctd:
  8. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    It is Pier reviewed.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  9. Stoniphi obscurely fossiliferous Valued Senior Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Good one, Capt.
  10. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Nice looking Pier. And perhaps it is sadly befitting that after it was restored it became a fiscal failure.

    But they seem to have plans to do something useful with it one day.
  11. jmpet Valued Senior Member

    Does it work under the same operating principle as the Italian rifle?
  12. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    That is all you need to know:

    I bet they are looking for investors and they already set up a bank account in the Bahamas...
  13. DRZion Theoretical Experimentalist Valued Senior Member

    Well, maybe they are afraid of some competitor stealing their design. Sometimes a simple patent is not the best option. If I were to create a device which makes free energy using a microwave oven, I sure wouldn't want people to figure this out! I would make my patent incredibly complicated and nearly illegible so that no one would be able to reverse engineer my creation. By playing the media they might be keeping competitors at bay..

    However, there has been word that one of the scientists has a history of fraud. :shrug:

    Its an interesting issue - perhaps they really do not have anything to contribute scientifically. Even though the technology may be a breakthrough, there simply isn't enough science to it to make it publishable. Some journals do not care so much about the significance of the content as format and style of writing. Ie it has to sound Scientific. Not to mention that this is cold fusion, one of the most ridiculed topics in science.

    Still if no one reproduces it, they either have an incredibly valuable trade secret or they are frauds. Don't know all the details so I guess time will tell.
  14. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member


    This blog makes a couple of good points, specifically that this process might not be "cold fusion" per se, but that doesn't preclude that these scientists have discovered a novel exothermic reaction. Also, they may have discovered the reaction without knowing specifically what is going on under the hood, which would explain why their paper got rejected in the peer review process...
  15. jpappl Valued Senior Member

    Getting closer, here are two reports by those who did the test. They are not affiliated with the inventors apparently. The test was performed by scientists from the univ, the inventors basically supplied the device.

    Also, I posted a thread a week ago on this with the original links for the test, here:

    Feel free to merge.

    Here are the updated reports from Giuseppe Levi who is a professor at the univ and David Bianchini who is as well. At least as far as I can tell. BO BIANCHINI RELAZ.pdf

    preliminary radiation and heat findings on two recent tests Dec 16 and Jan 14 on the same HNi fusion Rossi reactor by U. Bologna scientists, D Bianchini, G Levi: Rich Murray 2011.01.23

    [ Rich Murray: minor typos and confusing language corrected -- see photos on the report ]

    Sunday, January 23, 2011
    Report official experiment in “cold fusion” reactor (Ni-H Rossi Focardi) – Bologna, 14/01/11 [ 2011.01.14 ]
    Eng. Andrea Rossi sent me today two reports of scientific experiments carried out on
    [ December 16 last year ] and January 14 this year,
    by researchers at the University of Bologna (Department of Physics – INFN).
    We explain below in the original version the time to translate it
    and then insert the text (also in Italian) the report of Dr. Joseph Levi.

    From this link you can download the report of Dr David Bianchini: BO BIANCHINI RELAZ.pdf

    [ 6 page January 21, 2011 ]

    Experimental evaluation, for radiation protection purposes,
    of photon and neutron radiation fields
    during the public presentation of the prototype
    named “Energy Amplifier”


    From the measures, it is shown that there is no evidence, within the bounds of the
    instruments presented herein, of meaningful differences in the measured values, compared to the background environmental radiation.


    * The absence of a neutron field observable from the measured background does not allow a dosimetric analysis for comparison with the calibration values associated with the instrument.

    * The measured results are not dissimilar from the environmental background, both as average and as maximum values. ”

    Report on heat production during preliminary tests on the Rossi “Ni-H” reactor.

    Dr. Giuseppe Levi January 23, 2011

    This first and preliminary document reports the heat production measures during two short tests on
    December 16 2010 [Test 1] and
    January 14 2011 [Test 2].

    On December, 16 2010, I had the opportunity to test, for the first time, a prototype of the Rossi “Ni-H” reactor.
    A photograph of the apparatus used in both tests is shown in Fig .1, and a schematic is shown in Fig. 2.

    Fig. 1

    Fig. 2

    The Rossi Reactor prototype has a main horizontal cylindrical body ending with a vertical pipe.
    The H2 inlet was connected to a hydrogen bottle through no-return valves.
    There was no H2 outlet, aside from a small purge valve that was closed.
    Cables were connected to a control box, with 5 digital displays, that were, “controlling the power sent to the resistors inside the reactor”.
    Prudentially, I lifted the control box to search for any other possibly hidden cables, and found none.
    The weight of the control box was a few Kg.
    Two water pipes were connected to the system.
    Temperature was measured and logged by two NTC sensors.
    Another sensor, in the logger, measured the ambient temperature.
    Power from the 220V line was monitored and logged by a “WATTUP?” Pro Es power meter.

    Before igniting the reactor, the water flux was set and measured by collecting, and then weighing, an amount of water in a container in a given time.
    The measured flux was of 168 +/- 2 g in 45 +/- 0.1 s. [ about 3 cc/sec ]

    Then the power was turned on, and temperatures started to rise.
    In Fig. 3, there is a plot of the temperatures that appeared on the monitor during the test, taken from the start to just after the end of the test.

    Fig. 3

    The three lines refer to:
    (B) blue line: T1 water input temperature
    (Y) yellow line: T2 water (steam) output temperature
    (R) red line : ambient temperature

    As it can be seen the system was turned on just around 16.55.
    After about 30 minutes, a kink can be observed in the (Y cordinate).
    Because input power ( 1,120 W, also checked via a clamp amperometer ) was not modified (see Fig. 5 later), this change of slope testifies that the reactor had ignited.

    After a startup period about 20 minutes long, a period where the reactor power was almost constant, taking the water to ≈75 deg C, a second kink is found when the reactor fully ignites, raising the measured temperature to 101.6 +/-0.1 deg C and transforming the water into steam.

    At this point, we can try a simple calculation in order to evaluate the power produced.
    In order to raise the temperature of 168 g of water by 1 deg C, ≈ 168 * 4.185 = 703 J is needed.
    The water inlet temperature was 15 deg C, so the ΔT was 85 deg C.
    We have 703 * 85 = 59,755 J.
    At this energy, one must add the evaporation heat
    ≈2,272 J/g * 168 = 381,696 J.
    Total energy in 45 sec is 59,755 + 381,696 = 441,451 J, and so
    power is 441,451 / 45 = 9,810 W.

    Statistical experimental errors in power estimation, due mainly to flux measurements, can be conservatively estimated to within about 1.5%.
    In this case we have +/- 150 W.

    This result is only a lower limit of the energy produced. because the system was not completely isolated, and we have not taken into account any heat loss.
    From the calculation of the “produced power” when the water was at 75 deg C, which gives a result that is less than the electrical input power,
    it is easy to understand that this systematic under-estimation surely exceeds the statistical errors .

    Before ending [Test1], all the power was reduced and then switched off from the resistors, and also the hydrogen supply was closed.
    No pressure decrease was noted in the H2 bottle.

    Even in this condition, the system kept running self-sustaining for about 15 minutes, until it was decided to manually stop the reaction by cooling the reactor, by using a large water flux (note the decrease of the water input temperature).

    The main origin of possible errors in [Test1] measurement was that the steam was not checked to be completely dry.

    During [Test2 ], this measure was done by Dr. Galantini, a senior chemist who has used an “air quality monitor” instrument HD37AB1347 from Delta Ohm with a HP474AC probe.

    Also in [Test2], a high precision scale (0.1g) was used to weight the hydrogen bottle (13 Kg),
    before, 13,666.7 +/- 0.1 g and,
    after, 13,668.3 +/- 0.1 g, for this experiment.
    The cause of this unexpected rise in weight was traced to be a remnant piece of adhesive tape used to fasten the bottle during the experiment.
    After careful examination of the tape, the weight loss was evaluated to be <1g.

    This is far less than the expected weight loss due to chemical burning.
    In fact, 1g of H can produce (max) 285 KJ.

    In [Test2], the power measured was 12,686 +/- 211 W for about 40 min with a water flux 146.4g +/- 0.1 per 30 +/- 0.5 s.

    This means that 12,686 * 40 * 60 = 30,446 KJ was produced.
    Dividing this number by 285 KJ, a weight of 107 g is obtained, two orders of magnitude larger than the H consumption observed.

    As a prudential check, the reactor was lifted up to seek any possibly hidden power cord. None was found.

    During the test, the main resistor, used to ignite the reaction, failed due to defective welding.
    Even in that condition, the reactor successfully started operating, using the other resistors, but the duration of the experiment in full power (≈40 min) was “too short” to observe a self sustaining reaction.

    Fig. 4

    The temperatures recorded in [Test 2] are shown in Fig 4.
    Unfortunately, the original data has been lost, but the different evolution is evident.

    Fig. 5

    Fig. 5 Power absorbed during both tests, in Watts.
    The time abscissa has 15 min tics.
    [ small ] Spikes in [Test 1] are due to line voltage spikes.
    The anomalous behavior in [Test 2] is clear.
    The average power absorbed during [Test 2] is ≈1,022 W.


    The amount of power and energy produced during both tests is indeed impressive, and, together with the self sustaining state reached during [Test 1], could be an indication that the system is working as a new type of energy source.
    The short duration of the tests suggests that it is important to try longer and more complete experiments.
    An appropriate scientific program will be planned.

    For what it's worth.
  16. jpappl Valued Senior Member

    LOL. Yes, we don't know how it works and we aren't telling either.

    They know what their device does but are not talking about specifics because they don't want someone to steal the idea for the device.

    Beyond that this is new to all, nobody has encountered this exact reaction before apparently so he has no sources to reference. It's a new energy source if the claims are true. We will see of course.

    My concern is one, does the tech get shelved (creating conspiracy theories) or does it not work and all of the univ professors are in on the scam or find that it doesn't work as claimed (creating conspiracy theories). So far they appear to be in support of the claim.

    Either way unless it's true and goes to market we are not going to hear the end of it from some.

    I am very hopeful but skeptical.
  17. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Maybe it's time for America to stop helping the Middle East and start helping Italy.
  18. Emil Valued Senior Member

    If you have something you can patent then you really need to get a patent.
    If not doing this then whenever someone makes a patent and prohibits you to work on it.
    You must be very confident if you think that nobody is able to do what you did.It is a huge risk.
    The safest is to make a patent.
    If there is no patent, in my opinion, is because you can not get a patent.
  19. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Current Cold Fusion advocates remind me of some scientists with legitimate credentials who wrote a book called (I think) The Jupiter Effect. It claimed that alignment of planets circa 1984 would unbalance the solar system & result in all sorts of catastrophes.

    Essentially, they tried to make a fast buck by trading on their credentials. After the alignment occurred, they recanted & attempted to re-establish themselves in the academic communities. They knew that their book was nonsense.

    One of them wrote some good books on science before & after the attempted scam. I do not know about the careers of the others. I sent a nasty email to the author of the good books. He claimed that the group made very little from the publication of The Jupiter Effect.

    One effect of the book was support for some fundamentalist TV preachers who were making money by claiming that the disasters prophesied in The Book of Revelations was imminent. They mentioned The Jupiter Effect as scientific support for their views of the end times.

    I am sure that the TV preachers made lots of money with their scam.

    It is possible (unlikely) that the current Cold Fusion advocates are fools rather than scam artists, which I suspect was the case with the originators of the concept. Note that Cold Fusion was conceived by chemists, not nuclear physicists. They postulated some catalyst effect doing the job & probably had no concept of the forces to be overcome when attempting to bring two nuclei close enough to fuse.
  20. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Well they say they are selling lets see what the customers say after purchasing their meticulous product.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  21. TheVisitor The Journey is the Reward Registered Senior Member

    It's probably a chemical reaction, not a nuclear one. They stated it produces a form of radiation that stops when you turn it off.
    Sounds like ordinary radiant heat. Firewood gives off the same thing. They also said the only by-product of this cold fusion is copper.
    That's interesting because copper is used to create HHO or "Brown's Gas" from water in the new water powered generators already on the market.

    What they likely have is not cold fusion at all.., but a miniaturized steam powered generator fueled by a form of electrolysis that creates a combustible HHO gas from H2O.
    It was named "Brown's Gas" after the one who discovered it in 1975.Yull Brown was granted Australian patent rights for HHO gas in 1977 and American patent rights in 1978.
    That would explain why they can't get a patent. It's already got one.

    This video is about 5 years old.
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2011
  22. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    @The Visitor.
    Good post. Had never heard of Brown's Gas.
    Mixture of Oxygen and Hydrogen that implodes on sparking
  23. Rav Valued Senior Member

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page