OT: Focardi Rossi Energy Catalyzer

Read up on the low energy nuclear reactor here:
http://news.google.com/news/section?pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&csid=5ca329ec0c2f8b38&redirect=true

and here (if that link above breaks):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer

Before voting, I encourage you to search for more information and read the debunker's comments with equal weight, although they are fewer in contrast the new age energy bloggers whose sites are biased in my opinion.

I am undecided, but extremely interested by this, hence my extreme voting...

EDIT: Poll Question:
Where will this device be in two years?

It is my understanding that the in the creation of any element with more than 26 protons (Fe) the coulomb barrier is too high and the fusion consumes energy instead of releasing it. Thus the transformation if Ni (28) to Cu (29) will require the net input of energy. As I scanned some of the articles I saw various calculations on how much energy was released (which technically might be how much should be consumed) but none of them explained the nuclear mechanism by which Ni-58 became Cu-63. None of them even ventured to propose a theoretical fusion mechanism, not even a S.W.A.G.

For now, I'm calling it Bologna (baloney).

The most stable isotope of Nickel is 28 protons and 30 neutrons. The most stable isotope of Copper is 29 protons and 34 neutrons. Hydrogen is one proton and one neutron. If Hydrogen and Nickel are fusing to form Copper, where are the 4 neutrons coming from?

What - they have actually gotten fusion to work with steady output??

Dan Bentler

If not outright total fraud, then the 'researchers' should have their pedigrees pulled for not knowing the difference between chemical reactions and nuclear fusion.

Besides, the input energy required to fuse hydrogen to nickel could not be contained by the tinfoil they wrap their apparatus in. (Leftover tinfoil was used to make hats presumably). No 'Catalyst' is capable of getting the atomic nuclei close enough to fuse at room temperature, and at the typical base temperature of 10^9 Kelvin, no catalyst will remain solid anyway.

These guys should move in next door to the Steorn-Orbo folk and have a conference with the martians across the street.

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ChubbSRtherossikw.pdf

It looks worse than some of the contraptions I have scabbed together to keep my water running in the winter after a pipe burst.

This Rossi character has a checkered past, but also has been successful in his field, financing this with money of his own, not asking for any payments or investors, and not accepting payment for the power plant to be built in Greece until after it runs successfully.

He does not know how it works. This is why his patent application was rejected. I have not read the application, but those who have commented on it say that it is very poorly done.

But, he seems confident that it does work, and doesn't really care about continued testing...he's bringing it to market within a year...

Hmmmm...

It could be a long con, but I think that if this guy is lying, he is fooling himself too.

There are others who claim this is impossible based on quantum mechanics, but others point out the paradoxes in quantum mechanics and the unknowns. If it's fusion, there should be massive amounts of radiation, or at least radioactive copper by products that last more than a couple of hours.

My nuclear physics study stopped in the 11th grade where I got as far as very basic particles and electron levels, so I have more learning to do before I could begin to understand the process of transmutation.

I hope this is a breakthrough, and the more I read, the more I think that it will be.

The most stable isotope of Nickel is 28 protons and 30 neutrons. The most stable isotope of Copper is 29 protons and 34 neutrons. Hydrogen is one proton and one neutron. If Hydrogen and Nickel are fusing to form Copper, where are the 4 neutrons coming from?

Click to expand...

Hydrogen is one proton, no neutrons.
You'd have to fuse 5 protons (hydrogen) and give off 4 positrons to convert 4 of the protons to neutrons. The hydrogens would probably fuse one at a time so the decay tree doesn't show an easy way to get there. Interesting.

He wanted to patent something and he doesn't know how it works? Good luck.

Steve Bailey said:

The most stable isotope of Nickel is 28 protons and 30 neutrons. The most stable isotope of Copper is 29 protons and 34 neutrons. Hydrogen is one proton and one neutron. If Hydrogen and Nickel are fusing to form Copper, where are the 4 neutrons coming from?

Click to expand...

Maybe this theory of Neturon Capture can help explain this:
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011...evice-probably-real-with-credit-to-piantelli/

bernie_carlton said:

He wanted to patent something and he doesn't know how it works?

Click to expand...

If he does get a patent I think I'll try and get one for a time machine.

Okie,

The paper from Jacques Dufour was somewhat interesting but I want to point out a couple of things.

First off, in the abstract Dufour starts by saying that he isn't discussing the reactions of proton or neutron capture, and for the purposes of his paper he will consider them as true.

Then at the end of the introduction he makes this statement: "In this paper, the capture of a neutron or a proton by a nickel nucleus is accepted as real. The consequences of these captures are analyzed and proposals are made for precise verification of the process invoked."

Dufour thus does not begin by stating that the process is real, but by assuming that the process is real so that he can then proceed to demonstrate the kinds of evidence we should look to see that would then prove that the process is in fact fusion. That is quite a different thing than arguing that the process really is fusion. Dufour merely gives us a path to prove it. This is a common approach in science - prove a theory by finding the results predicted by the theory if the theory is indeed true.

He concludes with saying "Strong nuclear signatures are expected from the Rossi energy amplifier and it is hoped that this note can help evidence them."

In other words, if Rossi/Focardi want to prove their device then one possible route would be to furnish the evidence that Dufour says should be there if the process is even real.


The New Energy Times blog refers to Dufour's paper where he demonstrates the kind of evidence that the process would leave behind if it was actually fusion and presents the paper as the evidence itself.


In further reading the comments on the blog there is an entry purportedly from Dufour where he states "Indeed, the expected radiations are not in line with the thermal effects observed. I wrote a second paper in the same journal (July) ‘Is the Rossi amplifier the first pico-chemical reactor.’" Dufour recognizes that the predicted results do not line up with the observed results and apparently has proposed an alternate explanation as a pico-chemical reactor. I'm not going to take the time to find it at this point in time - if anything I'm just as skeptical as before.

Motivation

What keeps me curious is the behavior of Mr. Rossi.

What sort of con artist could this be, based on his actions? Could he be that deluded?

The more I look at the limited facts (giving less and less weight to both questionable theories and especially opinions of bloggers), the more I think this is real.

Perhaps he has other silent partners aside from the public ones (Defkalion Technologies, __ ) with signed non disclosure contracts and monie$...

How does he plan to get away with this?

Or, has he really been pursuing this for at least 7 years, and finally tried enough different combinations of "filaments" (catalysts) to change human history?

He says he need no more money until the customer sees working E-Cats. He plans to invest in cancer treatment for children (in homage to Pantelli who is probably to be credited for this branch of study and does work with cancer)?


http://froarty.scienceblog.com/3218...h2-in-opposition-to-changes-in-casimir-force/

http://www.e-catworld.com/2011/04/2...-operating-in-four-locations-worldwide-today/

I once happened to cross paths with a customer who was left with a piece of junk built by another company. After a time I became convinced that the other company's business plan was not to con customers to make themselves rich but to just con them enough to keep paying their salaries while pretending to develop a manufacturing line that had grandiose specifications but ultimately wouldn't work. Eventually the customer cut his losses and sent them packing, but in the meantime these guys had been billing the customer for three years.

I have no idea what Rossi's motives are, and even though he might not be soliciting investors he has to eat, so he is/was getting income from somewhere. He may even sincerely and deeply believe in what he claims. That doesn't make him right. I know lots of people that sincerely and deeply believe all kinds of superstitions and absurdities. That doesn't make them con artists. It makes them just another one of us fallible humans who make mistakes.

After some more amusing reading, I'm starting to think that this is a total fraud, and that the "nuclear heating" is actually a simple discharge reaction from what essentially turns into a NiMH battery at a critical temperature.

(and all carefully hidden behind the secret lead and tinfoil to dupe investors).

I don't believe it personally, but if he starts churning out power, I'll give him his dues.

Old but relevant:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4955212n