This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Here:
it:Fusione_nucleare_fredda#1994-2011:_la_fusione_fredda_Nichel-Idrogeno_(Ni-H)
you can find a brief history concerning the study of Sergio Focardi about cold fusion in Italy:
1994-2011: la fusione fredda Nichel-Idrogeno (Ni-H)
Nel 1989 il biofisico Francesco Piantelli, dell'Università degli Studi di Siena, mentre stava effettuando studi su campioni di materiale organico[97], si accorse della presenza di un'anomala produzione di calore[98]. Comunicò il fenomeno da lui osservato a Sergio Focardi, fisico dell'Università di Bologna, e i due decisero di creare un gruppo di lavoro cui si aggiunse Roberto Habel, membro dell'INFN presso l'Università di Cagliari,[99][100][101] al fine di approfondire la causa di quell'anomalia termica.[102]
Dopo circa tre anni, gli studi approdarono a significativi risultati permettendo la costruzione di un reattore Nichel-Idrogeno sufficientemente efficiente. Passarono altri due anni di sperimentazioni e finalmente il 20 febbraio 1994, in una conferenza stampa presso l'aula magna dell'Università di Siena, venne annunciata la messa a punto di un differente processo di produzione di energia per mezzo di Reazioni Nucleari a Bassa Energia (LENR)[103], profondamente differente da quello fatto da Fleischmann e Pons[104][105].
Il loro processo si basava sull'uso di una barra di nichel, mantenuta per mezzo di una resistenza elettrica ad una temperatura di circa 200-400 °C e caricata con idrogeno attraverso un particolare processo[106][107]. Quando la reazione è innescata, ovvero la barretta di nichel emette più energia di quanta sia necessaria per il riscaldamento della stessa, vi può essere anche una debole e discontinua emissione di radiazione gamma che potrebbe testimoniare una possibile origine nucleare di tale fenomeno[108][109].
In base alle dichiarazioni dagli autori, attualmente gli esperimenti sono indirizzati ad un miglioramento dell'efficienza complessiva del sistema, al fine di realizzare un generatore di energia termica ed elettrica completamente autonomo.[110]
Secondo quanto affermato nel 2011 dal fisico nucleare dell'INFN Giuseppe Levi,[111] un fenomeno simile potrebbe essere alla base del funzionamento del Catalizzatore di Energia di Andrea Rossi e Sergio Focardi.[112][113]
If someone is able to translate this paragraph from Italian to English it could be added here as "Previous studies"...--
79.17.129.23 (
talk) 16:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
By the way, the production of energy proposed by the article is physically impossible. If it were true, Rossi would win a nobel prize. I've read the italian article: there are NO official articles on scientific reviews, no serious document and no teorical explanation about how it would be possible to produce energy ah 800 K temperature. This article is a false rumor. ^musaz † 14:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
This is not a forum for general debate about the Energy Catalyzer. Unless you have links to sources meeting Wikipedia's standards for reliability - in this instance, mainstream published sources, and recognised peer-reviewed journals for scientific claims, there is no point in posting comments here. Abuse of this forum to engage in debates not directly related to article content may result in the comments being deleted, and if necessary, editing rights blocked for those who abuse the article talk page. Please confine your comments to questions directly of relevance to article content. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 02:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
The current article has at least four sections (and counting) that cover the public and private demonstrations that Rossi has orchestrated. This style of coverage may be appropriate to a dedicated blog, but for Wikipedia's purposes it's probably time for a bit of editing. We should strive to produce a concise summary of the demonstrations. Briefly, all purport to show excess heat production; there has been no demonstration of ionizing radiation or neutron production; despite Rossi's claims that he has operated devices for years in his factory, there has never been a demonstration of a device that works for more than a few hours; and Rossi has not released either detailed plans or a device to any independent researcher for testing, so no other independent group has been able to replicate his experiment.
It's misleading for us to create a new section in the article every time Rossi repeats the same dog and pony show; the April tests in Bologna appear to have lasted less than three hours, and Lewan's article doesn't report that any scientists were even present. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 14:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I think that there is not a single demonstration that LENR processes does produce neutron or high energy gamma radiation, but there are plenty of evidence for excess heat. Therefore it is not reasonable to use this as an argument. Right now demonstrations are best information that is available. And Levi's et al. experiment was scientific by any standards. Others were just public demonstrations, but they were not intended to be scientific. So please, no more unreasonable deleting the content, but if format should be changed, then make real contributions that are more informative than the current format. Jouni Valkonen ( talk) 02:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
See
WP:NOT#FORUM
|
---|
It seems that that the Rossi reaction is a nickel inhalation process where neutrons from some nickel atoms are transfered to other nickel atoms forming copper, leaving the donor nickel atoms reduced to iron. In fact the analysis conducted by Kullander and Essén about the "produced" powder (ie the powder transformed after two moths of use of the E-Cat) show a substatial percentage (about 10%) of iron too. In other words fusion and fission occurring simultaneously where the energy comes from fission of nickel to iron, while also enabling fusion of nickel to copper.-- 79.10.163.208 ( talk) 10:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
|
I have a bit of a problem with the New Energy Times reference. Its editor is known to push the Widom-Larsen theory which he espouses and say the reaction is not fusion and only he knows the truth, which is a bit dodgy when one considers what 'fusion' actually means (even if W-L is the right explanation, which is what Rossi seems to think is the case, the process would I believe still technically be fusion). Given the degree to which this seems to be a policitcal issue, I'd almost go a far as saying that this might not be considered an RS, but probably we should leave it as indicative of a particular PoV on these matters. -- Brian Josephson ( talk) 21:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Continuing with my personal interest, there has been considerable discussion on the web (and indeed in most of the reports from the January demonstration) on the question of fakes. I believe I was one of the first to formalize this, in a series of posts in physorg.com (Posting as Alanf777). In fact one of my posts is the last in that thread, which has since been closed. (Under a policy of cutting off any discussions after three months or so).
I subsequently expanded these posts into a Self-Published paper http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_proof_frames_v336.php Proving the Rossi eCat is Real -- Version 3.36 (with index), indexed from a place-holder http://lenr.qumbu.com/index.php lenr.qumbu.com which I added to this article : 21:58, 12 April 2011 Alanf777 (talk | contribs) (12,193 bytes) (Added an external link). This was removed by Stephan Schulz at 22:21, 6 May 2011 Stephan Schulz (talk | contribs) (15,327 bytes) (→External links: Rm unreliable sites per WP:EL).
I submit that this paper is the only place on the web where "all" known fakes are collected and analyzed, and evaluated against the published experimental results, and as such is serving a useful, if transient function.
I therefore request that it be allowed to stand for the time being in the "external links" section (or possibly through a 1-sentence "fakes" summary in the "Evaluation" section.)
Alan ( Alanf777 ( talk) 23:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC))
What can normally be linked
Links to be considered
Links normally to be avoided
Alanf777 ( talk) 00:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Is there someone with a stronger background in the Italian language who can look at it:Petroldragon? It looks like this guy has had some serious legal issues in the past relating to a 'green' technology company. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 15:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I am unable to find any information at all about this individual. Since there are press releases circulating which claim Defkalion is making investments of up to 200 million euro, it seems odd that the company 'spokesperson' has no obvious previous track record. The company itself has a one-page website, and no further information; can anyone find any information about the company's legal status or any of its officers (president, CEO, vice presidents, board of directors)? TenOfAllTrades( talk) 15:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to chime in here in defense of New Energy Times, and Steve Krivit in particular. (I know of Krivit only from New Energy Times, and a recent 20-minute conversation relating to my "Fakes" paper, which I'll return to later.)
First, I wouldn't classify his interest in W-L theory as "pushing". He has published on his site a number of W-L related articles, but they are clearly identified and set aside in a section of "Special Collections" -- · Widom-Larsen Theory Portal, but this is only one of many sets or sections. Similarly, in Wiley Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia he co-authors with Joseph. M. Zawodny (NASA) an article on W-L theory "Widom-Larsen Theory: Possible Explanation of LENRs" -- but this is only one of 47. In his personal papers and presentations Publications and Presentations only 2 of 40+ are "pushing" W-L.
In short, I regard Krivit's [ http://newenergytimes.com/index.shtml New Energy Times] and Rothwell's http://www.lenr-canr.org/index.html LENR-CANR as two primary and reliable sources in CF/LENR, and both should be allowed either as references or in the External Links section.
Secondly, the whole Rossi saga is evolving quite rapidly -- with, so far, one set of experiments a month, and a constant flow of "wars or rumours of wars", many from Rossi himself via interviews and blog posts. This time-scale is too short for ANYTHING to make it into a "Reliable Source", other than the painfully few media which have even noticed its existence. Not to mention the general catch-22 problem of anything to do with CF/LENR getting published by "respectable" journals.
Alanf777 ( talk) 23:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC) (Signed belatedly -- I forgot to re-sign when I split the topic)
IMHO this is a remarkable information: the
Ufficio Italiano Brevetti e Marchi (Italian Office for Patents and Trademarks) has licenced the patent for the Energy Catalyzer:
http://www.uibm.gov.it/uibm/dati/Avanzata.aspx?load=info_list_uno&id=1610895&table=Invention&#ancoraSearch
Ufficio italiano brevetti e marchi,
TITLE: "processo ed apparecchiatura per ottenere reazioni esotermiche, in particolare da nickel ed idrogeno."
(TRANSLATION: "process and equipment to obtain exothermal reactions, in particular from nickel and hydrogen")
N. Brevetto
0001387256
Data Deposito: 09 aprile 2008,
Data Brevetto 06 aprile 2011,
Inventori: Andrea Rossi.
So, the date of the deposit is 9 April 2008 and the date of the licence (patent obtained) is 6 April 2011.-- 79.6.145.119 ( talk) 08:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Full text of the patent is available in English here. 87.64.70.210 ( talk) 07:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Where does it say that the patent is approved? I can only see that the patent application has been received... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koma77 ( talk • contribs) 19:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Here:
The patent (the same one approved by the Italian Office for Patents and Trademarks) on Google Patent (it is the US patent application)-- 79.10.163.208 ( talk) 21:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3173090.ece
After the german article, the italian article was deleted now. See: [1]. 2.203.177.212 ( talk) 15:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the 12KW demonstration, the article writes, "This result conflicts with current theoretical and experimental knowledge of nuclear fusion ... " yet it does not cite or show the math as to how much gamma radiation a 12KW fusion source would produce. Does anyone here have any idea how low 12KW is in terms of nuclear fusion radiation? If it's truth & logic we seek, then those sections of the article should be deleted or show the math. It would be interesting to see what the predicted gamma radiation should be from a 12KW nuclear *fusion* source. Lets please stick to facts on WikiPedia.
The article simply assumes that proton capture at room temperature is possible, using classic nuclear reaction tables to calculate the corresponding gamma emission and residual activity i the reaction products to be expected. Having a look at figure one, to be able to be in the room, the catalyzer would need to be shielded by at least 40 cm of lead, as a result of the 1-7MeV quantas released per reaction, a lot higher than corresponding levels of a fission process with Uranium. Rossi Use only centimetres of lead. If true, the reaction energy is split up in a 10- 100 times more x-ray quantas, and I've heard about alphas, that is easily shielded. However, this clearly breaks the current known behavior to the isotopes involved.
Per-Ola Idberg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.65.83.254 ( talk) 12:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
This article has some pretty serious sourcing issues. If we're treating this as a scientific phenomenon rather than a political or business story, then we are essentially entirely lacking in reliable sources. The only formal independent evaluation of the claims is in the report on patentability, which found the claims implausible and unsupported by the evidence provided by the inventor.
The bulk of material that isn't in the self-published 'Journal' of Nuclear Physics blog comes from a Ny Teknik blogger, Mats Lewan. While I understand that every writer wants to cover interesting stories and dreams of being part of a big event as it happens, I am very concerned about the slant to his blog entries, and his apparent inexperience in reporting on (putative) scientific discoveries.
The latest Lewan blog post added as a source to the article illustrates the point. Lewan interviewed Sven Kullander, a professor emeritus from Uppsala University. The blog declares in bold print "Swedish physicists on the E-cat: “It’s a nuclear reaction”", followed later by "The used powder contains ten percent copper". What was actually said in the interview?
a portion of the Q&A about isotopic composition, from Ny Teknik |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Ny Teknik: What results have you obtained from the analyses? Kullander: Both measurements show that the pure nickel powder contains mainly nickel, and the used powder is different in that several elements are present, mainly 10 percent copper and 11 percent iron. The isotopic analysis through ICP-MS doesn’t show any deviation from the natural isotopic composition of nickel and copper. Ny Teknik: How do you interpret the results? Kullander: Provided that copper is not one of the additives used as catalyst, the copper isotopes 63 and 65 can only have been formed during the process. Their presence is therefore a proof that nuclear reactions took place in the process. However, it’s remarkable that nickel-58 and hydrogen can form copper-63 (70%) and copper-65 (30%). This means that in the process, the original nickel-58 should have grown by five and seven atomic mass-units, respectively, during the nuclear transmutation. However, there are two stable isotopes of nickel with low concentration, nickel-62 and nickel-64, which could conceivably contribute to copper production. According to Rossi copper is not among the additives. 100 grams of nickel had been used during 2.5 months of continuous heating with 10 kW output power. A straightforward calculation shows that a large proportion of the nickel must have been consumed if it was ‘burned’ in a nuclear process. It’s then somewhat strange that the isotopic composition doesn’t differ from the natural. |
The samples analyzed were described as the raw nickel material used as 'fuel' for the EC, and a sample of fuel retrieved after about 2.5 months of continuous 'burning' in the EC. The raw material was predominantly nickel, as expected, while the output contained mostly nickel plus 10% copper and 11% iron(!). A naive reading of these data would suggest that Rossi's device does work as advertised, and it is somehow fusing nickel with hydrogen to produce energy without detectable ionizing radiation.
But what do the numbers really tell us? For that matter, what is Kullander really saying in his responses? First off, he notes that relative isotopic abundances of nickel and copper in the samples are exactly the same as in the naturally-occurring metals. (For nickel, that would be mostly nickel-58 and nickel-60, with about 3.6% nickel-62 and 0.9% nickel-64. For copper that's 69% copper-63 and 31% copper-65.) Kullander explicitly calls out that this is "somewhat strange". For those who don't speak 'scientist', that's code for this is very suspicious, but real scientists hate to make definitive pronouncements about things that might have happened in someone else's lab, and I'm too busy to deal with a lawsuit. Had fusion genuinely been occurring, then the 'used' nickel fuel should have been depleted of the Ni-62 and Ni-64 isotopes required to generate the observed Cu-63 and Cu-65. There is also no good reason why the probability of a nuclear process should coincidentally generate exactly the same ratio of elements observed in nature. (That doesn't mean it can't be a coincidence; it's just damn suspicious.)
It is also rather surprising that the mass fraction of copper in the output (10%) is greater than the combined mass fraction of fusible nickel isotopes (3.6+0.9=4.5%) in the input fuel. Either the sample of 'used' fuel is somehow not representative of the device's output, or there are some even-less-plausible-than-the-rest-of-this-stuff reactions involving (as Kullander notes) multiple hydrogen atoms fusing with each nickel nucleus.
The presence of iron is, meanwhile, just plain mysterious. Is it the result of gross contamination (throwing the relevance of the analysis further into doubt) or is it supposed to be from some even more exotic and implausible nuclear reaction?
While the mix of metals observed could have come from fusion, but could much more easily be produced by mixing together ordinary powdered nickel and copper. Lewan didn't know what he didn't know, and failed to ask the important followup questions. Worse, he headlined his pieces with bold (and bald) declarations that were inconsistent with the evidence presented.
I have similar reservations about the way that he has reported on the company, Defkalion Green Technologies, which purportedly will sell EC devices. Lewan boldly announces "Cold Fusion: Here's the Greek company building 1 MW...", but fails to investigation any of the claims or individuals involved. The only person or entities so far definitively linked with Defkalion are their mysterious 'spokesman' Symeon Tsalikoglou, and EON/Leonardo Corporation, a company Rossi recently sold.
Defkalion has made no public annoucements about any of its partners, company officers, board of directors, or sources of funding (if any), and Lewan has failed to ask about any of these points. Is Defkalion a real company, or just a front? The only online information I can locate about any Symeon Tsalikoglou is that someone by that name is (or was) Director of International Sales for Milotos Editions, a division of the Greek publishing company Troia Publishing. Is there anyone with a track record in the energy industry associated with Defkalion? Are there any energy companies involved that don't have intimate ties to the inventor(s)? Lewan's article talks about "partners" and "a consortium", but doesn't (can't?) name names.
For what it's worth, I don't think that Lewan is involved in any sort of deception himself; I consider it much more likely that he's just getting played. In any event, a blogger is not a good sole source for what would be – if true – this century's most stunning technological advance. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 00:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
He is supposedly the IT editor at Ny Teknik, a weekly tech newspaper. Which says nothing about whether his words were subjected to independent fact checking. Most such papers in my experience are flush with stuff virtually straight from the press releases they get. But if in doubt there's always wp:RSN to consult. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
At least as far as Italy is concerned, the purported "Media coverage" is absolutely irrelevant. Only few very short articles, usually in local editions (not national editions) of newspapers. "Italian radio" here means just a single (non official) channel (radio 24). Only the documentary on Rai News remains. It is a single voice in the desert.
In my opnion the page is absolutely not notable, for sure it is not scientific.-- Popopp ( talk) 14:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Part one: http://www.rainews24.rai.it/it/canale-tv.php?id=23182
Part two: http://www.rainews24.rai.it/it/canale-tv.php?id=23181
It is possible to watch also on youtube in the Rai News channel:
part one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hX40Fgw4kQ
part two: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5pSxZDZXwg
The interview and the debate was aired yesterday (14 April 2011) -- 79.10.133.134 ( talk) 13:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Here:
http://www.radio.rai.it/podcast/A9187330.mp3 it is possible to listen to the
Radio 3 (the third State-owned Italian radio channel) an interview (in Italian) with Sergio Focardi during the 30 min programme "Radio3Scienza" (
http://www.radio3.rai.it/dl/radio3/programmi/PublishingBlock-aaee447d-8a68-46e9-b13f-43525399e0d8-podcast.html ) aired on 18 May 2011.
Focardi talks about cold fusion and the Energy Catalyzer. Antonio Zoccoli, head of the
INFN in Bologna, is interviewed too.--
79.6.9.51 (
talk) 14:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Data are taken from here: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/RossiECatPortal.shtml#demos
Date |
Duration |
Avg. excess power (kW) |
Avg. excess energy (MJ) |
Participants |
News ref. |
Data ref. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
14 January 2011 | 40 min | ~11.7 | ~28 | Giuseppe Levi David Bianchini Andrea Rossi invited observers media |
Ny Teknik | Levi Bianchini |
10-11 February 2011 | 18 h | ~17 | 1000 | Giuseppe Levi Andrea Rossi Daniele Passerini David Bianchini |
Ny Teknik | None Available |
29 March 2011 | 5 h, 45 min | 4.39 | 90 | Giuseppe Levi David Bianchini Carlo Leonardi Hanno Essén Sven Kullander Andrea Rossi Sergio Focardi |
Ny Teknik | Essén Kullander |
19 April 2011 | 2 h, 10 min | 2.6 | 20 | Andrea Rossi Mats Lewan David Bianchini Carlo Leonardi Angelo Saso Maurizio Torrealta Sergio Focardi Christos Stremmenos others |
Ny Teknik | Lewan |
28 April 2011 | 2 h, 58 min | 2.3 | 25 | Andrea Rossi Mats Lewan Carlo Leonardi |
Ny Teknik | Lewan |
Regards.-- 79.10.133.134 ( talk) 20:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
IN the Swedish wikipedia, the article sv:Andrea_Rossi was recently created, giving details about Rossis previous attempts with similar projects, somewhat discrediting him.
Also, the Swedish version of this article, sv:Energy_Catalyzer is currently much more sceptical than this version. Mange01 ( talk) 20:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Also of interest is:
It appears Leonardo is mostly a consulting shop into DOE, feeding off US DoE contracts. During the past decade, they have worked the clean coal and carbon capture and storage agendas. They have addresses in Arlington, Virginia, Bedford, New Hampshire, and in Bannock, Ohio, though the last doesn't seem to have a telephone. A clean coal conferences last November, was attended by both Gentile and by Markus Ewart of EON AG. Their "e-on" logo is the same as e-on uk, a large, broad-play energy and particularly electricity company. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
According to a non-primary source
(
http://www.e-catworld.com/2011/05/18/all-330-e-cat-modules-of-rossis-1-mw-power-plant-completed-now-a-container-is-needed/ )
the 330 E-Cat modules that will make up the first 1 MW plant have been completed.
And the dimensions of the 1MW plan will be 3m x 2m x 2m and will weigh 2 tons!
If this could be true, IMHO this would be a remarkable aspect of the plant: basically it could be placed everywhere.
It is very small for a 1MW plant.
I would be very pleased to obtain a confirmation about these data.--
79.16.128.21 (
talk) 14:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Something to lighten the mood:
Things aren't always what they seem (and no, this isn't PhotoShop)...
— Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump ( talk • contribs) 21:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
We seem to be becoming overly-reliant on this single 'reliable source' for this article. Can I point out that every time this source is cited, it tends to reinforce the view that there is little outside interest in the 'Catalyzer' from elsewhere. Whether this is justified or not is open to question, but it would undoubtedly make this article more credible if other sources could be found. Could those wishing to expand the article also expand their horizons a little? Even a minor comment in another mainstream source might add credibility. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 02:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
It's not notable, and it's not news. This thing is shunned by the press. Only garbage outlets like Fox News, Washington Times, talk radio and Italian media have covered it. Credible journals haven't touched it. The debates on this talk page keep getting framed wrong. It's not about proving this thing to be a fake. Patents are an old trick that hucksters use to make people think that their fakery is more than it is. This thing is a magic trick. The electricity is used to ignite thermite, and it uses zinc and iron powder in a copper sulfate solution hidden in the "lead sheild" to add a large amount of energy. I think the potassium and chlorine traces are due to some other exothermic reaction, but this explains all the trace metals found. 213.29.115.6 ( talk) 23:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Here:
it:Fusione_nucleare_fredda#1994-2011:_la_fusione_fredda_Nichel-Idrogeno_(Ni-H)
you can find a brief history concerning the study of Sergio Focardi about cold fusion in Italy:
1994-2011: la fusione fredda Nichel-Idrogeno (Ni-H)
Nel 1989 il biofisico Francesco Piantelli, dell'Università degli Studi di Siena, mentre stava effettuando studi su campioni di materiale organico[97], si accorse della presenza di un'anomala produzione di calore[98]. Comunicò il fenomeno da lui osservato a Sergio Focardi, fisico dell'Università di Bologna, e i due decisero di creare un gruppo di lavoro cui si aggiunse Roberto Habel, membro dell'INFN presso l'Università di Cagliari,[99][100][101] al fine di approfondire la causa di quell'anomalia termica.[102]
Dopo circa tre anni, gli studi approdarono a significativi risultati permettendo la costruzione di un reattore Nichel-Idrogeno sufficientemente efficiente. Passarono altri due anni di sperimentazioni e finalmente il 20 febbraio 1994, in una conferenza stampa presso l'aula magna dell'Università di Siena, venne annunciata la messa a punto di un differente processo di produzione di energia per mezzo di Reazioni Nucleari a Bassa Energia (LENR)[103], profondamente differente da quello fatto da Fleischmann e Pons[104][105].
Il loro processo si basava sull'uso di una barra di nichel, mantenuta per mezzo di una resistenza elettrica ad una temperatura di circa 200-400 °C e caricata con idrogeno attraverso un particolare processo[106][107]. Quando la reazione è innescata, ovvero la barretta di nichel emette più energia di quanta sia necessaria per il riscaldamento della stessa, vi può essere anche una debole e discontinua emissione di radiazione gamma che potrebbe testimoniare una possibile origine nucleare di tale fenomeno[108][109].
In base alle dichiarazioni dagli autori, attualmente gli esperimenti sono indirizzati ad un miglioramento dell'efficienza complessiva del sistema, al fine di realizzare un generatore di energia termica ed elettrica completamente autonomo.[110]
Secondo quanto affermato nel 2011 dal fisico nucleare dell'INFN Giuseppe Levi,[111] un fenomeno simile potrebbe essere alla base del funzionamento del Catalizzatore di Energia di Andrea Rossi e Sergio Focardi.[112][113]
If someone is able to translate this paragraph from Italian to English it could be added here as "Previous studies"...--
79.17.129.23 (
talk) 16:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
By the way, the production of energy proposed by the article is physically impossible. If it were true, Rossi would win a nobel prize. I've read the italian article: there are NO official articles on scientific reviews, no serious document and no teorical explanation about how it would be possible to produce energy ah 800 K temperature. This article is a false rumor. ^musaz † 14:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
This is not a forum for general debate about the Energy Catalyzer. Unless you have links to sources meeting Wikipedia's standards for reliability - in this instance, mainstream published sources, and recognised peer-reviewed journals for scientific claims, there is no point in posting comments here. Abuse of this forum to engage in debates not directly related to article content may result in the comments being deleted, and if necessary, editing rights blocked for those who abuse the article talk page. Please confine your comments to questions directly of relevance to article content. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 02:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
The current article has at least four sections (and counting) that cover the public and private demonstrations that Rossi has orchestrated. This style of coverage may be appropriate to a dedicated blog, but for Wikipedia's purposes it's probably time for a bit of editing. We should strive to produce a concise summary of the demonstrations. Briefly, all purport to show excess heat production; there has been no demonstration of ionizing radiation or neutron production; despite Rossi's claims that he has operated devices for years in his factory, there has never been a demonstration of a device that works for more than a few hours; and Rossi has not released either detailed plans or a device to any independent researcher for testing, so no other independent group has been able to replicate his experiment.
It's misleading for us to create a new section in the article every time Rossi repeats the same dog and pony show; the April tests in Bologna appear to have lasted less than three hours, and Lewan's article doesn't report that any scientists were even present. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 14:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I think that there is not a single demonstration that LENR processes does produce neutron or high energy gamma radiation, but there are plenty of evidence for excess heat. Therefore it is not reasonable to use this as an argument. Right now demonstrations are best information that is available. And Levi's et al. experiment was scientific by any standards. Others were just public demonstrations, but they were not intended to be scientific. So please, no more unreasonable deleting the content, but if format should be changed, then make real contributions that are more informative than the current format. Jouni Valkonen ( talk) 02:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
See
WP:NOT#FORUM
|
---|
It seems that that the Rossi reaction is a nickel inhalation process where neutrons from some nickel atoms are transfered to other nickel atoms forming copper, leaving the donor nickel atoms reduced to iron. In fact the analysis conducted by Kullander and Essén about the "produced" powder (ie the powder transformed after two moths of use of the E-Cat) show a substatial percentage (about 10%) of iron too. In other words fusion and fission occurring simultaneously where the energy comes from fission of nickel to iron, while also enabling fusion of nickel to copper.-- 79.10.163.208 ( talk) 10:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
|
I have a bit of a problem with the New Energy Times reference. Its editor is known to push the Widom-Larsen theory which he espouses and say the reaction is not fusion and only he knows the truth, which is a bit dodgy when one considers what 'fusion' actually means (even if W-L is the right explanation, which is what Rossi seems to think is the case, the process would I believe still technically be fusion). Given the degree to which this seems to be a policitcal issue, I'd almost go a far as saying that this might not be considered an RS, but probably we should leave it as indicative of a particular PoV on these matters. -- Brian Josephson ( talk) 21:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Continuing with my personal interest, there has been considerable discussion on the web (and indeed in most of the reports from the January demonstration) on the question of fakes. I believe I was one of the first to formalize this, in a series of posts in physorg.com (Posting as Alanf777). In fact one of my posts is the last in that thread, which has since been closed. (Under a policy of cutting off any discussions after three months or so).
I subsequently expanded these posts into a Self-Published paper http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_proof_frames_v336.php Proving the Rossi eCat is Real -- Version 3.36 (with index), indexed from a place-holder http://lenr.qumbu.com/index.php lenr.qumbu.com which I added to this article : 21:58, 12 April 2011 Alanf777 (talk | contribs) (12,193 bytes) (Added an external link). This was removed by Stephan Schulz at 22:21, 6 May 2011 Stephan Schulz (talk | contribs) (15,327 bytes) (→External links: Rm unreliable sites per WP:EL).
I submit that this paper is the only place on the web where "all" known fakes are collected and analyzed, and evaluated against the published experimental results, and as such is serving a useful, if transient function.
I therefore request that it be allowed to stand for the time being in the "external links" section (or possibly through a 1-sentence "fakes" summary in the "Evaluation" section.)
Alan ( Alanf777 ( talk) 23:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC))
What can normally be linked
Links to be considered
Links normally to be avoided
Alanf777 ( talk) 00:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Is there someone with a stronger background in the Italian language who can look at it:Petroldragon? It looks like this guy has had some serious legal issues in the past relating to a 'green' technology company. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 15:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I am unable to find any information at all about this individual. Since there are press releases circulating which claim Defkalion is making investments of up to 200 million euro, it seems odd that the company 'spokesperson' has no obvious previous track record. The company itself has a one-page website, and no further information; can anyone find any information about the company's legal status or any of its officers (president, CEO, vice presidents, board of directors)? TenOfAllTrades( talk) 15:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to chime in here in defense of New Energy Times, and Steve Krivit in particular. (I know of Krivit only from New Energy Times, and a recent 20-minute conversation relating to my "Fakes" paper, which I'll return to later.)
First, I wouldn't classify his interest in W-L theory as "pushing". He has published on his site a number of W-L related articles, but they are clearly identified and set aside in a section of "Special Collections" -- · Widom-Larsen Theory Portal, but this is only one of many sets or sections. Similarly, in Wiley Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia he co-authors with Joseph. M. Zawodny (NASA) an article on W-L theory "Widom-Larsen Theory: Possible Explanation of LENRs" -- but this is only one of 47. In his personal papers and presentations Publications and Presentations only 2 of 40+ are "pushing" W-L.
In short, I regard Krivit's [ http://newenergytimes.com/index.shtml New Energy Times] and Rothwell's http://www.lenr-canr.org/index.html LENR-CANR as two primary and reliable sources in CF/LENR, and both should be allowed either as references or in the External Links section.
Secondly, the whole Rossi saga is evolving quite rapidly -- with, so far, one set of experiments a month, and a constant flow of "wars or rumours of wars", many from Rossi himself via interviews and blog posts. This time-scale is too short for ANYTHING to make it into a "Reliable Source", other than the painfully few media which have even noticed its existence. Not to mention the general catch-22 problem of anything to do with CF/LENR getting published by "respectable" journals.
Alanf777 ( talk) 23:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC) (Signed belatedly -- I forgot to re-sign when I split the topic)
IMHO this is a remarkable information: the
Ufficio Italiano Brevetti e Marchi (Italian Office for Patents and Trademarks) has licenced the patent for the Energy Catalyzer:
http://www.uibm.gov.it/uibm/dati/Avanzata.aspx?load=info_list_uno&id=1610895&table=Invention&#ancoraSearch
Ufficio italiano brevetti e marchi,
TITLE: "processo ed apparecchiatura per ottenere reazioni esotermiche, in particolare da nickel ed idrogeno."
(TRANSLATION: "process and equipment to obtain exothermal reactions, in particular from nickel and hydrogen")
N. Brevetto
0001387256
Data Deposito: 09 aprile 2008,
Data Brevetto 06 aprile 2011,
Inventori: Andrea Rossi.
So, the date of the deposit is 9 April 2008 and the date of the licence (patent obtained) is 6 April 2011.-- 79.6.145.119 ( talk) 08:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Full text of the patent is available in English here. 87.64.70.210 ( talk) 07:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Where does it say that the patent is approved? I can only see that the patent application has been received... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koma77 ( talk • contribs) 19:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Here:
The patent (the same one approved by the Italian Office for Patents and Trademarks) on Google Patent (it is the US patent application)-- 79.10.163.208 ( talk) 21:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3173090.ece
After the german article, the italian article was deleted now. See: [1]. 2.203.177.212 ( talk) 15:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the 12KW demonstration, the article writes, "This result conflicts with current theoretical and experimental knowledge of nuclear fusion ... " yet it does not cite or show the math as to how much gamma radiation a 12KW fusion source would produce. Does anyone here have any idea how low 12KW is in terms of nuclear fusion radiation? If it's truth & logic we seek, then those sections of the article should be deleted or show the math. It would be interesting to see what the predicted gamma radiation should be from a 12KW nuclear *fusion* source. Lets please stick to facts on WikiPedia.
The article simply assumes that proton capture at room temperature is possible, using classic nuclear reaction tables to calculate the corresponding gamma emission and residual activity i the reaction products to be expected. Having a look at figure one, to be able to be in the room, the catalyzer would need to be shielded by at least 40 cm of lead, as a result of the 1-7MeV quantas released per reaction, a lot higher than corresponding levels of a fission process with Uranium. Rossi Use only centimetres of lead. If true, the reaction energy is split up in a 10- 100 times more x-ray quantas, and I've heard about alphas, that is easily shielded. However, this clearly breaks the current known behavior to the isotopes involved.
Per-Ola Idberg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.65.83.254 ( talk) 12:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
This article has some pretty serious sourcing issues. If we're treating this as a scientific phenomenon rather than a political or business story, then we are essentially entirely lacking in reliable sources. The only formal independent evaluation of the claims is in the report on patentability, which found the claims implausible and unsupported by the evidence provided by the inventor.
The bulk of material that isn't in the self-published 'Journal' of Nuclear Physics blog comes from a Ny Teknik blogger, Mats Lewan. While I understand that every writer wants to cover interesting stories and dreams of being part of a big event as it happens, I am very concerned about the slant to his blog entries, and his apparent inexperience in reporting on (putative) scientific discoveries.
The latest Lewan blog post added as a source to the article illustrates the point. Lewan interviewed Sven Kullander, a professor emeritus from Uppsala University. The blog declares in bold print "Swedish physicists on the E-cat: “It’s a nuclear reaction”", followed later by "The used powder contains ten percent copper". What was actually said in the interview?
a portion of the Q&A about isotopic composition, from Ny Teknik |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Ny Teknik: What results have you obtained from the analyses? Kullander: Both measurements show that the pure nickel powder contains mainly nickel, and the used powder is different in that several elements are present, mainly 10 percent copper and 11 percent iron. The isotopic analysis through ICP-MS doesn’t show any deviation from the natural isotopic composition of nickel and copper. Ny Teknik: How do you interpret the results? Kullander: Provided that copper is not one of the additives used as catalyst, the copper isotopes 63 and 65 can only have been formed during the process. Their presence is therefore a proof that nuclear reactions took place in the process. However, it’s remarkable that nickel-58 and hydrogen can form copper-63 (70%) and copper-65 (30%). This means that in the process, the original nickel-58 should have grown by five and seven atomic mass-units, respectively, during the nuclear transmutation. However, there are two stable isotopes of nickel with low concentration, nickel-62 and nickel-64, which could conceivably contribute to copper production. According to Rossi copper is not among the additives. 100 grams of nickel had been used during 2.5 months of continuous heating with 10 kW output power. A straightforward calculation shows that a large proportion of the nickel must have been consumed if it was ‘burned’ in a nuclear process. It’s then somewhat strange that the isotopic composition doesn’t differ from the natural. |
The samples analyzed were described as the raw nickel material used as 'fuel' for the EC, and a sample of fuel retrieved after about 2.5 months of continuous 'burning' in the EC. The raw material was predominantly nickel, as expected, while the output contained mostly nickel plus 10% copper and 11% iron(!). A naive reading of these data would suggest that Rossi's device does work as advertised, and it is somehow fusing nickel with hydrogen to produce energy without detectable ionizing radiation.
But what do the numbers really tell us? For that matter, what is Kullander really saying in his responses? First off, he notes that relative isotopic abundances of nickel and copper in the samples are exactly the same as in the naturally-occurring metals. (For nickel, that would be mostly nickel-58 and nickel-60, with about 3.6% nickel-62 and 0.9% nickel-64. For copper that's 69% copper-63 and 31% copper-65.) Kullander explicitly calls out that this is "somewhat strange". For those who don't speak 'scientist', that's code for this is very suspicious, but real scientists hate to make definitive pronouncements about things that might have happened in someone else's lab, and I'm too busy to deal with a lawsuit. Had fusion genuinely been occurring, then the 'used' nickel fuel should have been depleted of the Ni-62 and Ni-64 isotopes required to generate the observed Cu-63 and Cu-65. There is also no good reason why the probability of a nuclear process should coincidentally generate exactly the same ratio of elements observed in nature. (That doesn't mean it can't be a coincidence; it's just damn suspicious.)
It is also rather surprising that the mass fraction of copper in the output (10%) is greater than the combined mass fraction of fusible nickel isotopes (3.6+0.9=4.5%) in the input fuel. Either the sample of 'used' fuel is somehow not representative of the device's output, or there are some even-less-plausible-than-the-rest-of-this-stuff reactions involving (as Kullander notes) multiple hydrogen atoms fusing with each nickel nucleus.
The presence of iron is, meanwhile, just plain mysterious. Is it the result of gross contamination (throwing the relevance of the analysis further into doubt) or is it supposed to be from some even more exotic and implausible nuclear reaction?
While the mix of metals observed could have come from fusion, but could much more easily be produced by mixing together ordinary powdered nickel and copper. Lewan didn't know what he didn't know, and failed to ask the important followup questions. Worse, he headlined his pieces with bold (and bald) declarations that were inconsistent with the evidence presented.
I have similar reservations about the way that he has reported on the company, Defkalion Green Technologies, which purportedly will sell EC devices. Lewan boldly announces "Cold Fusion: Here's the Greek company building 1 MW...", but fails to investigation any of the claims or individuals involved. The only person or entities so far definitively linked with Defkalion are their mysterious 'spokesman' Symeon Tsalikoglou, and EON/Leonardo Corporation, a company Rossi recently sold.
Defkalion has made no public annoucements about any of its partners, company officers, board of directors, or sources of funding (if any), and Lewan has failed to ask about any of these points. Is Defkalion a real company, or just a front? The only online information I can locate about any Symeon Tsalikoglou is that someone by that name is (or was) Director of International Sales for Milotos Editions, a division of the Greek publishing company Troia Publishing. Is there anyone with a track record in the energy industry associated with Defkalion? Are there any energy companies involved that don't have intimate ties to the inventor(s)? Lewan's article talks about "partners" and "a consortium", but doesn't (can't?) name names.
For what it's worth, I don't think that Lewan is involved in any sort of deception himself; I consider it much more likely that he's just getting played. In any event, a blogger is not a good sole source for what would be – if true – this century's most stunning technological advance. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 00:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
He is supposedly the IT editor at Ny Teknik, a weekly tech newspaper. Which says nothing about whether his words were subjected to independent fact checking. Most such papers in my experience are flush with stuff virtually straight from the press releases they get. But if in doubt there's always wp:RSN to consult. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
At least as far as Italy is concerned, the purported "Media coverage" is absolutely irrelevant. Only few very short articles, usually in local editions (not national editions) of newspapers. "Italian radio" here means just a single (non official) channel (radio 24). Only the documentary on Rai News remains. It is a single voice in the desert.
In my opnion the page is absolutely not notable, for sure it is not scientific.-- Popopp ( talk) 14:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Part one: http://www.rainews24.rai.it/it/canale-tv.php?id=23182
Part two: http://www.rainews24.rai.it/it/canale-tv.php?id=23181
It is possible to watch also on youtube in the Rai News channel:
part one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hX40Fgw4kQ
part two: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5pSxZDZXwg
The interview and the debate was aired yesterday (14 April 2011) -- 79.10.133.134 ( talk) 13:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Here:
http://www.radio.rai.it/podcast/A9187330.mp3 it is possible to listen to the
Radio 3 (the third State-owned Italian radio channel) an interview (in Italian) with Sergio Focardi during the 30 min programme "Radio3Scienza" (
http://www.radio3.rai.it/dl/radio3/programmi/PublishingBlock-aaee447d-8a68-46e9-b13f-43525399e0d8-podcast.html ) aired on 18 May 2011.
Focardi talks about cold fusion and the Energy Catalyzer. Antonio Zoccoli, head of the
INFN in Bologna, is interviewed too.--
79.6.9.51 (
talk) 14:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Data are taken from here: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/RossiECatPortal.shtml#demos
Date |
Duration |
Avg. excess power (kW) |
Avg. excess energy (MJ) |
Participants |
News ref. |
Data ref. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
14 January 2011 | 40 min | ~11.7 | ~28 | Giuseppe Levi David Bianchini Andrea Rossi invited observers media |
Ny Teknik | Levi Bianchini |
10-11 February 2011 | 18 h | ~17 | 1000 | Giuseppe Levi Andrea Rossi Daniele Passerini David Bianchini |
Ny Teknik | None Available |
29 March 2011 | 5 h, 45 min | 4.39 | 90 | Giuseppe Levi David Bianchini Carlo Leonardi Hanno Essén Sven Kullander Andrea Rossi Sergio Focardi |
Ny Teknik | Essén Kullander |
19 April 2011 | 2 h, 10 min | 2.6 | 20 | Andrea Rossi Mats Lewan David Bianchini Carlo Leonardi Angelo Saso Maurizio Torrealta Sergio Focardi Christos Stremmenos others |
Ny Teknik | Lewan |
28 April 2011 | 2 h, 58 min | 2.3 | 25 | Andrea Rossi Mats Lewan Carlo Leonardi |
Ny Teknik | Lewan |
Regards.-- 79.10.133.134 ( talk) 20:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
IN the Swedish wikipedia, the article sv:Andrea_Rossi was recently created, giving details about Rossis previous attempts with similar projects, somewhat discrediting him.
Also, the Swedish version of this article, sv:Energy_Catalyzer is currently much more sceptical than this version. Mange01 ( talk) 20:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Also of interest is:
It appears Leonardo is mostly a consulting shop into DOE, feeding off US DoE contracts. During the past decade, they have worked the clean coal and carbon capture and storage agendas. They have addresses in Arlington, Virginia, Bedford, New Hampshire, and in Bannock, Ohio, though the last doesn't seem to have a telephone. A clean coal conferences last November, was attended by both Gentile and by Markus Ewart of EON AG. Their "e-on" logo is the same as e-on uk, a large, broad-play energy and particularly electricity company. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
According to a non-primary source
(
http://www.e-catworld.com/2011/05/18/all-330-e-cat-modules-of-rossis-1-mw-power-plant-completed-now-a-container-is-needed/ )
the 330 E-Cat modules that will make up the first 1 MW plant have been completed.
And the dimensions of the 1MW plan will be 3m x 2m x 2m and will weigh 2 tons!
If this could be true, IMHO this would be a remarkable aspect of the plant: basically it could be placed everywhere.
It is very small for a 1MW plant.
I would be very pleased to obtain a confirmation about these data.--
79.16.128.21 (
talk) 14:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Something to lighten the mood:
Things aren't always what they seem (and no, this isn't PhotoShop)...
— Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump ( talk • contribs) 21:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
We seem to be becoming overly-reliant on this single 'reliable source' for this article. Can I point out that every time this source is cited, it tends to reinforce the view that there is little outside interest in the 'Catalyzer' from elsewhere. Whether this is justified or not is open to question, but it would undoubtedly make this article more credible if other sources could be found. Could those wishing to expand the article also expand their horizons a little? Even a minor comment in another mainstream source might add credibility. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 02:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
It's not notable, and it's not news. This thing is shunned by the press. Only garbage outlets like Fox News, Washington Times, talk radio and Italian media have covered it. Credible journals haven't touched it. The debates on this talk page keep getting framed wrong. It's not about proving this thing to be a fake. Patents are an old trick that hucksters use to make people think that their fakery is more than it is. This thing is a magic trick. The electricity is used to ignite thermite, and it uses zinc and iron powder in a copper sulfate solution hidden in the "lead sheild" to add a large amount of energy. I think the potassium and chlorine traces are due to some other exothermic reaction, but this explains all the trace metals found. 213.29.115.6 ( talk) 23:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)