Italian scientists claim cold fusion success

1/24/2011 11:54 AM EST

Much as I'd like to get excited about something like this, there's several red flags here. Starting with this:

"...fusion of nickel and hydrogen. The process produces energy as it creates a copper isotope which then decays to produce a different nickel isotope yielding further energy..."

First, how can the process release energy in both directions? That makes no sense.

Second, nickel is heavier than iron. I'm not a nuclear expert, but that would seem to be a problem from a fusion energy point of view.

And then this:

"It is reported that Focardi and Rossi have had their paper refused by peer-review publications"

I'm shocked...

1/24/2011 11:54 AM EST

The author did a good job describing the results reported in Italy but he missed several important facts. The cold fusion claims were reproduced many times after the announcement by Fleischmann and Pons and over 2000 published papers and several books have resulted that can be accessed at www.LENR.org. As a result, a great deal is known about how this process works. The results reported by Rossi and Focardi apply to the light-hydrogen branch of the phenomenon while the results reported by Fleischmann and Pons apply to the heavy-hydrogen branch, both of which produce energy by initiating nuclear reactions in solids at modest temperatures. This contrasts to the conventional method of using very high energy plasma (ITER) to do the job, called hot fusion. The Rossi claim is the first large scale demonstration of the method, but not the only example. If the method can be successfully applied as a source of commercial energy, the politics of oil will change, the cost of energy will drop, and many environmental problems will go away.

1/24/2011 11:56 AM EST

This is indeed very promising news, since it has corroborated the SPAWAR results and maybe even the Pons and Fleishmann results. Cold fusion is the ultimate remedy for our energy problem. I guess nickel will be a hot commodity soon. :)

1/24/2011 12:09 PM EST

Aye aye, I would be very skeptical about such announcements. Not that they might be false but what they claim and what they achieved could be very different things. I really doubt this whole process of cold fusion, if it was that simple wouldn't it have occurred naturally somewhere by now!

1/24/2011 12:50 PM EST

According to a Google translation of an Italian press release Focardi and Rossi do not claim to know what is triggering a cold fusion reaction within their apparatus but claim that copper found inside it and the net energy output are evidence that the fusion of nickel and hydrogen is happening.

Reportedly they are also having problems getting patent coverage because the process appears to contradict accepted science.

It is notable that their paper does not describe the apparatus or the process in detail, only the outcomes. But a few months is not long to wait to see if they start shipping units, or find further problems.

Of course, the patent issues may effect their willingness to ship equipment.

1/24/2011 1:04 PM EST

Premature comment is a recipe for foot-in-mouth disease.

This is not a "confirmation" of the SPAWAR work.

The phenomenon reported is different, the only similarity is that low energy nuclear reactions are being claimed, and it's been apparent for some time, as I read the literature, that there is more than one such possible reaction.

The mechanism is not known (or at least not proven, some people think they know) for any of it, so far. Rossi may or may not have a device that is almost commercially ready. The demonstration so far was very limited and many aspects remained secret.

I recommend holding on the handrails and not jumping to conclusions.

1/24/2011 1:26 PM EST

As a participant in the field of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRs), I have NO OPINION WHATSOEVER about the scientific validity of the recent Rossi-Focardi work. IMO, not enough detailed, independently verified technical information has been released by Rossi et al. to determine whether their bold, albeit sketchily supported recent claims of “excess heat” and nuclear transmutations are true or false. Fortunately, the simple passage of time and greater public availability of vastly more detailed information about their purported technical “advances” and verifiable examples of successful working heat-producing devices will ultimately tell the truth about Rossi et al.’s recent claims, one way or another. Notwithstanding Rossi, I believe that LENRs themselves are real phenomena. We have developed a body of rigorous theoretical work involving existing physics which successfully explains LENRs that has been published in well-respected, mainstream peer-reviewed scientific journals. According to theory, LENRs do not involve appreciable amounts of nuclear fusion --- hot, “cold,” warm or otherwise. A 5-page, highly technical description of the physics 'bedrock' of our theoretical work was published as: "Ultra low momentum neutron catalyzed nuclear reactions on metallic hydride surfaces," A. Widom and L. Larsen, European Physical Journal C - Particles and Fields 46 pp. 107 – 112 (2006) free copy is available at = http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006Widom-UltraLowMomentumNeutronCatalyzed.pdf . A 21-page Primer paper, which provides a high-level overview of the entire expanse of the Widom-Larsen theory of LENRs from the microcosm to the macrocosm published in an Indian Academy of Science journal: “A primer for electroweak induced low-energy nuclear reactions,” Y. N. Srivastava, A. Widom, and L. Larsen, Pramana – Journal of Physics 75 pp. 617 – 637 (October 2010) – free copy at = http://www.ias.ac.in/pramana/v75/p617/fulltext.pdf Lewis Larsen, Lattice Energy LLC

1/24/2011 3:50 PM EST

Cold fusion is difficult to reproduce, but the resulting transmutation of metals is well established. The fact that they were rejected by a peer review journal says more about the politicization of science than their work. This will be another case where engineering success must come before the science.

1/24/2011 3:57 PM EST

"Mass production" from a University? This seems to make the claim all the more dubious.

1/24/2011 4:04 PM EST

It's interesting that so much research has gone into making (or trying to make) microscopic stars 'work'; nuclear explosives use lithium as a 'source' of hydrogen for fusion. I would certainly keep an open - albeit healthily skeptical - mind on the possibility of fusion reactions other than light elements.

1/24/2011 4:30 PM EST

This has very similar description and results as claimed by Blacklight Power. Blacklight Power uses a commercial catalyst called Raini Nickel. This is a porus sponge style metal that is highly reactive to moisture. It has to be shipped in an oil bath. Blacklight claims that the reaction results in the Hydrogen dropping to a lower energy state which they call hydrinos and these are given off as a gas. They claim this can be continuously fueled with more hydrogen. There is so much excess heat, that some of the energy can be used to separate H2 from water to feed the unit and still have lots of left over power. This leads to a claim that they could power a car for 1000 miles on 1 gallon of water.

1/24/2011 4:48 PM EST

"...they plan to start shipping commercial devices within the next three months..."
It will only be a short matter of time before an actual device can be rigorously tested. Am I skeptical about the results? Well, I won't be investing in nickel futures.

1/24/2011 4:56 PM EST

Exciting news! Few more months and we'll know one way or another, although previous experiences do not inspire much confidence.

1/24/2011 5:05 PM EST

They say their tests in the USA (New Hampshire) were witnessed by the DOE and DOD more than a year ago. If the results were real, I'd think that either A) the DOD would force it to go "dark" (seems to not be the case) or the DOE / DOD would provide at least some validation comment (what gives?).

Therefore, as exciting as this sounds -I must remain skeptical until someone can give more details or an independent scientific analysis from a respected source can confirm results.

1/24/2011 5:07 PM EST

I'm skeptical too.
Too good to be truth perhaps.

1/24/2011 5:50 PM EST

I remember how we were skeptical and first doubted Pons and Fleishmann in 1989, because of their sketchy data and confusing claims... but, they ... well, never mind.

It might be true - but it's a long hill to climb yet.

1/24/2011 6:07 PM EST

Give them a Nobel prize

1/24/2011 7:51 PM EST

I would be happy to see this work, but remain skeptical due to the lack of details. What I find interesting is their claim to "NOT UNDERSTAND" how this works. While I can respect that it does not lead me to believe that they can reproduce it, if they don't know how it works, how can they be sure that they are creating copies that will work? Please bring on the independent tests!

1/24/2011 8:21 PM EST

My papers on cold fusion.

http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/7519801.aspx

enjoy

Frank Znidarsic

1/24/2011 8:26 PM EST

My papers on cold fusion

http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/7519801.aspx

enjoy

Frank Znidarsic

1/24/2011 9:01 PM EST

Hmm scepticism aside, isn't it ironic that if this is real that the thought it can't be patented is going to end it?? Time to end patents when they affect the viability of the world. The US constitution had high ideals in mind when it introduced their concept into US law.

1/25/2011 12:50 AM EST

As are most others, I am also very skeptical but as noted previously, at least we should only have to wait a few months for the proof one way or the other. Very interesting at the least.

1/25/2011 1:12 AM EST

Seeing is believing. If they happened to have a $30 digital video camera(not very difficult to obtain), they might put a few videos on the web showing this device boiling water, running a motor after conversion heat to electricity, or doing something of use. Not exactly a live demo, but people these days like video, not just a printed news story to take it to the next level in "believability" if a live demo is not immediately possible. The web is 75% video these days.

1/25/2011 3:15 AM EST

After the failure from Fleischmann and Pons,
I guess scientists do very careful measurements before they claim a success in "cold fusion" . Unless they want to commit scientific suicide.

Let's wheher these guys will become the richest individuals on earth within the next years, or not ...

1/25/2011 4:21 AM EST

background neutrons always jump in.

1/25/2011 6:25 AM EST

Really skeptical, I mean heating nickel hydride should produce copper signal in standard oven.

1/25/2011 9:36 AM EST

Theory aside, somebody has mentioned that "metrology" is the issue in the confirmation of the low-temperature fusion hypothesis that several groups (starting with Stanley & Pons) have reported. I guess this has something to do with instrumentation for detection product isotopes and/or precise measurments of heat. Could somebody pls. clarify?

Ever optimistic,

Subhajit Sen
DAIICT

1/25/2011 10:57 AM EST

Modern day alchemists!

This started with Fleishmann and Pons, and a host of others are now following the trail. The medieval alchemy did not work. That was not for lack of technology, but for lack of fundamental theoretical understanding of why it will not work. Cold fusion is just like that. In this case, we understand why (ask any theoretical nuclear physicist), but some people choose to ignore that understanding. They do it for adventure, publicity, or for whatever,...

1/25/2011 11:58 AM EST

One advantage of engineering over physics is that you don't have to publish or prove anything to anyone. All that matters is that your product works.

Their paper was rejected, but they claim that they are going to start production. If it doesn't work, then they are hucksters and will make a few bucks off a few naive or curious people. Eventually it will become known whether it actually works or not. If it does, (and doesn't have any bad effects like shooting out neutrons at unsuspecting bystanders) they'll sell many and make a mint and the world will be a better place, and no one will care about the people who rejected their paper.

1/25/2011 12:54 PM EST

so, you step on a new energy source and your reaction is to give it away to the people or to the governments? And better you know everything it has to be known about it?

I would make some money and protect the invention from copy. Probably I would give it away when satisfied at a certain point.

What would you do?

1/25/2011 2:36 PM EST

I know the Azuris are good soccer players. Engineers? That seems not easy. But if they did, that is a new turn for Italy. More energy for the world, good news and congrats to the guys.

1/25/2011 4:15 PM EST

"One advantage of engineering over physics is that you don't have to publish or prove anything to anyone. All that matters is that your product works."

I couldn't say it in a better way. I'm waiting a LENR working product since 1989. And today, I'm still waiting, no matter the words of Rossi, Focardi or whoever.

"What would you do?"

I'd get a pool of bodyguards ;-)

1/26/2011 5:38 AM EST

Hi, very interesting discussion.
After Fleischmann and Pons, whoever is making such claims without anything solid is very aware to commit academical suicide. The explanation on Youtube were not so bad (I can understand Italian, Arthur C.Clarke would be happy). These guys have spent more than one year to think about whether they should claim or not. Meantime they have made partnership with some external partners, in attempt to secure a possible business.
Whether it will work or not, we all will see, for sure they think to be in a better position than than Fleischmann & Pons in 1989. While staying very skeptic (it seems to me "too be good to be true"), I'm not impressed at all that they claim not to understand how it works. If it works, you patent it at first and then you try to understand why: 99% of the patents today are about flawed ideas. If they don't get patent, there will be no reactor. An Italian guy at beginning of 1900 invented the telephone and emigrated to US to look for funding. Too poor to pay for all the patents, Mr. Antonio Meucci asked for help to a certain Mr.Bell. Mr.Meucci died poor and Mr.Bell passed to US history as the inventor of the telephone. Today everybody has learned the lesson.
To Goafrit: a couple of italian "engineers" that is worth to mention that are not soccer players:
Galileo Galilei (Pisa 17th century), astronomer, was the inventor of the so-called Scientific approach. If today a Scientist is different from a Philosopher is mainly because of him
Enrico Fermi: in 1939, in Chicago, this Italian engineer achieved the first nuclear fission in a reactor, opening the world to the exploitation of nuclear energy and allows us to discuss in this blog.
By the way, that was happening just one year later than the Azzurri had won their 2nd Soccer World Cup, I wonder which was the biggest achievement :-)

1/26/2011 9:59 AM EST

All great truths begin as blasphemies.
--George Bernard Shaw

As an engineer, I am naturally skeptical, but as one of my former chief engineers put it so succintly in a sign above her desk:

"In God we trust, all others must show data."

1/26/2011 11:11 AM EST

Even though they tend to be vague, take a look a the U.S. Patent application:
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=3&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=%22Cold+Fusion%22&OS=%22Cold+Fusion%22&RS=%22Cold+Fusion%22

1/26/2011 2:50 PM EST

I think this is a good look at the present state of CF. It would be interesting to get the various take aways from this because this had more to say then just the present state of CF.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nNRB0K_dw0&feature=related

1/26/2011 5:31 PM EST

Hmm they aren't sure where the copper comes from? This reminds me of a situation I faced many years ago playing with acids sprayed at high voltage. We had tiny gold deposits showing up in our chamber, which was very puzzling at first. Either we had succeeded in alchemy or something was wrong with the system. After much investigation, it turns out that gold plating on one of the micro tubes was being stripped off and carried by the pressurized acid. Could something similar be occurring with the copper they are finding?

1/26/2011 5:47 PM EST

Alpha decay: copper should turn to cobalt.
Beta decay: copper should turn to zink.
Gamma decay: copper turn to Cu.

What decay can turn copper into nickel?

BTW, Azzurri won 4 World Cups: 1934, 1938, 1982 and 2006, only one shy from Brazil.

1/27/2011 2:16 AM EST

stunning news.
I wish it would have been a real story.
low temperature fusion is many sciencists pursuit and dream.
most of such reactor is finished by adding an inert gas mixing at higher voltage. but all those information lacks in the acticle.
where should we find more information about the story?

1/27/2011 5:03 AM EST

They really need to measure the temperature and potential of the water at different locations. Also check bubble composition, etc.

The fact that this data is secret is suspicious. It shouldn't affect their patent application.

1/27/2011 11:28 PM EST

Less than 1 cent /KWh is highly efficient and the technology is so good kindly make it available to the Humanity soon.

1/28/2011 11:29 AM EST

From a superficial scan on the referenced documents and additional observations made by multiple labs, it provides enough evidence that more studies and research needs to be done to understand this phenomena and how to harness into practical devices. Before the wild claims start pouring out, the Italian experiment look to rustic in the youtube videos, for me to gain confidence on their claim for a commercial instantiation of their knowledge.
In my eyes, their effort shows that a natural truth can not be silenced; it is just a matter of time for us feeble minds to wrap around the complexity in order to domesticate it.

Human kind evolution, self determination and survival instincts give me hope that this universe will advance many more generations.

1/28/2011 12:36 PM EST

Nando Basile, your statements about Antonio Meucci inventing the telephone are refuted in Wikipedia's:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention_of_the_telephone#Antonio_Meucci

He -did- file a patent, and there was a court battle with Alexander Bell. Antonio's lawyer claimed, after-the-fact, that the invention involved electromagnetism, but his actual patent had nothing in it involving electricity. Because of this, he lost the court battle.

1/28/2011 8:47 PM EST

I don't believe any of it. It is absolutely a hoax. They would both win the Nobel prize and become rich anyway. Why keep it a secret? Prove it and the world would protect their patent. Prove that copper and nickel isotopes are produced as end products. This secrecy is stupid and is not required to maintain their rights, just their con job.

1/29/2011 12:29 PM EST

As a nuclear engineer, after reading more details about device operation, let me just add a follow-on SAFETY comment to my earlier comments. They may have hit upon a process that does produce xP, but they should be VERY WELL ADVISED do an environmental impact analysis of any devices sold worldwide. This includes any product life cycle waste products and their subsequent disposal. I wish them well and that they succeed if subsequent "peer reviewed" tests prove sucessfull.

1/31/2011 1:09 PM EST

I think there will never be a consensus on safe nuclear/fusion energy. Is the risk worth it? I totally agree.

2/4/2011 10:40 PM EST

Neutron emission is not a desirable characteristic of a nuclear reaction. The transfer to heating is not so efficient (it is uncharged and therefore not easy to transfer energy) but its ability to penetrate to outside victims is a higher risk. I wonder if the neutron emission is more probable than beta decay for some isotopes of these metals like nickel? In other words, maybe they were emitting neutrons naturally instead of following fusion, but the detection was not so obvious until immersed in water, since the water contains hydrogen which absorbs the momentum more strongly from neutrons? Neutron decay is harder to catch, since it does not affect the chemistry directly and its cross-section for ionization ia very small, neutrons being uncharged. But it is the most insidious form of radioactivity.

3/7/2011 4:23 PM EST

My papers on Cold fusion may be found at Microsoft Academic.

http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/7519801.aspx

Frank Znidarsic

8/5/2011 7:33 PM EDT

The discussions here are almost funny.

Pons and Fleischman indeed discovered cold fusion, but at very low irreproducible statistics. BFD, the disparaging comments were unaware that the issue with P&F was low less reproducible deuterium loading INTO the metal matrix.

A Navy science team down in San Diego fixed that - low deuterium loading into the metal (Szpak and others) by coplating the metal in heavy water, forming a deposit chock full of deuterium ( high concentration) at the get go in the forming of metal deposit, versus trying to load deuterium INTO a solid piece of cast metal.

The key analogous component of the Rossi technology not discussed here (albeit with hydrogen for Rossi versus deuterium for most other prior cold fusion efforts) is Rossi loads hydrogen at high concentration into his Nickel, by passing the high pressure hydrogen gas over a dissociating catalyst, that forms 2 x H ( monatomic hydrogen ) from diatomic Hydrogen gas.

Why is this detail important? The diffusivity of monatomic hydrogen in metal / Nickel is hugely higher hence loading /concentration of Hydrogen beats the P&F conundrum of P&F low irreproducible hydrogen loading into the metal matrix.

Folks who scorn P&F are fools, not comprehending that their less reproducible results were just due to low deuterium loading concentration, not because the fundamental nuclear reactions were not present.

Excess heat only is one indication of high (cold fusion) reaction rates ( neutron emission, radiation and transmutation are all similar evidence depending on the transutation pathway), and absence of excess heat with observation of the appropriate nuclear lines still is indicating that CF might be present (criteria P&F met even if less reproducible, the physics was seen often enough even if not frequent).

8/5/2011 7:34 PM EDT

When Szpak and the rest of the San Diego navy team incorporates huge concentration of D (deuterium) from heavy water coplating to form their metal CF host material, the D concentration in the metal increase from coplating verus trying to inject D /D2 from water as P&F did, makes the neutron rate statistics undeniable from a tiny electroplated metal deposit .

Cold fusion's physics mechanism is unclear, and not generally "accepted" "theoretical" science, BUT the experimental evidence P&F nuclear reactions, and navy Szpak team profuse neutron emission, both actually are undeniable even if folks ignore the data, and disparage the scientists. Rossi seems likely true also.

Rossi I have less direct understanding of the experimental results, but there is the matter that he is increasing the H (monatomic Hydrogen) by dissociating diatomic H2 hydrogen gas by passing the H2 over catalyst materials to do the dissociation of the H2.

Why does this matter? because the diffusivity of H monatomic into heated Nickel (or other metals) is hugely higher than H2 undissociated. Hence Rossi is a gas phase analogous strategy to increase Hydrogen loading INTO the host metal matrix for CF cold fusion to occur at high event rates.

for now it seems that folks who question CF are either uninformed, or possess conflicts of interest of either professional or financial nature.

CF is real, practical engineering of power producing devices is all that is at issue (seems easier with Rossi), even if the theory lags, even if the theory is not generally understood / generally accepted as yet.

Read this patent application of Rossi
to minimize your own ill informed disparagement, it hints enough of the substance, even if the physics theory is not there yet. (who cares about the theory)

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2011/0005506.html

8/5/2011 7:35 PM EDT

When Szpak and the rest of the San Diego navy team incorporates huge concentration of D (deuterium) from heavy water coplating to form their metal CF host material, the D concentration in the metal increase from coplating verus trying to inject D /D2 from water as P&F did, makes the neutron rate statistics undeniable from a tiny electroplated metal deposit .

Cold fusion's physics mechanism is unclear, and not generally "accepted" "theoretical" science, BUT the experimental evidence P&F nuclear reactions, and navy Szpak team profuse neutron emission, both actually are undeniable even if folks ignore the data, and disparage the scientists. Rossi seems likely true also.

Rossi I have less direct understanding of the experimental results, but there is the matter that he is increasing the H (monatomic Hydrogen) by dissociating diatomic H2 hydrogen gas by passing the H2 over catalyst materials to do the dissociation of the H2.

Why does this matter? because the diffusivity of H monatomic into heated Nickel (or other metals) is hugely higher than H2 undissociated. Hence Rossi is a gas phase analogous strategy to increase Hydrogen loading INTO the host metal matrix for CF cold fusion to occur at high event rates.

for now it seems that folks who question CF are either uninformed, or possess conflicts of interest of either professional or financial nature.

CF is real, practical engineering of power producing devices is all that is at issue (seems easier with Rossi), even if the theory lags, even if the theory is not generally understood / generally accepted as yet.

Read this patent application of Rossi
to minimize your own ill informed disparagement, it hints enough of the substance, even if the physics theory is not there yet. (who cares about the theory)

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2011/0005506.html

3/10/2012 9:47 AM EST

The theory of the reactor A.Rossi I know! Received a patent for a new energy method. This is steeper than that of A. Rossi. Method of multi-functional! And the chemical reactor and the reactor low-energy nuclear reactions, and the reactor is controlled cold fusion! Who would have bought the patent and know-how? For free, under the contract.
Теорию реактора А.Росси знаю я! Получен патент на новый энергетический способ. Это круче чем у А. Росси. Способ многофункциональный! И химический реактор, и реактор низкоэнергетической ядерной реакции, и реактор управляемого холодного термоядерного синтеза!!! Кто бы купил патент и ноу-хау? Отдам бесплатно, по контракту.

4/8/2012 9:00 PM EDT

Time flies fast. A year has passed, is there any news about this invent ?