Is the e-cat real III. The Scientific basis – Why scientists question the e-cat
In the previous report[1]
I have reviewed the history of the e-cat. We received encouraging
feedback (about 70% positive), including some well reputable and
distinguished experts in the LENR community. Of course it wasn´t
expected to get positive feedback from all sides. We noticed that many
people have a reflex that criticism of one particular technology (or
company) would automatically translate to the whole field of LENR
science. Notwithstanding, I want to point out very clearly that our
previous analysis only related to the e-cat of Andrea Rossi, and does
not in any way intend to question the seriousness and credibility of
other people efforts. But of course there is a real risk that in the
event of an epic failure such adverse repercussions would occur.
Stanley Pons, Marvin Hawkins and Martin Fleischmann, 1989. (Photo: University of Utah)
The replication of LENR experiments (such as Celani or the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project) we acknowledge as the work of other distinguished groups, but we cannot seriously consider as a confirmation of Rossi. If LENR is true, it only means that the e-cat may be possible, nothing more.
Why we looked at Rossi´s e-cat? Rossi is the only one who claims to have a LENR device in the market. Nobody else makes this claim, that is why it pulls particular attention. Unfortunately, despite unprecedented extraordinary claims, so far the e-cat promoters have still not provided a scientific evidence for the e-cat as a working device and there is still poor understanding about the process of the device.
In science it is about experimental facts and replication, not dogmatism. Critical thinking is not “pathological skepticism”.
Now let discuss what are the issues that cause many scientists to be skeptical?
Firstly,
there are theoretical objections since there is no scientifically
accepted theoretical model to explain the claims of nuclear fusion
reactions initiated at low temperatures, or low energy nuclear reactions
(LENR)[2].
This does not mean it would be impossible but obviously solid evidence
is required to support these claims in order to find acceptance in the
scientific community.
If we look back in science, the most
perhaps famous scientist of all times, Albert Einstein, became famous
and his work became acknowledged only after he provided the scientific
evidence for his theory of relativity[3].
What are the criteria to quality a LENR device to be accepted by mainstream science?
These qualifying criteria include
- Excess heat larger than in any chemical reaction or other conventional physical process
- Experimental evidence of nuclear reaction products – transmutation, fission or fusion products
- A theoretical model to correlate the experimental data of excess heat with the proposed nuclear process
- Replication of experimental data - independent verification by at least one 3rd party, while experiments are carried out under full control of a qualified testing body.
- Qualified error analysis to make sure the experimental results are safe beyond eventual measurement errors
Now let us discuss these points for the case of the e-cat.
TOP 1) Excess heat and energy measurements
Excess heat
means more energy is produced by a process than put in, and to be
qualified as anomalous heat, it must be higher than chemical reactions
or other conventional physical process (adsorption heat etc.).
nuclear fusion
Nuclear reaction energies following the famous Einstein´s equation E=mc2 are by orders of magnitude higher than chemical processes (e.g. exothermic reaction enthalpies). The known nuclear fusion reactions release energies in the order of magnitude of several MeV[4] which is far greater than the energies released in chemical reactions (several eV), because the binding energy that holds a nucleus together is far greater than the energy that holds electrons to a nucleus. For example, the ionization energy gained by adding an electron to a hydrogen nucleus is 13.6 eV—less than one-millionth of the 17 MeV released in the deuterium–tritium (D–T) reaction shown in the diagram. Nuclear reaction release energy larger by several orders of magnitude.
The
following table shows, in decreasing order of energy, some typical
examples of chemical reaction energies and nuclear reaction energies
(note in chemistry, energy is given in KJ/mol compared to eV in nuclear
physics, the conversion is given in the table).
| Reaction | Type | Energyreleased | comments |
| 235U fission | nuclear | 200 MeV | Nuclear bomb or power plant, radiation, radioactive waste |
| „Ni+H -> Cu“ | nuclear | total: 35 MeV, 3-7.5 per isotope stage | claimed by Rossi[5], unconfirmed |
| Deuterium-tritium fusion(2H + 3H ->4He) | nuclear | 17.4 MeV | theoretical hot nuclear fusion reactionneutron emission (radiation) |
| CH4(g)+2O2(g)->CO2(g)+2H2O(g) | chemical | 891 kJ/mol=9.235 eV | Burning of natural gas (oxidation of methane) – conventional power plant, emission of CO2 |
| Fe2O3+ 2 Al →2 Fe + Al2O3 | chemical | 851 kJ/mol=8.82 eV | thermite reaction |
| 2H2 (g) + O2(g) ->H2O (liq) | chemical | 474 KJ/mol= 4.91 eV | In fuel cells, requires activation by catalyst, no emission of CO2 |
The e-cat inventor Andrea Rossi has claimed very significant excess heat. In his 2010 paper [5] he claimed an excess heat as ratio of energy output divided by energy output (COP=coefficient of performance) of 80-415, later for the domestic e-cat model and for the 1 MW industrial e-cat model downscaled to a COP ratio of 6, explained with safety considerations. But even this would be significantly higher than most other published data[6].
Unfortunately, the accuracy and methodology of the output energy measurement was questionable[7], due to the energy associated with the phase transfer of water (wet or dry steam).
Methodology of excess heat measurements
Energy
(heat) is measured by calorimetry, from temperature difference of a
cooling medium. Rossi unconventionally used steam instead of water which
brought up certain complications (see our previous report [1]).
During
early experiments in 2011, serious question have been raised whether
the steam quantity and steam quality had been properly been accounted
for.
The phase transfer issue (wet or dry steam) does not mean
that the measurements would be a priori obsolete, however the
measurement is unnecessarily complicated. When the amount of water
evaporated to dry steam is undetermined, then the energy associated is
undetermined as well. It would have been rather easy to sort out this
issue by conventional calorimetric measurements, using only liquid water
and no steam, without revealing any know-how. But no such test report
was ever published by the promoters.
The issue with steam was actually raised by Francesco Celani at a very early stage[8]: “We suggested several times (privately, in public, by the blog) to use conventional flow calorimetry at Tout < 90 °C to avoid the difficulties, and doubts of steam regimes”.
However
Rossi decided to ignore the advice. Instead, according to Rossi and
Levi, they hired a professional, Mr Galantini, to measure the steam
quality. Unfortunately it came to light later that an inappropriate
device for measurement was used, therefore the working assumption of dry
steam is questionable – possibly it wasn´t dry and the results are
subject to criticism.
The science journalist Steven Krivit finally questioned the professionalism of the whole scientific approach[9] : “The
researchers did not run control experiments, did not measure heat
output directly and did not consult with engineers qualified to evaluate
either the quantity or the quality of the steam. The researchers also
ignored or dismissed suggestions given to them by Celani and other
people on how they could get an accurate energy balance and avoid the
steam issues.”
A NASA study estimated a margin of error that could actually eliminate any excess heat reported[10].
On the other hand, according to Alan Fletcher[11]
who published a thorough analysis and concluded that a low quality
steam was unlikely. Fletcher tried to prove that the e-cat is real and
looked at all possible fake concepts (chemical fakes, batteries, water
diversion etc). But even Fletcher concluded “not all fakes could be excluded even assuming high steam quality”.
In
2011 reportedly NASA came very close to testing an e-cat device,
however, in the very last moment Rossi withdrew. Apparently NASA had
requested a calorimetric measurement without phase transfer[12].
For the demonstrations in October 2011 Rossi changed the experimental design. Alan Fletcher explains11 the change is supposed “
to eliminate all questions about steam quality by passing the output of
the e-cat through a heat exchanger to a secondary circuit. From the
flow rate and the temperature difference between the input and output
(delta-T) the excess heat calculation should have been unambiguous.”
But
then Roland Pettersson, a retired analytical chemist from Uppsala
University, identified a major flaw in Rossi’s e-cat demonstration –
Rossi misplaced thermocouples[13]. Fletcher explains further [11]
“Unfortunately, the thermocouple placement means that the output
temperature could have been directly affected by the hot primary
circuit.”
A misplacement of thermocouplers?
It sounds incredible – but this means the temperatures measured are
highly inaccurate and energies calculated probably too high.
Not everybody agreed the error was only due to conceptual sloppiness. “This test was an intentional deception” concluded Brian Ahern [13], CTO and co-founder of Vibronic Energy Technologies, a company engaged in LENR research: “He
[Rossi] mounted the thermocouple such that it responded directly to the
heater and not the actual temperature of the hot water. This was not an
oversight. He used this trick in February [2011] with Levi.”
But
even using Rossi´s data of the October 2011 demonstration including a
period of self-sustained mode there was no unambiguous evidence for
excess heat, and considering the heat up phase there was no net excess
heat anymore at all[14]. Apparently, the experiment did not run long enough to rule out this effect.
It seems a common denominator in all Rossi experiments that the test never run long enough to entirely rule out the overlapping effect of initial energy input and there is never a blank run (without hydrogen). The blank run would confirm that the reaction with hydrogen is vital for the process, the long run would make sure that there is no hidden battery or chemical energy source, and that the device is more than just an electrical heater. We wonder why these experiments have not been taken? Certainly the methodology of the e-cat promoters is beyond commonly accepted scientific standards. Again, the question is: could this be only sloppiness?
To summarize, even after the October 2011
demonstrations measurement problems, either intentional (circus tricks)
or due to ill conceived experimental design, cannot be ruled out. There
is still no unambiguous evidence for excess heat after these
demonstrations.
During the course of 2012 it seems Rossi
lost interest in the old e-cat model, without publicly establishing the
validity of his claims, and moved on towards development of a new
model, the so called hot-cat. The hot-cat is a new development product
of the Rossi “invention machine”. It looks like a furnace with an open
hole, remarkable for a device of nuclear origin, and remarkably no
radiation was measured outside the device.
the hot-cat
In September 2012 a report (Penon report[15]) of the hot-cat was published claiming an excess heat of only COP 2. But even the input energy in case of the so called hot-cat was questioned by Rossi´s distribution partner hydrofusion[16], whether it could have been mistaken by a factor of 2, due to improper measurement devices.
In October 2012, after another presentation in Pordenone, Italy, Rossi released a report[17]
of COP near 12, but again no independent verification for the same has
been published so far. It is not known who attended and witnessed these
tests, and what was the qualification and experience of the operators.
Again, the claims of excess heat are either questionable or at least unconfirmed.
TOP 2) Experimental evidence of nuclear reaction products
Nuclear reaction products
from transmutation, fission or fusion products means the experimental
evidence for the formation of new elements which have not been present
before the experiment.
Andrea Rossi claimed 30% Cu is made from pure Ni and a secret catalyst[18]
Andrea Rossi, July 2nd, 2010 “ ….the Ni powder I utilized were pure Ni, no copper
. At the end of the operations in the reactor the percentage of copper
was integrally bound to the amount of energy produced. A charge which
has worked for 6 months, 24 hours per day, at the end had a percentage
of Cu superior to 30%, … About the Ni isotopes: the isotopes after the operations were substantially changed in percentage.
We are preparing a campaign of analysis with a Secondary Ions Mass
Spectrometer at the University of Padua (Italy), at the end of which the
data will be published on the Journal Of Nuclear Physics.”
Assuming
just for a moment that Rossi´s claim is right, the e-cat would be a
working device and there would be a transmutation of Ni to Cu as
underlying nuclear process. What would be expected?
Let us look deeper into this, what is claimed and what are the experimental data.
The
table shows the natural isotope abundancies and half times of the
radioactive isotopes. The claimed process is illustrated with arrows.
Rossi-Focardi process
The isotope stabilities and natural abundancies of Cu and Ni are well known[19] . Based on these natural abundancies of Ni isotopes in nature (Ni58 68%, Ni60 26%, Ni61 1.1%, Ni62 3.6%, in sum 99% vs Ni 64 1% ) one would expect to find anomalous isotope ratios.
Starting from Ni58, the
most abundant isotope, one would expect intermediate stages of
radioactive Cu isotopes and neutron enriched Ni isotopes, and Cu63 as
end product. At full conversion one would expect to reach 99% Cu63 and
1% of Cu65, theoretically. If possibly superimposed by other conversions
(e.g. by fissions), a different ration may occur, however still
considerably different to natural ratio.
Ni64 has only an
abundancy of 0.9% which would convert to Cu65, supposing the process
operates as claimed. It means the expected isotope ratio would be mostly
Cu63, and very little Cu65. In nature, Cu63 is 69% abundant vs Cu65 is
31% which is totally different to the expected isotope ratio when a
reaction pathway follows the process as claimed by Rossi´s patent[20]. A natural isotope ratio is not compatible with this process.
A
sample of the e-cat material after use (spent fuel) has been given for
analysis. The experimental data of the nuclear ash after the reaction
was examined in 2011 by Prof. Kullander in Sweden[21].
Kullander found Ni, Cu and Fe in natural isotope ratios. We already
outlined in part II. of this report that according to these
examinations, no evidence for a nuclear reaction was found1.
In the above cited technical paper5
Rossi claimed the isotope ratio to be Cu63/Cu65 of 1.6. Once again,
this seems to be inconsistent with the claimed process, it would require
enrichment of Ni to even heavier isotopes (the natural ratio is
69.17/30.83=2.2), assuming there was no Cu in the starting material.
Further,
the spent fuel of such a reaction would be highly radioactive, due to
still ongoing radioactive decay reactions, emitting radioactive g rays.
Only after the half times of the isotope stabilities are significantly
passed, the radiation would cease.
In 2011 Rossi, in contrast to
earlier claims taught he would treat the Nickel with an unknown
confidential procedure to enrich Ni62 and Ni64, and claimed only these
would fuse with hydrogen, and form Cu63 and Cu65, respectively.
Rossi wrote in his blog on December 6th, 2011: “we
use Ni enriched of 62 and 64 Ni, which are the sole to react, and 63
and 65 Cu are stable. Our process has been developed upon a theory that
became stronger in time, based on the results of the thousands of our
tests we made with our apparatuses.”
This built upon earlier statements, such as on October 21st, 2011: „We enrich Ni 62 and 64 isotopes” and on April 11th, 2011: “we have invented a process of ours to enrich Ni without relevant costs.”[22]
However,
back in 2010 Rossi calculated the energy gain of the claimed process
(35 MeV) from the natural isotope ratio which obviously contradicts the
theory of only Ni62 and Ni64 being involved in the reaction5.
Theoretically,
if Rossi would have enriched Ni to a ratio of ca 70% Ni62 and 30% Ni64
which would convert to a ratio of Cu63 and Cu65 similar as in nature,
and without g-radiation. Only this would theoretically explain the
findings of Kullander of natural isotope ratios and low g radiation
levels, supposing the process operates as claimed.
However, we
have to ask how realistic is this explanation? The explanation sounds
highly unrealistic. Rossi´s explanations about Ni isotope enrichment
came around the same time in spring of 2011 when Kullander examined the
nuclear ash and reported about natural isotope ratios, and when Rossi
was challenged why the spent fuel was not radioactive and why was there
no radiation which would be expected according to his process theory. He
might have made up the story to give an explanation about Kullander´s
findings21 on natural isotope ratios.
Unfortunately
there is no supporting evidence that Ni isotope enrichment as
pretreatment does actually take place. The enrichment of Ni-58 with
neutrons to yield Ni-62 and Ni-64 (without radioactive Ni isotopes as
byproducts, by the way) is not a trivial operation at all, usually it
would be done by neutron bombardment in specialized nuclear laboratories
and by separation technologies[23].
Rossi claims he found a simple and cheap way to do this. Again, this
sounds highly unrealistic by today´s known technology. A cheap
technology to do this would be a significant invention itself, and a
serious inventor would not have missed the chance to patent it. But
until today there has been no patent of special Ni enrichment disclosed
by Mr Rossi or any of his associated companies[24].
The
bottom line is : Based on Ni in natural isotope as starting material
ratio clearly the isotope ratio must be very much different to the
natural isotope ratio, supposing the process operates as claimed. This
was never confirmed, the opposite was found.
Further, the
question is where is Fe in Kullander´s sample analysis coming from which
was not part of the starting material? This is assuming that Rossi´s
statement is correct that he used essentially only pure Nickel (and
traces of a “secret” catalyst). Rossi noted in his blog the Fe was an
impurity. With 10% Fe content it rather sounds like Rossi would have
used “pure Ni” from a scrap dealer. The 11% copper in natural isotope
ratio must then be an “impurity” as well.
Elemental composition chart in Rossi´s patent example
Remarkably, in the elemental analysis chart from the electron microscope analysis, as exemplified in Rossi´s patent application, there is only Ni and Zn, but neither Fe nor Cu. Fe would appear at 6.403 keV (Ka), Cu at 8.047 keV (Ka ) and 8.904 (Kß), but there are only signals for Ni (Ka 7.477 keV , Kß 8.264 keV) and Zn (Ka 8.638 keV). It certainly does not show any significant (“30%”) Cu formation as claimed by Rossi.
Where is Zn coming from? In the description of the patent Rossi explains that Zn is also formed by transmutation. Looking at the periodic table of elements, Zn is heaver than Cu and formally it would be the fusion product of “Cu + 1H” (or “Ni +2 H”). Could there be certain conditions to convert Cu further to Zn? Fe is lighter than Ni and would formally be “Ni-2H”, formally a product of fission rather than fusion. All of this is highly speculative and purely a theoretical consideration, not in line with accepted understanding of nuclear physics reactions.
Some question remain
- why did Kullander find Fe and Cu, but no Zn?
- why does Rossi claim Cu, but shows only evidence for Zn?
- Why are Kullanders data incompatible to the data disclosed in the patent application?
Obviously, the only logical explanations are the incompatible elemental composition in the patent and in Kullanders analysis are
a. from different reactions
b. from different reaction stages of the e-cat reaction process
c. the used ash is not homogeneous, means taking various samples would yield a spread in results
d. at least one of the samples was manipulated
Supposing
that Kullanders sample was real and representative, with the
observation that isotope ratio was as in natural abundancy,
transmutations as claimed by Rossi can be ruled out, and the mechanism
must be totally different to what is claimed, unless Ni isotope
enrichment would really take place which we think is unrealistic.
Supposing
that Rossi´s patent sample was representative, then also transmutations
processes as claimed by Rossi can be ruled out because otherwise Cu
would have been found as one of the reaction products.
Supposing
that neither Rossi´s patent sample nor Kullander´s sample was
representative, then there isn´t any substantiation of the claims, and
the question then remains why did they investigate such samples.
The
question is also why was no follow up done to sort out these issues. It
can´t be know how protection because otherwise why has Rossi given a
sample for external analysis in the first place.
Based on the
analysis of a sample the spent fuel (nuclear ash) does not fit to the
expected isotope ratio according to the theory. In fact the analysis of
the nuclear ash does not suggest there would be any nuclear reaction at
all taking place.
At this point we are surprised that they did
not look deeper in the details of the energy measurement, whether the
assumption of excess heat as a result from a nuclear process was
actually valid, because the experimental data told exactly the opposite,
as it would be expected from a skilled and diligent examiner. Given
such contradictory data, why have they not repeated the analysis with a
fresh sample? What happened to the data from other universities that
were allegedly involved in the testing?
It is simply by all
understanding of physics impossible that Ni would undergoing
transmutation to Cu but at the same time obtaining the natural isotope
ratio of Cu as well as Ni, assuming that the measurement was done
correctly with the correct sample, and assuming the sample taken was
representative for the whole experiment[25].
Kullander´s
conclusion is same interview “It’s a nuclear reaction” was based on the
assumption of correct energy measurement and the information given by
Rossi that no copper was present in the starting material. At the moment
when he saw the isotopic ratio the conclusion about a nuclear reaction
should have been immediately challenged by him since these observation
are clearly contradictory.
As already outlined above, Mr. Rossi
presents in his patent application charts of an electron microscope
elemental analysis which strangely does not show any Cu, no iron (Fe),
but instead it shows Ni and Zn. Rossi claims Cu but provides no data
that would actually support this claim. At least one example would have
been required to support the claim but none is given.
The bottom
line conclusion is: Rossi did not release many experimental data, but
what had been released is actually contradictory to the claims.
Experimental
evidence also requires to disclose the elemental composition before and
after the experiment. However, Rossi failed to present a comparison of
the spent fuel with the starting material. Only then it would be
possible to judge what material had been converted by transmutation. The
charts of Mizuno shows an example of transmutation on Pd surface and
how such data can be represented[26].
Mizuno reported transmutation on Pd using x ray spectroscopy
Regarding transmutation it is worth mentioning that many people have reported before transmutations and unnatural isotope ratios[27]. Such findings are clear evidence for nuclear conversions taking place, if measured properly.
For the system Ni-H Edmund Storms summarized in one of his books “pure
nickel heated in hydrogen gas shows a different pattern, with most of
the detected elements at atomic numbers less than nickel and clustering
in a region about ½ the atomic number of nickel, presumably a result of
fission”27.
TOP 3) Theoretical model
Rossi claims a process of transmutation, by fusion of nickel and hydrogen converting to copper[28].
Assuming
that Mr Rossi´s patent application is a useful source of information –
how otherwise could it serve to protect his know-how – let us see what
we can find there as information.
Also, in this patent application[29]
, beyond any doubt, Rossi claims a nuclear process of transmutation
would be going on, that the reactor is operated with Ni, and Ni would be
converted to Cu. In the description the patent teaches “triggering a
capture of a proton by nickel powder, with a consequent transformation
of nickel to copper and a beta decay of the latter to a nickel nucleus
having a mass which is by one unit larger than that of the starting
nickel.”
It should be mentioned in this context that nickel
and hydrogen are used in the chemical industry in catalytic
hydrogenations on large industrial scale manufacturing since long time,
and the properties of the temperature and pressure depending phases of
nickel, hydrogen and nickel hydride are well documented[30],
without observance of strange energy effects. The difference in LENR
experiments is mainly the initial activation phase by substantial energy
input such as electrical current. Yet the occurrence of nuclear effects
seems very surprising in this context.
Specifically, what Rossi
has claimed since 2008 is the following mechanism of a process of
transmutations of Ni to Cu followed by ß-decay [28]:
“A Ni58 nucleus produces a Copper nucleus according to the reaction
Ni58 + p → Cu59
Copper nucleus Cu59 decays with positron (e+) and neutrino (ν) emission in Ni59 nucleus according to
Cu59 → Ni59 + ν + e+
Then (e+) annihilates with (e-) in two gamma-rays
e- + e+ → γ + γ
Starting
from Ni58 which is the more abundant isotope, we can obtain as
described in the two above processes Copper formation and its successive
decay in Nickel, producing Ni59, Ni60, Ni61 and Ni62. Because Cu63,
which can be formed starting by Ni62, is stable and does not decay in
Ni63, the chain stops at Ni62 (i.e. Cu63). Each process means some MeV.“
Conventional
nuclear physics teaches that the reaction Ni + p → Cu would only be
possible at high temperature due to the high coulomb barrier that
prevents nuclei approaching close enough for such fusion reactions.
Apart from the fact that no plausible theoretical explanation is given
how this coulomb barrier is overcome, let us assume for a moment it
would be possible by an unknown yet to be understood mechanism.
As
a bottom line, according to Rossi, all isotopes of Ni58 to Ni62 would
convert to Cu63, and Ni63 to would convert to Cu65. In the previous
chapter we have elaborated the experimental data, and it became clear
that there is no substantiated evidence for these claims.
In the
patent there is also no detail disclosed on the composition of the
catalyst, and there is no additional patent known so far. If the
catalyst is the key to the technology, the lack of any disclosure it is
another knock out criteria for the only known e-cat patent of 2008.
Fact is, the experimental data which were disclosed so far do not support the claims.
These are the reasons why scientists who have looked into the matter raised their doubts.
The confusion with samples and data is the reason why an independent verification of the experiment by a skilled 3rd party who has full control over the experiment is the only way out of this dilemma.
During
the Zurich conference Mr Rossi in fact back-paddled and acknowledged
that some other process could be going on which is not transmutation.
September 19th, 2012, Mr Rossi wrote “the amount of Copper, after more than 2 years now of tests and measurements, analysis, etc, is very low, so we know now it is a side effect.
The energy comes from other nuclear effects that we have understood. We
have a precise theory now. The isotopic distribution will also be
disclosed with the theory.”
This statement is
dramatically contradicting earlier explanations of transmutation and
what had been outlined in the patent. Since 2010 Rossi claimed Ni
transmutation to Cu, now he says it would be only a minor process.We also wonder how 30% Cu allegedly found in samples could be a side effect only.
In
the case of a totally different reaction process, this it would most
likely render the e-cat patent as meaningless since the patent is build
on a concept of nuclear transmutation and gamma rays as source for the
energy.
We cannot categorically rule out that Rossi could have
found some energy effects, and by trial and error some tricks to trigger
a nuclear reaction, however, we strongly doubt that he has control and
detailed knowledge what is going on in the experiments. There are just
too many inconsistencies, and theoretical as well as practical problems.
Of
course it is entirely possible that Mr Rossi could have re-engineered
the device, or found later in his research a new theory, and might have
filed new patent applications which are not yet disclosed. However,
there could be serious problems with the priority dates amidst his
demonstrations to the public and alleged prior sales since 2011.
Could
it be possible that only theory of Ni-H transmutation is wrong, but an
alternative process of another type of nuclear reaction is going on?
Was the Ni-H model only a distraction? If so, what other processes could happen?
This leads us to the question: What else could be the source of excess energy, assuming there is excess energy?
Rossi
also claims in said patent the appearance of lighter elements such as
sulphur, potassium or chlorine and calcium as a result of fission
process. Interestingly this is more in line with earlier reports of
transmutations of Ni-H systems (see TOP3 discussion).
H-H fusion,
similar to the historical Fleischmann & Pons experiment of D-D
fusion on Pd – would give Helium (He). Maybe with fission and fusions of
heavier elements as byproducts. In that case we need measurement of He
and a correlation of energy output with a theoretical model.
At
this point all of this is pure speculation, and it is pointless to
elaborate without experimental data. We can only say, the experimental
data presented so far do not fit at all to the explanations given.
TOP 4) Replication of experimental data
It is a common practice in a quality scientific protocol that experimental data require replication[31].
Lack of replication has been a historical issue for many cold fusion
experiments, due to conditions to initiate a LENR reaction (e.g. nuclear
active environments), surface effects, material controls, and lack of a
theoretical understanding[32], [27].
Mr Rossi has a history[33],
[34]. This does not mean that the e-cat must be automatically fraud,
but it raises a red flag for Mr Rossi´s credibility. Therefore
independent verification is of high significance, especially in this
case.
Due to the history and present appearance of the various
protagonists in the e-cat network it is very natural reaction to request
independent verification and it is wise to remain skeptical until the
verification is bulletproof.
However, till date Mr Rossi has
refused to have the performance of the e-cat device verified by
independent third parties. Independent verifications have been promised
many times but never delivered. To gain serious credibility Mr Rossi
should allow another test of the conventional domestic e-cat module
operated by an independent 3rd party and using fail proof calorimetry.
TOP 5) Error Analysis
A
fair analysis of errors and the propagation of error is essential in
any scientific protocol when physical measurements are carried out[35].
In an election poll, the winner cannot be called a winner before the lead of the top candidate is larger than a margin of error.
Comparably,
in LENR, the conclusion of excess heat cannot be certain unless the
potential error of the physical measurements is significantly lower than
the claimed energy effect.
All measurements have errors,
notwithstanding eventual manipulations of devices and software programs.
Unfortunately, many studies lack such evaluations.
In case of the e-cat, the parameters causing errors are
- Time: how long is an experiment running. If the error source would be a non nuclear energy source, the energy of the claimed process must be substantially higher than any potential chemical energy source, which is consumed after time. A longer experimental running time would sort out this issue (see TOP 1 discussion)
- Accuracy of energy measurements for the energy input and the energy output as well. This includes appropriate, accurate devices used in a proper way, and the unambiguous correct method of evaluation (see TOP 1 discussion: steam issue and thermocoupler issue)10,11.
- Sample homogeneity, affecting conclusions on nuclear reaction products ( isotope analysis of spent fuel samples): to be addressed by variance data of miscellaneous samples and time series
The e-cat only passed in the unverified experiments described by the promoters (for examples 5),
but not in experiments in the demonstrations and under neutral
supervision, in which the energy effects, by order of magnitude, were
found to be within margin of error.
And finally there is the
impact of a potential fake: To exclude the effect of a potential fake
beyond doubt of the hardest skeptics, the only solution is a long test
by a neutral body who uses their own measurement devices and software
for evaluation.
Gamma rays, but no radiation?
Mr
Rossi has mentioned the formation of gamma rays associated with
transmutations reactions explicitly many times, as for example in the
paper of 2010 authored by Rossi and Focardi 5, in the blog “journal-of-nuclear-physics.com” [36], in the patent application28, and interviews [37] :
“
…. the excess energy is released in the form of a gamma ray. The gamma
ray hits a wall of lead where it is absorbed and transformed into heat”.
The
g-rays from annihilation of positrons and electrons, according to the
claimed process, would release 511 KeV of radiation. This is basics of
nuclear physics. According to Celani´s report at the ICCF16 conference
[8], the observed energy level is reportedly 511 eV: “there was evidence of annihilation gamma ray (511 KeV) but, as usual, not commensurable with the energy produced”.
Christos Stremmenos, retired physics professor of the University of Bologna, understands there is an unexplained gap between theory and what was the claimed process: “For what reason there is almost no radiation of any kind (experimental observation), while according to the Focardi and Rossi’s hypothesis there should have been some γ radiation (511 KeV) produced by the predicted annihilation of the β+ and β- particles that are being created during the Fusion?……..whoever has experimented with this system should have suffered the not-so-harmless influence of those radiations, but that never happened. The radioactivity measured at the experiments is almost zero and easily shielded.”
Prof. emeritus Ludwik Kowalski of Mont Sinclair Sate University explained “The
level of radiation, next to the reactor, would depend on the wall
thickness. It would certainly still be highly radioactive..…the non
radioactive nature of the spent fuel is not consistent with the idea
that excess heat is produced via the cold p+Ni fusion”[38]
Already in early 2011, the radiation expert of Bologna University, David Bianchini, has reported[39]: “no evidence of meaningful differences …to the background environmental radiation”. Bianchini re-examined and confirmed in September 2012 the same conclusion even for the hot-cat device15, remarkably a device with an open hole.
Rossi claimed that gamma rays would be “thermalized” and shielded by the reaction design[40], however, the open hole in the hot-cat seems somewhat incompatible with shielding.
We
wonder how can gamma rays be the source of considerable energy
production but at the same time there is no radiation? This seems very
unlikely.
The lack of radiation, besides the natural
isotope ratio, is scientific evidence that the proposed mechanism of
Ni-H transmutations to Cu as a main route is incorrect. If the Rossi e-cat is real, then possibly transmutation could only be a by-process.
However,
in some cases of Ni-H LENR systems radiation – gamma rays and neutron
emissions – have been reported, so in some cases transmutations may
actually occur. A summary is given by Campari et al. (co-authored by
Focardi and Piantelli)[41]. Neutron bursts had been reported for Ni-H systems as well[42].
Other
LENR scientists have frequently reported in their work surprisingly low
radiation levels and reported the occurrence of either transmuted
elements of radiation or radioactive particle as evidence for the
occurrence of LENR, accompanied by excess energy [27].
Rossi
claimed gamma rays as the main source of energy, but he also claimed
that the e-cat is non nuclear device and transmutations would be only be
byproducts.
Rossi presented a safety SGS certificate issued by
SGS, applicable for a non nuclear devices. Non-nuclear means the e-cat
would not be LENR device (LENR means Low energy Nuclear Reaction – the N
stands for nuclear). Obviously all of these positions are mutually
exclusive.
Alternative explanations: intentional misdirection and Sun Tzu
Assuming
there is a LENR process ongoing and Rossi knew all along that it is no
Ni transmutation but some other process. Rossi supporters have
frequently suggested that Rossi might have deliberately given
misdirections in order to protect know-how.
However, making false statement during patent examination is generally not a good idea[43].
Giving deliberate misdirections would disqualify the patent from ever
being granted, and would invalidate the priority of the patent also for
subsequent applications.
But the patent is weak anyway, as we know[44].
But perhaps this was intentional, and Rossi´s patent was only a bluff.
An interesting theory in this regard was outlined by LENR pioneer Peter
Gluck, who noted in his blog[45]: “Rossi’s
“fighting” patent application WO 2009125444 is very badly conceived and
written, a weak one….. Rossi´s patent can only intentionally be so
bad…. Some of my patent expert friends agree with my logic and idea, say
know this standard trick. …… make a bit Sun Tzu reading”
Andrea
Rossi as a master of Sun Tzu, the ancient Chinese art of war? This is a
bizarre and interesting thought. However, normally the idea of a
patent is to have a legal weapon to stop others from copying your work
and stop competing with you. Certainly if Peter Gluck would be right-
this is not achieved. If Rossi would have filed more patents in the
meantime, including “the real stuff”, we could possibly believe it. On
the other hand, the failure of the patent would give Rossi an excuse why
he has to delay the launch further.
If the effect is real and Mr
Rossi knew about the real process all along it would have been much
wiser to include the correct process in the claims of a patent. For
people experienced with patents there are still many ways to disguise
the real confidential know-how by wider claims and additional examples
which are functional but outside the core of the real technology.
It is more likely that either there is no real effect or that Rossi did not understand the effect when he filed the patent.
It
was also suggested Rossi could have used a metal alloy containing Cu
and Fe, in contrast to his statements. Or Fe and Cu are part of the
catalyst, and the transmutation story was simply unsubstantiated, but
some other process is going on.
Does the e-cat need scientific evidence?
Andrea
Rossi often said he does not care for scientific evidence. The market
would decide it. On December 18th, 2012, Rossi restated once again “the market is the sole examiner that really counts”[46].
Of
course eventually the market will decide. Yet we disagree – the e-cat
does require scientific evidence. For several reasons: without
scientific evidence every potential industrial customer will require a
technical and safety due diligence, if they even dare to look at the
technology. Without scientific evidence it is not imaginable that
certifiers would ever approve a potentially nuclear device running by an
unknown process. Without scientific evidence the media will continue to
ignore cold fusion. Without scientific evidence marketing of the e-cat
would become an uphill battle.
Conclusions
Rossi
has never provided any experimental evidence for his claims and what he
has provided was not convincing or even contradictory to the facts.
There is no evidence for nuclear reaction products, nor convincing
evidence for reproducible excess heat effects.
The energy
measurements based on questionable measurements, for various reasons.
Consequently the associated claims for excess heat are still
unconfirmed.
Bottom line, the key issue is still the excess
energy is not only unverified by independent parties, moreover the
explanations are inconsistent and contradictory.
All together,
this is – at the present stage of public knowledge – by far too weak to
be acknowledged in the view of the extraordinary claims.
This
basically concludes our analysis of the e-cat unless there would be
significantly new information released. However, we will focus on LENR
and review other alternative technologies in the context.
In the meantime the saga will continue.
[2] http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/12/05/the-nuclear-physics-of-why-we/
[3] the total eclipse of the Sun on May 29, 1919 confirmed the prediction of The General Theory of Relativity, that light would be bent by a gravitational field: http://www.the-einstein-case.eu/English/5._Eclipse.htm
[3] the total eclipse of the Sun on May 29, 1919 confirmed the prediction of The General Theory of Relativity, that light would be bent by a gravitational field: http://www.the-einstein-case.eu/English/5._Eclipse.htm
[5] Rossi,A. Focardi,S. : A new energy source from nuclear fusion, 22.3.2010
[6] A summary of published data has been compiled by van Houwedingen, T. :”Is commercial low energy nuclear reaction (LENR) the real deal”,
[7] Story on misplaced thermocouplers: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2012/03/03/rossi-misplacement-of-thermocouples-appears-deliberate/,
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2012/03/02/pettersson-finds-major-flaw-but-still-believes-in-rossis-e-cat/
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2012/03/02/pettersson-finds-major-flaw-but-still-believes-in-rossis-e-cat/
[8] Celani,F.: The “Rossi” Energy Catalyzer reactor: needed NEW experiments for confirmation, ICCF16, Chennai, 2011, download:
[9] Steven Krivit : “Report #3: Scientific Analysis of Rossi, Focardi and Levi Claims”,
[11] Alan Fletcher : “How to Prove that the Rossi/Focardi eCAT LENR is Real“: http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_proof_frames_v420.php, Version 4.20, Sep 11, 2012,
“Steam Quality in the Rossi/Focardi eCAT”, Version 4.10H, Sep 12, 2011
“Steam Quality in the Rossi/Focardi eCAT”, Version 4.10H, Sep 12, 2011
[12] Steven B. Krivit, New Energy Times: Rossi’s NASA Test Fails to Launch:
[15] Penon report of Sep2012
[16] Press announcement on website of hydrofusion:
[17] Pordenone report of Oct 2012, published through the blog e-catworld:
[20] E-cat patent family: US patent application US2011005506, European patent EP2259998 (A1), and WO2009125444 (A1)
[21] Kullander interview http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3144827.ece
[23] US Department of Energy: “The nations´need for isotopes – the present and future“ http://science.energy.gov/~/media/np/pdf/program/docs/workshop_report_final.pdf, Oak Rich national Laboratory
[24] The time delay between filing and disclosure of patents is typically 18 months, so it should have been already published by now
[25]
Later it was explained by Rossi himself that the sample may have been
inhomogeneous. In such a case of doubt the analysis should have been
reexamined with a fresh sample
[26]
Mizuno,T. : “Nuclear Transmutation: the Reality of Cold Fusion “, 1997,
Kougakusha , Japan, and Beadette, C.G.: “Excess heat – why cold fusion
prevailed”, 2nd edition, 2002, pg. 267
[27] Storms,E.: “the science of Low energy nuclear reaction”, World Scientific, 2007, pg. 93-95 giving references for transmutations
[29] Rossi´s patent claims :
Claim 1: …”filled by nickel powder, even of nanometric dimensions, or nickel granules or bars,…”
Claim 2: “……in said method catalyzer material is used”. However no specification is given what is the composition of catalyst. Clearly it is a case of insufficient disclosure and because of that the claim has to be rejected which would give Rossi no IP protection for the part of the catalyst unless he had filed additional patents later on.
Claim 12:” said nickel powder is a nickel isotope”.
Claim 1: …”filled by nickel powder, even of nanometric dimensions, or nickel granules or bars,…”
Claim 2: “……in said method catalyzer material is used”. However no specification is given what is the composition of catalyst. Clearly it is a case of insufficient disclosure and because of that the claim has to be rejected which would give Rossi no IP protection for the part of the catalyst unless he had filed additional patents later on.
Claim 12:” said nickel powder is a nickel isotope”.
[30] Literature on Ni-H systems :
- Wayman,M.L, Weatherly,G.C. “The H-Ni (nickel hydrogen) system”, Bulletin of alloy phase diagrams 10 No. 5 (1989), 569
- Driessen,A. et al, “Metal hydride formation at pressures up to 1 mbar”, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 2 (1990), 9797
- Shizuku,Y. et al. “Phase diagram of the Ni-H system at high hydrogen pressures”, Journal of Alloys and Compounds 336 (2002),159
[34] In 2002 Rossi was convicted for bankruptcy fraud and convicted to 8 years in prison, Italian source
[36] http://shutdownrossi.com/e-cat-science/110-quotes-by-rossi-about-gamma-rays-and-transmutations/
[37] http://oilprice.com/Interviews/The-Limitless-Potential-of-the-E-Cat-An-Interview-with-Andrea-Rossi.html
[41] Campari,E, et al. Overview of Ni-H systems : old experiments and new setup
[42]Battaglia,A. et al. : „Neutron emission in Ni-H systems“, Il Nuovo Cimento A , September 1999, Volume 112, Issue 9, pp 921-931
[43] When submitting documents for patent examination, the applicant signs the following statement
“I/We hereby declare that all statements made herein of my/our own knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true; and further that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. 1001 and that such willful false statements may jeopardize the validity of the application or any patent issued thereon. “
“I/We hereby declare that all statements made herein of my/our own knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true; and further that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. 1001 and that such willful false statements may jeopardize the validity of the application or any patent issued thereon. “
[44]
In the PCT patent examination stage, the claims, although slightly
different in meanings, were rejected. Just a few quotes by the patent
examiner with are self-explanatory
“the invention does not provide experimental evidence (nor any firm theoretical basis) which would enable the skilled person to assess the validity of the invention”, “ there is no explicit evidence for energy production”, and “ the description does not disclose in a manner sufficiently clear the invention”.
The rejection of such a patent without sufficient disclosure is standard practice of patent law everywhere in the world.
“the invention does not provide experimental evidence (nor any firm theoretical basis) which would enable the skilled person to assess the validity of the invention”, “ there is no explicit evidence for energy production”, and “ the description does not disclose in a manner sufficiently clear the invention”.
The rejection of such a patent without sufficient disclosure is standard practice of patent law everywhere in the world.
[46] A.Rossi on December 18th, 2012: http://energycatalyzerguide.com/e-cat/rossi-forbidden-to-publish-e-cat-information
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento
Inviando un commento date il Vostro consenso alla sua pubblicazione.