Thanks to Camillo Urbani for making this post, clarifying a comment by Italo Romano on this thread.
My name is Camillo Urbani (degree in physics, Padova 1972) my site didatticacomputer.it
For a misunderstanding Italo Romano believed he understood that it was Focardi who organized the experiment. It was not Focardi but another former Rossi collaborator.
If requested, I am gratefully going to check the various apparatuses that are supposed to produce COP greater than one In many years I have only seen errors in measurement except in one case with Rossi’s e-cat. I was called upon to check out an old-fashioned E-Cat apparatus which, unbeknownst to Rossi, had come into possession of interested people.
I can not name names. What I can tell you, is that in a test after triggering the reaction (with systems of pulses recurring and I did not understand why), triggered the reaction disconnected the power (900 Watts of power) INCREDIBLY for at least 15 minutes came out steam DRY at 110 degrees so transparent that I almost burned myself believing that nothing came out, it was so transparent.
Now I do not know your calorimetry notions but for those who understand the amount of heat that evaporation removes is about 2200 cal per gram; this implies that without power the very few seconds the temperature collapses. (Think of the speed with which you cool by blowing on a glass of warm liquid). So for me the phenomenon exists . Do you think that a colleague like FOCARDI would be fooled? The point was repeatability!
Another Christmas season has rolled around (the eighth since this site began), and I hope that it is a happy and peaceful one for all our readers! For me and my family, it’s a special time, where we can have some extra time to be together. I hope you can all have
Thanks to all ECW readers for making it a pleasure to keep this website going. The enduring and enticing story of LENR continues, and we will continue to follow where it leads. Of course right many of us anticipating the upcoming E-Cat Presentation in a few weeks, and there are a number of other efforts underway. People are working hard to figure out what this ‘new firel’ actually is and how it can be put to use.
I do think that sooner or later, LENR will break out and eventually be widely used. Exactly how or when this will take place, I am not sure. I’m sure that there will be obstacles to overcome, with resistance from various quarters, but I think eventually it will start to be adopted because of its many benefits, and once it gets a foothold, it will start to spread and flourish.
Thanks to georgehants for posting the the following link from Next Big Future regarding Brillouin Energy:
The article is written by Brian Wang who has interviewed Brillion and reports that Brillouin is now consistently able to produce between 50 and 100 Watts of power with a COP of 2 (i.e. twice as much power output than is input).
Brillouin believes that after a short period, where experiments are 30X faster that they will be
able to make a lot more progress on heat and wattages.
They believe that by reaching high levels of COP and wattages that they can get OEM’s to license the technology and take products to market in volumes that would take Brillouin Energy years to build. The OEM’s would get UL certification and just sell it as a heater under there brand name with a sticker with something to the effect of powered by Brillouin Energy in side. The COP greater than 1 would be a selling point and that capability would be used to lower the operating costs of the product.
A product producing 1500 watts of heat that uses 300 watts of electricity would successfully compete with Dyson heaters.
The system does not produce radiation. The claim is any reactions are happening in the solid materials or in the thin film layers.
Although the foundational science of what they are doing is highly controversial, the initial end
result cannot be explained with chemistry.
Brillouin Energy has also recently updated its website here: http://brillouinenergy.com/, where they describe their process as Controlled Electron Capture Reaction (CECR).
A new article by astrophysicist Ethan Siegel has been published on the Forbes website in which he holds again Andrea Rossi and the E-Cat as examples of what is wrong with science.
The title of the article is “You Don’t Need A Scientific Hero To Love Science”, and the gist of the article seems to be that we should not look to a single scientist as providing the answer to our questions about the univers, but to the body of science as a whole. He writes:
We know what every macroscopic object is composed of, right down to the smallest indivisible particles that exist in nature. We understand the way they interact and can accurately describe the forces that arise between them.
We know where the Universe came from, how it evolved to be the way it is today, and where it’s headed in the future. We know how planets form around stars, what the conditions are for life to arise, and once it begins, how it persists and evolves over billions of years. For the first time in human history, the question of where our physical reality comes from — a long-time question for philosophers, poets, and theologians — has been definitively answered: by science.
These achievements didn’t come about from just one person, no matter how intellectually gifted they were. Neither Newton nor Einstein nor Feynman nor Hawking knew it all. Moreover, all had serious flaws when it came to both their professional careers and their interpersonal conduct. While there are a great many figures who may be inspirational to you, personally, none of them can stand up to the wonders achieved by the enterprise of science itself.
Siegel’s thesis that the body of scientific knowledge is bigger than individual scientists is not something I would argue with. I would take issue with his opinion that we know all there is to know about the universe and how it all came to be.
And for some reason he again brings Andrea Rossi and the E-Cat into his article. As in his previous article, Siegel does not mention Rossi, LENR, or the E-Cat in the body of the article, but shows an illustration (same one as before) of Andrea Rossi showing an E-Cat to professors Essen and Kullander with this caption: “There are, no doubt, charlatans and frauds who would exploit the ignorance and gullibility of others for their own gain, such as convicted fraud Andrea Rossi, shown with his highly-suspect device: the e-Cat. Wanting to believe in an outcome or conclusion is no substitute for the robust conclusions brought about by the full suite of scientific evidence.”
Once again, the author is warning people to be suspicious and wary about the E-Cat, implying that people who take it seriously are ignorant and gullible. I believe in thinking for yourself, coming to your own conclusions according to your best judgment based on available information. And for this reason, I think it is logicial and reasonable to take Andrea Rossi and the E-Cat seriously.
A reader on the Journal of Nuclear Physics (Keith Thomson) posted a comment which brought up a question that I am sure will be on the minds of anyone considering using the E-Cat as an energy source: how safe is it? He stated that the E-Cat needs to be shown to be safe in all situations: “You need to show that the Ecat is safe before operation, during operation and after operation, safe to transport before and after use, safe during maintenance, safe to dispose, safe under as many circumstances as possible.”
Here is Andrea Rossi’s response:
December 20, 2018 at 2:23 PM
You raised good points.
Obviously safety is necessary.
We have always in operation detectors of ionizing radiations and neutrons when we have Ecats turned on. This has been so since we started our experiments with the Ecat 11 years ago. Prof Sergio Focardi has been hired by us as a consultant specifically for this issue.
We also had plenty of measurements of radiation made by specialists from universities and independent laboratories.
Never has been found ionizing radiation emitted from the Ecats toward the environment beyond the values of the background of the site.
All our Ecats are supplied with ionizing radiations and neutrons detectors.
1- we do not use radioactive materials
2- we do not produce radioactive materials
During the test of the 1 MW plant in Doral, Florida, in the year 2016 the specialists sent from the State of Florida to check the radiations found no radiations or neutron emission beyond the background and allowed us to proceed with our test without problems.
About the profitability, the reliability and stability of the Ecats, the risks are all upon me, because the Clients will pay only the energy that the Ecat will generate. Our Clients must have a back up system that guarantees absence of damns in case of Ecats malfunctions, that during the initial period of our service must be expected, being a new technology.
He added in another comment:
Forgot to say: for industrial applications we have been granted the safety certification of the Ecat from Bureau Veritas and from CGS. [I think this is a typo, should be SGS]
I am sure that if businesses start to consider that the E-Cat really is a revolutionary energy source that can be used for practical purposes, and at a cheaper price than what they are already using, they will carefully consider the safety implications, and Leonardo Corporation will have to provide the assurances that they need that they are safe to use. Rossi here states that E-Cats come with radiation and neutron detectors, and businesses will also of course be able to use their own detection equipment to monitor for harmful emissions.
There is some new information here: Rossi here reports that during the 1-year E-Cat test in Doral that officials from the state of Florida came to check for radiation, and finding none, allowed him to continue the test.
Thanks to tlp for sharing about a new video that has been posted by Brilliant Light Power which shows an operating SunCell which is glowing red in certain places. The video is only 12 seconds long, with out any commentary, except a short exclamation by the operator at the end when he focuses on one of the ‘hot spots’
BLP’s description from the YouTube video is this:
The SunCell® hydrino reactant gas mixture comprises hydrogen fuel added to fixed argon and trace gallium oxide inventories wherein the oxide serves as a source of O for HOH catalyst. The mixture and gas delivery are being optimized to create enough power to run cars and trucks in a compact light-weight reactor. Concentrator photovoltaic electric conversion systems and submersion of the SunCell® in a water bath are in progress to produce electricity and thermal power, respectively.
There has been some interest from ECW readers about holding meetings on the day of the event where people can gather together to watch Leonardo Corp.’s E-Cat SK presentation on January 31st. Orsobubu was the first person to bring this up and said he would be interested in having such an event in Milan, Italy.
I am not sure how widespread interest is in doing this, but I am happy to help people organize this if there is interest. I personally won’t be involved in organizing local events, that would be up to people to organize on their own.
So, if anyone is interested in organizing an event in their part of the world, please let me know privately (email@example.com), and I will make available the name of the city and a way to contact the organizer of the meeting on a new page that I have created dedicated to the event:
I will update that page with new information and announcements, and that will be the page where the live stream will be posted on January 31st.
Coming on January 31, 2019
3:00 p.m. GMT
Leonardo Corporation will be video streaming a presentation of the E-Cat SK, which Andrea Rossi has described as LENR-based heat source which can be used for industrial purposes.
E-Cat World will be streaming the event live on this page.
There has been some interest from ECW readers about holding meetings on the day of the event where people can watch the event together. If anyone is interested in organizing an event in their part of the world, please let me know privately (firstname.lastname@example.org), and I will post on this page, the name of the city and a way to contact the organizer of the meeting.
Thanks to Jonas Matuzas for posting a link to a new paper in the Always Open thread.
The title of the paper is ‘The “Renaissance” in Nuclear Physics: Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions and Transmutations’ by Paolo Di Sia, published in World Scientific News an interdisciplinary journal published under the auspices of The Ministry of Science and Higher Education in Poland.
Here is the abstract:
ABSTRACT Nuclear structure theory has recently undergone an unexpected “renaissance” that canbe attributed to two factors: (a) Since 1989, experimental findings have indicated isotopic anomalies in “chemical systems” at energies well below the expected ~10 MeV nuclear level.(b) Since 2007, remarkable ab initio super-computer calculations of nuclear properties have been made under the assumption that nucleons have well-defined intranuclear positions (x ≤2 fm). Assuming a magnetic structure of nucleons consistent with classical physics, we have made related lattice calculations of nuclear binding energies and magnetic moments. Our results compare favorably with results from other Copenhagen-style nuclear models.