Fusion froide ?

[elephant]

A la portée d'un bon soudeur.

En dessous de 7-8 atmosphères, pas trop de problème. Une levée de doute sur " racontage de carabistouilles" ou réalité ne me semble pas très difficile. Pour des pression supérieures, il faut des matériaux et un soudeur certifiés.

J'ai quand même peine à croire que chauffer du nickel sous haute pression d'hydrogène déclenche un phénomène radio actif.

Je vais m'arranger pour communiquer les liens à Jean Louis Naudin....

[dedeleco]

Voir l'article de Rossi publié qui lui même ne comprend pas comment le miracle de son catalyseur nucléaire peut fonctionner dans son article que j'ai mis sur un autre post.


mais Rossi et autres autour sont des vrais scientifiques qui ne mettent pas des affirmations incohérentes à dormir debout et donc sont plus crédibles et méritent une considération sérieuse approfondie.
mais leur catalyseur resta secret, donc invérifiable, à aprt mesurer la chaleur sur leur engin.

J'avais écrit :
https://www.econologie.com/forums/post190941.html#190941

Il y a des milliers de types de fusion froide en articles publiés !!!
J'aimerais bien avoir l'article du Journal of Nuclear Physics pour le lire, car il doit y avoir une certaine cohérence scientifique, pour qu'il y soit publié !!!
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360
Ils parlent de catalyseur d'énergie ????!!
http://pesn.com/2011/01/14/9501743_10_k ... _in_Italy/
Il va falloir que j'apprenne l'italien mieux.

On doit pouvoir retrouver la longue liste de publications qui conduit à ce résultat.
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.c ... _paper.pdf
http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO=2009125444

Leurs explications semblent être cohérentes sans ignorer les lois de la physique et donc sont à regarder avec soin !!
néanmoins il reste une partie en secret industriel, les éléments catalyseurs qui si vrai, sont introuvables sans 10 ans de recherche intelligente comme eux !.
Donc impossible de reproduire !!!!!
Seulement possible de mesurer l'excès d'énergie sur leur engin une fois vendu.

C'est du H absorbé sur Ni fusionné en cuivre !! et l'énergie est du type nucléaire avec quasiment aucun rayonnement !!
Si vrai, en vendant un engin qui marche il se le fera faucher à coup sur !! Car sans comprendre le processus, le brevet ne peut pas protéger de toutes les variantes et ceux qui comprendront mieux après, accapareront le processus industriel pour eux !!! si cela a une part de vérité, d'énergie nucléaire de fusion froide.
en tout cas, il a l'air plus sérieux et il y croit !
Et certains se sont fatigués à mesurer l'énergie qui sort plus élevée que ce qui rentre avec des températures ???
Il parlait de positronium et 2 photons !

Si vrai, ITER va finir aux oubliettes.

Enfin, si son catalyseur nucléaire est vrai et efficace, il risque de faire péter la terre, car il devient possible de fusionner les noyaux d'hydrogène tous ensemble en noyaux de fer ce qui donne une énergie collosale (le fer est l'état nucléaire, d'énergie minimum, là l'énergie est conservée !!!!) qui peut s'emballer et tout faire péter comme dans une supernova si son cataliseur s'emballe !!
En plus cela ne doit pas être sans danger avec des particules émises !!!
Je suis sceptique car le centre du soleil à des millions de degrés n'est pas capable de faire du fer !!!

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.c ... _paper.pdf

Proton capture by Nickel nuclei obviously requires the overcoming of an
electrostatic potential barrier which opposes the process. For Ni58(the more
abundant Nickel isotope), the maximum potential energy Vmax occurs at a dis-
tance R between Ni and proton nuclei centers equal to the sum of their radii,
that is R  7; 239 fm. The Vmax value is given (in MKS units) by the expression
Vmax = 1
4"0
Ze2
R , where Ze2 is the product of the two nuclear charges: it results
in Vmax  89  10􀀀14 J  5,6 MeV. The proton kinetic energy Ke can be easily
estimated by the relation Ke = 1
2mv2 = 3
2kT, where k is Boltzmann’s constant
and T is the temperature measured in Kelvin: also on assuming T = 1000 K,
Ke is only  0; 13 eV. According to classical physics, a particle having a such an
energy cannot overcome the very high potential barrier. Such an opportunity,
in principle, is given by the quantum mechanical tunnel e¤ect: in this case,
the incoming particle can penetrate into the nucleus by getting through the
potential barrier. The tunneling probability of a single particle colliding with
an atomic target has been calculated by Gamow [9]. As shown by Evans [10],
such a probability can be approximated as
P  e􀀀(2Zz=137) (8)
where  = v
c is the ratio between the velocity v of the incoming particle and
the velocity of light c: in our case, we obtain v2 = 2Ke
m  2; 77  10􀀀7c2, and
then  = v
c  5; 26  10􀀀4. Z and z are the charge values of Ni (Z = 28) and H
(z = 1).
The tunneling probability becomes, as a consequence, P  e􀀀2440  4; 7  10􀀀1059, so small to make the capture of a single proton by a Nickel nucleus
impossible. Nevertheless we have an experimental evidence of a large energy
that can only arise from nuclear reactions between Nickel and Hydrogen, the
only two elements existing in our apparatus. Furthermore, other attempts [11-
15] have been made with Ni and H, obtaining analogous results, even if in a
much smaller scale and without an easy and clear reproducibility.
In an attempt to explain the observed experimental e¤ects, our attention has
been attracted by a statement reported in [16] relative to a stellar gas where
the electrons tend to cluster into spherical shells around nuclei, at distance
rD known as Debye-Hückel radius. The …rst applications of the Debye-Hückel
model [17] refer to electrolytic solutions for which it is possible to de…ne a
Debye length [18] with the following characteristic: if the distance between two
charged ions is greater than rD , their electrostatic interactions are reduced by
the presence of other ions attracted by the electric forces.
In our case, the proton-electron system might be shielded by the nuclear
Coulomb potential, with the possibility of penetrating the Coulomb barrier.
Shielding e¤ect would also explain the anomalous situation observed since 1938
[19] in nuclear reactions, between accelerated protons and Ni63occurring at 3
Mev, below the expected 4; 6 MeV threshold.
The e¤ect of electron screening on low-energy fusion processes has been
investigated by Assembaum et al [20]: they report the increasing of the Coulomb
barrier penetrability and calculate, for some reactions induced by protons (p +
Li7 and p + B11) quantitative e¤ects, that look very relevant, though probably
not su¢ cient to interpret our experimental results .
More recently, in a series of interesting papers [21-23], Raiola et al con-
…rmed experimentally the signi…cant increase of nuclear reactions cross sections
in metals due to electron screening.
4. Conclusions
In conclusion, our process and apparatus is the …rst and unique system,
existing today, able to obtain energy from nuclear fusion reactions; furthermore,
because the ingredients are Nickel and water (to obtain Hydrogen), this is an
endless energy source for the planet, without emissions in atmosphere.









Andrea Rossi
January 16th, 2011 at 4:01 PM

Dear Mr William :
1- I am the inventor of the method and the apparatus.
2- You are asking to me to give away for free technology and know how. It is impossible, for obvious reasons.
3- We have passed already the phase to convince somebody. We are arrived to a product that is ready for the market. Our judge is the market.
In this field the phase of the competition in the field of theories, hypothesis, conjectures etc etc is over. The competition is in the market. If somebody has a valid technology, he has not to convince people by chattering, he has to make a reactor that work and go to sell it, as we are doing.
You are not convinced? It is not my problem. My problem is make my reactors work. I think that the reason for which I arrived to a working reactor is that I bellieved in my work, therefore, instead of chattering and play the big genius with mental masturbations, spent all my money, without help and financing from anywhere, to make thousands of reactors that didn’t work, until I made the right one, following my theories that may be are wrong, but in any case gave me the result I wanted.
If somebody is convinced he has a good idea, he has not to convince anybody by chattering, he has to make something that works and sell it to a Customer who decides to buy because can see a product which works. If a Customer wants not my product no problem, I go to another, without chattering or giving away free technology.
What I made is not a “Holy Graal”, as you ironically say, is just a product. My Customers know it works, this is why they bought it,that’s enough for me. We are investing to make thousands of reactors and is totally irrilevant for us if somebody or manybodies make negative chatterings about our work.
To ask us to give away as a gift our technology, in which I invested my life, to convince somebody or morebodies that my reactors work is contrary to the foundamental rules of the economy.
To convince the World of our product we have just to sell products which work well, not to chatter. If somebody is convinced to have invented something better or equal to our product, he has not to chatter, he has to make a product better or equal to ours and sell it.
Thank you for your useful inquiry,
Warm Regards,
Andrea Rossi
Dear Mr Svein Utne:
First of all, thank you for your kind interest. I am sorry, but I cannot give informations about the catalyzers.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Mr. Rossi,

I have a few questions.

1) Who is the inventor(s) of this device? Is it yourself or yourself and others?

2) I would like to suggest that you release specific plans for a simple version of this device that can self-sustain. I recognize there are dangers involved. However, I personally know SEVERAL highly skilled engineers with access to top notch equipment that would be interested in replicating your technology. The issue is that I know they would want *details* for replication instead of spending their time and money trying to “guess” what is the best way to go forward. They have went down that path before with other claims without success. If you could provide even basic plans for a simple version of your device it would be tremendously helpful. In such plans you could list….

a) The size/shape/volume of the cell and it’s material.
b) The part number of the resistor.
c) The input current/voltage.
d) The amount of nickle powder and a source for the powder.
e) How to put the powder in the cell. I have read that it is placed into a ceramic?
f) How much shielding you would recommend.
g) How to make sure that enough of the dihydrogen is being converted to hydrogen.

Basically, a “bill of materials” and a brief instruction guide.

Would you please consider this?

3) For the past two days I have been pouring over all the information I can find about your technology. I am simply blown away. I have no reason to think you are lying so it seems you have the HOLY GRAIL of energy production. If this is the case the world needs to be convinced ASAP. The best way I know to do this is with replication by hundreds of people. Are you willing to help those that want to replicate?
You are right. In fact we can turn off the resistance: we do it regularly in our R&D center. The reason why in a module for the public we have to maintain a drive is connected with safety reasons.

Aucune info cruciale, c'est dans le brevet futur, et il ne veut pas se le faire faucher!!

Mais on ne trouve aucune incohérence absurde ignorant tout des bases de la physique, contrairement à la plupart des autres affirmations d'énergie libre.
Il peut se tromper, mais il connait son sujet et y croit et on peut vérifier ses preuves sur son engin tôt ou tard dés qu'il sera accessible, 10 fois trop de chaleur à perpétuité bien mieux maîtrisé que les publications précédentes sur la fusion froide trop faible.

[Obamot]

En dehors de l'aspect «people»:
— "t'as vu comme mon réacteur est plus beau que l'tiens?" ok, je ... —>[]

Y'a-t-il:
— des spécifications techniques ‘compréhensibles’ «pour les nuls»?
— une vidéo traîne t-elle à qqp?
— où est-ce qu'on peut commander, je dois remplacer ma chauière?

[dedeleco]

les video données par tagor :
https://www.econologie.com/forums/post190941.html#190941
en Italien et on devine :
et posts qui suivent .
que on trouve les videos avec infos partielles sur :
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360
l'essentiel physique est dans :
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.c ... _paper.pdf
et un brevet :
http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO= ... SPLAY=DESC
avec les articles anciens dedans et des explications claires cohérentes .

le site pour cela présente bien un résumé :
http://pesn.com/2011/01/14/9501743_10_k ... _in_Italy/


Un article par un Français Dufour qui discute des possibilités :
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=275
et cela va discuter beaucoup !! comme dans :
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@es ... 38023.html
avec pas mal de travaux passés similaires et brevets qu'ils oublient dans leur brevet (mais bien moins d'énergie dégagée) !!!

Ce qui est sur : un grand nombre de papiers scientifiques ont publié des faits étranges avec traitements physiques, chaleur, écoulements, électrolyses, décharges, avec léger changement net de composition chimique variées étranges (nouvelles impuretès) et dégagement de chaleur aléatoires.
Tout cela est appelé fusion froide.
Rossi continue dans cette lignée, mais avec un grand dégagement de chaleur qui si vrai est facile à mesurer de façon indiscutable. inexplicable autrement que par transmutations nucléaires surprenantes.
Donc, vu la cohérence scientifique des informations données, cela mérite de mesurer ce dégagement de chaleur excessif reproductible quelque soit l'explication qui reste à découvrir.

Il est certain que sans la répulsion électrique entre noyaux nucléaires les noyaux nucléaires fusionneraient instantanément en une énorme supernova dégageant une énergie nucléaire gigantesque (énergie du soleil en une seconde au lieu de 8 milliards d'années) pour finir en noyaux de fer d'énergie minimale et une étoile à neutrons (fig 1 du pdf).
Donc nous et notre terre et le soleil sommes métastables comme un mélange hydrogène oxygène, mais avec une énergie nucléaire colossale, plus de un million de fois.
Rossi prétend avoir une composition d'impuretés catalyseur (secret) et de traitement qui réduit la répulsion Coulombienne (électrostatique) pour permettre moins rarement cette fusion à énergie énorme.
Il a un discours cohérent, et a mesuré de nouveau éléments non présents au départ.
Il se protège contre des rayonnements possibles avec plomb et bore.
Donc à vérifier avec soin par le dégagement d'énergie de 10 fois l'énergie fournie. et la compréhension ne se fera qu'après la mesure d'une réalité indiscutable et reproductible, même si incompréhensible..

C'est donc à vérifier.

[Obamot]

Sceptique mais après tout, pourquoi pas?! ^^

Bien que ça en soit très éloigné, il n'y a pas si longtemps, qui pensait que la lance à plasma avait un tel pouvoir de fusion de tout matériau au point de traverser les murs de béton sans effort? Et ça juste avec le pouvoir de l'eau.

Si théoriquement la fusion froide était possible (encore faut-il déterminer ce qu'on entend par «température ambiante») à force de plancher, il y aura bien un jour quelqu'un trouvera la bonne combinaison avec l'assemblage idoine auquel personne n'avait encore pensé!

Toute la question serait de savoir si la fusion froide existe à l'état «naturel» dans le cosmos. Ça pourrait aider, de le découvrir...

Ça serait encore plus rigolo qu'au moment ou toute la communauté scientifique écarte cette théorie, que quelqu'un arrive à démontrer que c'est possible

[elephant]

Je propose à tous d'émigrer sur un nouveau sujet, intitulé

Réaction de Focardi-Rossi: est ce la fusion froide ?

ce qui facilitera les recherches des internautes.

Si vous êtes d'accord, rejoignez y moi

Sinon, laissez le nouveau sujet périr dans les profondeurs de l'oubli...

[tagor]

New Energy Times home page

26. Energy Catalyzer: It Works and It's Not Fusion

By Daniele Passerini

[The following interview of Andrea Rossi by blogger Daniele Passerini was originally published on Jan. 25 and is reprinted courtesy of Ventidue Passi D'amore e Dintorni. The English translation is provided courtesy of Shirakawa Akira. Passerini also prefaced the interview with his own comments (not translated here) in a short introduction titled "Toward Infinite Energy and Beyond." Rossi and Passerini have confirmed to New Energy Times that this English translation is factually and linguistically correct.]


PASSERINI. Good day Engineer Rossi, I thank you for accepting this interview. Everybody is asking themselves how you managed to perfect your Energy Catalyzer? Somebody even suspects that you stole the idea, for example, from Professor [Francesco] Piantelli from the University of Siena, who in the 1990s worked together with Professor [Sergio] Focardi on "cold fusion" research. Could you explain us where, why, how and when you started working on this project?

ROSSI. I started in 1987. As the facts show, my process strongly differs from previous efforts: Nobody has managed to manufacture a working device so far. Facts count, not words.

PASSERINI. 1987 would mean two years before the strongly disputed Pons-Fleischmann experiment. Recently, you stated that it's not proper to define the reaction occurring in your catalyzer as "cold fusion" and that it's more correct, at the moment, to generically define it as a weak [force] nuclear reaction – in other words, low energy, or LENR. Are you telling us that you went on a different road, parallel to that of "cold fusion" research?

ROSSI. Exactly. In fact, mine is not "cold fusion" but weak [force] nuclear reactions. Pons and Fleischmann did heavy-water electrolysis with a palladium cathode and a platinum anode. I don't do electrolysis, I don't use either platinum or palladium and I use temperatures that manage to melt nickel.

PASSERINI. The idea that you've built something which works, even without a scientific theoretical model, frightens some people regarding the safety of such a device. What could you tell us regarding this concern? I imagine that you have some idea of what happens in the catalyzer even if you're unable to prove it, right?

ROSSI. Yes, I have a very precise idea, and I think I understand perfectly the mechanism, but to explain it, though, it would be necessary first that the patent gets approved. For now, we can demonstrate that the reactors work and that they do not emit radiation; this is an additional benefit of being able to use the device without risks. The rest will come over time.

PASSERINI. Regarding the patent, on the Internet it can be read that the request was made on behalf of your wife. Why?

ROSSI. I'm sorry, but I don't see how this has something to do with scientific research.

PASSERINI. Could you clarify the role that you and Professor Focardi played regarding the apparatus development?

ROSSI. I've invented the method and the apparatus. Professor Focardi had a fundamental role as a consultant, according to a definite agreement. He gave important contributions during the experimental phase, on the research method and on security systems. Thanks also to his deep experience with nickel-hydrogen reactions.

PASSERINI. What is the role of the University of Bologna regarding the apparatus you're about to patent?

ROSSI. With the University of Bologna, we made a research agreement which will be extended in order to study radiation and to research and develop certain details.

PASSERINI. Clearly, once the catalyzer is commercialized, there won't be trade secrets anymore. Will you allow independent laboratories to check the inside of the device only after that, or will that happen before?

ROSSI. We have to build plants that will need to honor warranties made during the agreement phase. Clients will have to follow instructions for safety reasons, too. That being said, clients will be free to perform any test they wish with their plants, as long as they honor their agreements. It's clear, though, that for us to reveal trade secrets, the patent, currently pending, will have to be accepted. If it isn’t, we'll keep trade secrets for obvious reasons.

PASSERINI. Many people doubt your credibility due to the Omar-Petroldragon scandal from the 1990s. On your Web site, you provide an explanation of the events which frees you completely from any blame, pointing out that the judicial documents confirm that you have nothing to do with the environmental pollution and fraud accusations. Why then didn't you bring a lawsuit against the Italian State in order to obtain compensation, given the huge economic (and image) losses you've had?

ROSSI. The answer to this question is thoroughly described in the http://www.ingandrearossi.com Web site. I don't want to answer that here briefly: Whoever is interested in that matter should read carefully what I've written on my Web site.

PASSERINI. Among those people who believe that the Energy Catalyzer works, some believe that it could be a target. They fear that whoever currently controls the energy market (fossil fuels and uranium) would be willing to pay you enormous amounts of money in order to keep your invention locked in a safe.

ROSSI. They will have to step over my dead body. This technology is the meaning of my professional life and the reason of my personal life.

PASSERINI. That is one more reason why we should all wish you a long and healthy life. Without stepping into conspiracy theories, do you think that your discovery is putting you in danger? That somebody could be planning to take you out, as – it's now almost certain – happened almost 50 years ago to Enrico Mattei?

ROSSI. I think they will try to take me out more subtly, like they did years ago with the Omar-Petroldragon incident. However, today there's the Internet, and newspapers do not have the power to annihilate people anymore.

PASSERINI. If your product succeeds, it's clear that the energy market will change radically. How could the energy produced by your catalyzer and that produced by green sources like solar or wind coexist, and what kind of synergy there could be?

ROSSI. They will merge, and each will take its role.

PASSERINI. You've stated that you will soon disclose a new 1 MW prototype (by arranging in parallel or serially – I haven't understood clearly – units similar to that demonstrated in Bologna). Could you better explain this step and tell us when you expect a public demonstration?

ROSSI. It's exactly as you say: Modules like that verified in Bologna will be serially connected in order to increase temperatures and in parallel to increase energy at a constant temperature. I hope we will be able to unveil it by September-October 2011.

PASSERINI. On the "Journal of Nuclear Physics" [blog], you've stated that a new company has been founded in Athens, Defkalion Energy, which will manufacture catalyzers. Could you tell us some more details?

ROSSI. It's a European Newco, affiliated with the largest businesses in the sector. They will issue a press release soon to announce themselves to the public.

PASSERINI. One last thing. Fossil fuel dependency, or otherwise dependency from non-renewable resources, has got us accustomed to expecting that energy costs can only rise, but nickel and hydrogen used in your device are cheap and inexhaustible elements. Does this mean that, thanks to technologies like yours, energy prices, instead of increasing, will decrease?

ROSSI. Honestly, this is the reason why I think it's worth working on it.

PASSERINI. On behalf of every visitor of blog "Ventidue Passi D'amore e Dintorni," thanks again for your time.

ROSSI. Thanks to you all.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/01/widom- ... ny-at.html

[oby]

Bonjour,

J.L. Naudin ayant été complètement décrédibilisé par le milieu scientifique (qui s'intéresse de près à la fusion froide, je tiens à le faire remarquer), ce n'est pas une référence fiable.

Les réacteurs à fusion froide sont malheureusement assujettis au principe fondamental de la conservation de l'énergie. Quand bien même vous réussiriez à en faire, ce ne serai énergétiquement pas rentable.

Cordialement,

[dedeleco]

Obi76 n'a pas lu ou rien compris le texte cité par tagor avec les articles scientifiques de Widom Larsen et où l'énergie est conservée grâce à l'interaction faible du passage de proton en neutron plus neutrino
http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/WLTheory.shtml

Lire l'article :

http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/librar ... alyzed.pdf

Dans les années 1930, la désintégration du neutron et la radioactivité béta semblaient ne pas conserver l'énergie, qui disparaissait, jusqu'à ce que on l'interprète par la formation d'un neutrino assez invisible, jusqu'à ce que son existence soit prouvée dans les années 50 par ses réactions variées, qui continuent à être très étudiés avec une jolie collection de neutrinos se convertissant entre eux, émis en quantité astronomique par le soleil et traversant, nous et la terre en réagissant extrêmement peu !!

Donc la non conservation de l'énergie apparente, si prouvée expérimentale, reproductible sans fin, ne pose pas de problème, car on trouvera le processus où passe l'énergie, comme les neutrinos invisibles et ne réagissant avec presque rien !!!
lire avec soin les bases :
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron

L'article, çi dessus, est une possibilité scientifiquement possible, à part le problème d'augmenter la masse de l'électron en l'habillant de particules virtuelles, ce qui existe en partie dans certains conducteurs de transitions avec des particules électrons se mouvant avec une masse très augmentée et qui peut se produire de façon transitoire.

En 1930, confronté au problème du spectre en énergie de la désintégration β, Wolfgang Ernst Pauli invente le neutrino pour satisfaire le principe de conservation de l’énergie. Enrico Fermi lui donne le nom de neutrino en 1933 en l’incorporant dans sa théorie de l’interaction faible. Le neutrino est découvert expérimentalement en 1956, (c’est en fait l’antineutrino électronique, \overline{\nu_e} qui accompagne la formation d’un électron (conservation du nombre leptonique) lors de la transformation d’un neutron en proton) par Frederick Reines et Clyde Cowan auprès d’un réacteur nucléaire. En 1962, le neutrino muonique (νμ) est découvert à Brookhaven. En 1990, le LEP, au CERN, démontre qu’il n’y a que trois familles de neutrinos. Le neutrino tau (ντ) est découvert en 2000 dans l’expérience DONUT.

[oby]

Je ne critique pas le principe de la fusion froide, je critique les sources.

Cordialement,