Skip to comments.Cold Fusion in Italian High School
Posted on 04/28/2012 9:44:57 PM PDT by Kevmo
Cold Fusion in Italian High School
April 23, 2012
A new and very interesting report is coming again out of Italy. The Repubblica Roma web site is reporting about a project carried out by teachers and students at the Leopoldo Pirelli industrial high school in Rome in which students have built cold fusion cells which according to one of the instructors involved have achieved excess heat levels of 400 per cent. A slide show of the devices can be seen here.
Following this report, one of the instructors involved with the project, Ugo Abundo, emailed Daniele Passerini of the 22passi blog and provided more information. Abundo said that the cells used free nanopowders in the cathode which they have patented. Abundo says that in a few days video and technical details will be made available (presumably online). It also appears that Passerini will be working to help publicize the project.
Looks like these folks intend this development to be an open source effort.
English Translation of Build Instructions for Pirelli Athanor Cell
April 25, 2012
With permission from Ing. Ugo Abundo, I am posting the following English translation (provided graciously by E-Cat World Reader Francesco) of the instructions originally posted in Italian on 22passi.blogspot.com on how to build an Athanor reactor as designed by the Leopoldo Pirelli high school team.
DISCLAIMER: E-CAT WORLD MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF THE ACCURACY OF THIS TRANSLATION. THOSE ATTEMPTING TO BUILD THE ATHANOR DEVICE SHOULD SEEK EXPERT ADVICE TO ENSURE THE ORIGINAL ITALIAN INSTRUCTIONS ARE PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD. The original Italian instructions can be found here
It is with emotion that we are going to take this step: making available on the internet the construction of ATHANOR. Forgive us for the quality of the image, we hope youll understand how much we are running. Send us all your questions and with quick replies we will make us forgive the poor quality of the images.
For some reasons we are not yet fully effective in managing the documentation, but were categorizing everything.
PERFORM ONLY BY AT LEAST TWO EXPERTS, WITH THE APPROPRIATE PROTECTIONS UNDER THE SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS IN LABORATORIES UNDER A CLOSED INTAKE GLASS HOOD WITH HIGH DILUTION OF SMOKE.
GATHER CAREFULLY THE RESIDUALS FOR A SUITABLE WASTE DISPOSAL OF LIQUID AND SOLID
IT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT RECOMMENDED, AND WE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR IT, TO OPERATE IN THE PRESENCE OF INCIDENTAL SPARKS OR FREE FLAMES BECAUSE OF EXPLOSIVENESS BOTH OF HYDROGEN AND OF DUST IF THE FUNNEL SHOULD DRY INSIDE, NOT PROTECTING THEM ANYMORE IN THE FORM OF MUD.
THE INFRINGING OF THESE RULES AND OF THOSE OF CAUTION TO USE IN THOSE SITUATIONS CONFIGURATES LIABILITIES THAT EXONERATE THE ALLOCATION OF THEM TO US.
WE CARE ABOUT OUR LIABILITY JUST AS MUCH AS WE CARE OF YOUR HEALTH. (INSERT A RED BUTTON SWITCH THAT DISCONNECTS BOTH POLARITIES AND CHECK THE CIRCUIT BREAKER OF THE SYSTEM).
IT IS RECOMMENDED TO SURROUND THE CELL WITH LEAD SHEET, TO PUT A THICK PLEXIGLASS PLATE BETWEEN THE CELL AND A WEBCAM WITH THE WIRE SHIELDED WITH ALUMINUM FOIL, BUILD A WALL OF WATER BY RECTANGULAR CONTAINERS THAT SURROUND THE CELL COMPLETELY, INSERT A GEIGER COUNTER CLEARLY VISIBLE BY THE WEBCAM AND OPERATE IN A REMOTE STATION WITH 6 SQMM SECTION CABLES.
WHOEVER BUILDS AND OPERATES THE DESCRIBED EQUIPMENT IS FULLY RESPONSIBLE EVEN AGAINST DAMAGE TO THIRD PARTIES, EXPRESSLY EXEMPTING THE AUTHORS OF THIS TEXT FROM ANY LIABILITY.
THE SIMPLE IMPLEMENTATION OF EXPERIMENTATION, BOTH AS DESCRIBED HERE OR IN FREE FORM, IS AN ACT OF UNCONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE OF WHAT IS ADVISED HERE.
WE FORMALLY WARN PERSONS NOT TO OPERATE THE EQUIPMENT IF YOU DONT HAVE A TECHNICAL DEGREE OR EQUIVALENT EXPERIENCE.
GOOD EXPERIMENTATION, and may you soon achieve yields higher than those detected by us!
IN THE FOLLOWING DESCRIPTION PLEASE REFER TO THE IMAGE
The apparatus, can be easily made and is absolutely not expensive, consisting of a suspended crew with a bar (27) to an external support, and of an open container (15), pyrex, with capacity of 1000 ml, containing a high splashguard (14). The support should allow the easy put on the same axis of the crew.
The container is on a scale (28) with collecting plate (19) of potential drops so they continue to weigh.
The display (20) is protected by drops; on the bottom of the container there is an insulator (23) (between dish and container). The reactor has a cylindrical removable insulation (17).
It is filled with about 900 ml of solution 0.1 0.4 molar of potassium carbonate in distilled water.
A set of thermocouples (10) measures the temperature range (which is not uniform).
On the plate, special locks (18) prevent the container to move with the strong action of the plasma.
The anode (8) is made of a stainless steel mesh of the approximate area of 13 sq. cm., interchangeable with grids of different sizes, positively fed from the connector (11) by means of insulated (or isolated?) stainless steel bar. The pyrex tube (9) allows the insulated (or isolated?) leakage of oxygen from the anode, through the outlet (24).
The cathode connector (12) feeds, by means of a stainless steel bar covered with Teflon tube surrounded by heat shrink tubing, the clamp (22) that blocks the bar cathode of tungsten interchangeable of 1.6 mm diameter.
Particular attention must be paid to the implementation of the protection of the terminal from the electrical contact with the conductive solution.
The cap (21) makes access to the screw for clamping the cathode (3) in the terminal.
The ceramic plate (alumina) (4), crossed by the cathode, and glued to the Pyrex funnel (5) by means of high temperature epoxy resin.
On the plate is placed a mixture of tungsten needles (length 3 -5 mm and diameter 0.1 mm) of 2-5 grams and powders, in the form of mud, the grain size between 100 microns and 50 nanometers, in variable proportions, of the weight of g. 1 to 2.
It is therefore evident that it is necessary to keep the powder in the form of mud, opening the container of the supplier under water (distilled), wearing anti-dust and anti-smoke masks specifically suitable (ask the supplier of the filters), using however teaspoons of plastic to limit the triboelectricity , after building a plexiglass panel with holes and sleeves of manipulation to fit between the hood shutter and plane, with appropriate gaskets.
NEVER LEAVE ANY DRY DROPS OR SKETCHES OF MUD (PREVENT IN ANY CASE), PENALTY THE RELEASE IN THE AIR (THE FINE POWDERS ARE TOXIC AND SELF- INGNITABLE)!
STORE CLOSED THE QUANTITY OF MUD STOCKED.
NOTE: We never had any accident, not even the slightest, we broke a beaker by washing.
The funnel is supported by the support (32), fixed to the bar (27) from the retainer (13). The level of of electrolyte (16) must be maintained in the area indicated, with short reaction times (typically 90 to 240 seconds), so that the level does not vary too much, introducing changes in buoyancy, thus affecting the determination of the weight of the container, although initially calibrated .
A Teflon grid (69) and a housing encapsulating the cathode grid, protected at the bottom by a porous filter made of sintered pyrex (7).
The vertical distance between the surface dust and anode is typically (adjustable) between 30 and 45 mm.
The monolithic cathode (3) must protrude a few mm from the ceramic plate, just to give contact to the needles which, in turn, give it to the powders.
The operating voltages, typically between 60 volts and 240 volts, are obtained, with direct current, by means of rectifiers mounted on a finned base, downstream of a VARIAC connected to the mains.
The typical operating currents vary between 9 and 0.2 Ampere.
The solution may be preheated before entry into the container (enter it slowly into the funnel and allow the overflow into the container), or taken up to temperature of electrolysis.
Typical protocol suggested in early experiments (everyone will refine it or improve it):
Made a plan of combinations of parameter values, we fixed a set (nominal voltage, type and amount of dust, anode surface, interelectrode distance, electrolyte concentration (attention, it has pH> 11));
Make a calibration diagram by the introduction of the same amount of electrolyte at 100 degrees centigrade, without tension, noting, without insulation of the container, for each degree of descent, the corresponding time, so as to calculate the power lost in water by adduction from the walls to the outside, and by evaporation;
Trace the curve Lost Power (y) electrolyte temperature (x);
after setting the shielded wire thermocouples, calibrated the scale, entered the liquid at least 85 degrees, turned on an ammeter (position 10 amps max) in series with the cell on rectified current, and a voltmeter in parallel, you can gradually increase the tension.
Raising the voltage, it is noted that the current is high, and the manual tension rise of the VARIAC knob must be adapted to maintain the current under 9 Amperes, while the solution is heated, you notice that you can raise the tension without exceeding with the current; at about 90 degrees, it becomes easy to have low currents (depending on the set of parameters, even only 0.3 amperes); Try to turn on the plasma by bringing the tension at about 120-160 volts; make practice with the adjustment of the Variac knob, not believing the indication of this, but to that of the voltmeter; bring, with the heating of the plasma on, the temperature of thermocouple visible by webcam at about 93 degrees, and drive the wheel of VARIAC so as to maintain the temperature in a very narrow range around 93 degrees, trying to have the minimum voltage which keeps the plasma stable, checking that the current is as low as possible.
Having taken confidence with the first preliminary tests, you can try an evaluation of yield:
conservatively, ignoring the precious hydrogen produced (and the energy that may be available), integrate in time with the details of the reaction duration (90 240 seconds) the measurements of electrical power input (V x I) frequently sampled for direct reading (in the orientation tests) and later with computerized reading, getting the energy input.
The energy lost is obtained by the calibration diagram, at a temperature kept constant, by integrating the power for the execution time of the test.
The difference between energy lost (big) and injected (minor) is the excess.
THE COP can then be calculated, but you must pay attention to the ambiguity. We invite you to calculate it as ratio between energy lost and the one you entered, as the energy lost will be the one to be recovered for use (we propose a standard calculation to compare the results of different experimenters).
It is recommended to cross these determinations with independent readings such as the calculation of sensible heat when the temperature varied, and always check the amount of the evaporated solution , counting the corresponding latent heat (DO NOT EVAPORATE TOO MUCH SOLUTION IN A SINGLE TEST!).
A digital power meter can be used, placing it between the network and the Variac, between the Variac and rectifiers, between the rectifiers and the cell, establishing a framework of reference and comparison with measurements made with simple ammeter and voltmeter continuously (I have a doubt, maybe they mean with direct current).
It should also be made a comparison with exercise, identical, of the reactor with a carbon cathode (without metal powders), inert with respect to the alleged fusions or other events catalyzed by transition metals, the mix of dusts, when used with metal cathodes, may contain iron micrometric catalyzing powder, to catalyze the presence of atomic hydrogen rather than molecular.
ONLY the evidences that overall show a coherent picture among the independent readings described can be considered.
We are immediately available to talk about the construction, materials, geometry, planning and execution of tests, the interpretation of results, on which the network will be updated in a realistic time.
LETS START WITH PARTICIPATORY AND DISTRIBUTED SCIENCE!
(Some will say that this is the opposite of science [ed. Someone will tell for sure!])
A big thank you to all those who will collaborate in any form, and to Dr. Passerini, who will certainly liaison among experimenters and between us and the experimenters.
P. S. Forgive the prolixity as a professor.
Rome, 3,30 a.m.
400 per cent .
How is anything over 100 per cent possible?
[ How is anything over 100 per cent possible? ]
When you have one Apple and you steal 4 more
then you have increased your Apples by 400%...
Who says cold fusion does not work.
Yep, like union teachers that give 110%.
Have summers off and retire on taxpayers.
400 per cent of what? Doesn't anybody proofread before posting anymore?
Does the area of expertise matter?
What do they mean by "free" and "patented?" It seems contradictory.
One heck of a COOL science fair project, whatever’s actually happening inside it.
Well, this thing is stoked with hot water and allegedly makes the water even hotter, producing a weak wet steam. Maybe they are claiming heat content of the water charge with respect to room temperature. Heat the hot water with 100 Joules, pour it in, and out comes 400 Joules in steam and hot water or something like that. But this ought to be spelled out, not left to guess.
Well, when you ignite a natural gas turbine, you input a few hundred watts of power, and you get megawatts of power out.
The idea here is that you put in some energy, something (LENR?) happens, and you get more power out.
They’ve laid out how to do it. If - big if - it works, we’ll have independent verification soon enough, and then the world changes...
When one of these things shoots its wad, that’s it. It has to be rebuilt. It’s more like a battery than a nuke plant.
It taking 100 per cent as a baseline start point... After all if you talking a power source... you have to get more engery out then you put in else it not a power source it a power consumer
So take starting point of 100 precent no lose or gain yet at your start...
And in the end if you have over your 100 precent = power source ...less then 100 precent = net lose = power sink/ consumer
It like money...if your invest a $100 you want to get more back then you put in..if you get out less then you put in it not investing ...its spending
Sounds more like a chemical reaction of some type. Not battery, more like an exothermic chemical reaction.
"Output = 5X Input"
Whatever the case, it’s a weird and confusing way of expressing results. If they expressed input and output in joules, then it wouldn’t look like the usual crap that Kevmo posts.
There are certainly plenty of anecdotes.
There is also a mountain of data (hundreds of research articles) that say that CF/LENR/LANR/CANR (whatever your personal preference as to what it ought to be called) is a very real fact of science. A good place to start is Ed Storms's on-line writeup "A Student's Guide to Cold Fusion".
His book "Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction: A Comprehensive Compilation of Evidence and Explanations about Cold Fusion" has MUCH more.
Warning....the book is NOT cheap (almost a hundred bucks). I thought it well worth the cost, given the thoroughness with which the science is covered...YMMV. Check your local public library...they can get it for you for a very nominal fee (or even for free) through "InterLibrary Loan".
Regardless, HR is correct—this thing can be viewed as a big battery (if it actually produces any excess power), with the magic powder containing the stored potential.
Not very exciting.
I’m assuming the horrendous description of whatever they were doing is the fault of the translation.
In any case, it sounds like they were doing an exothermic chemical reaction. I guess merging the electron orbitals of two separate atoms into a covalent bond counts as fusion...
Well, if Ugo Abundo said it, that’s good enough for me.
I think I've figured out where the heat is coming from.
A mountain of bad data is no better than a molehill of bad data.
Warning....the book is NOT cheap (almost a hundred bucks).
There's more than one way to run a cold fusion scam.
It appears then that the delivery date of the Rossi Miracle Water Heater will be pushed over that bottomless pit called “The Future” wherein lies the realization of Hype and Hope.
oh well, it beats those foaming volcanoes.
Since you obstinately refuse to look at any of it, how could you possibly know whether it is good, bad, or indifferent?? Your continuing refusal to do so points up your intellectual dishonesty.
That’s because all you do is refer people to a huge list of crap. It’s not worth anyone’s time, since 99% of cold fusion is hype and scams (look at the garbage Kevmo has copy and pasted to this thread from an Ecat blog). The USPTO bans this nonsense for a valid reason. All you have to do is post some quality information with a short write up of why you think it’s quality and worth someone’s time.
Yes, a COP (coefficient of performance) over 100% is technically impossible (an IC engine will be 25%-50%, electric around 80%). That’s not what they really mean. Every science has its own language. In LENR the input is chemical energy and the output is “unknown” but presumably nuclear fusion occurring at low energy levels. So outputs are often quoted from 4 to 20 times the inputs, or COP 4-20.
400 per cent of what? Doesn’t anybody proofread before posting anymore?
It’s not a proof read problem. It’s the terminology in LENR. Every science has its own language. In LENR the input is chemical energy and the output is unknown but presumably nuclear fusion occurring at low energy levels. So outputs are often quoted from 4 to 20 times the inputs, or COP 4-20.
What do they mean by “free” and “patented?” It seems contradictory.
Free means it’s available for use, as opposed to “bound.” Examples would be, free-radicals, free-electrons, free-thyroid hormone, etc.
You could swallow a ball-bearing, but your body wouldn’t get iron from it, because the iron isn’t “free.”
When one of these things shoots its wad, thats it. It has to be rebuilt. Its more like a battery than a nuke plant.
It’s like a nuke plant in 3 ways. It’s output is far greater than can be explained by a chemical reaction, some of the copper transmutates into silver, and it’s similar to a nuke too in that the duty cycles are long. Rossi claims 6 months continuous output between “charges.”
So do con games. LENR is supposed to be a part of physics. There's no need for special conventions.
Sounds more like a chemical reaction of some type. Not battery, more like an exothermic chemical reaction.
You’re right, we’ll see. A lot isn’t known, but 2 things say nuclear. The total output energy per volume is far greater than can be explained by any known chemical reaction (like driving 10,000 miles on a “tank of gas” in your car. Something else is going on), and some of the nickel transmutates into copper.
Sorry . . .Brain fade in my previous post. Some of the nickel transmutates into copper.
I Googled free nanopowders and that does seem to be a strange usage of the term, but like you say, every con game has its own language.
I Googled free nanopowders and that does seem to be a strange usage of the term, but like you say, every con game has its own language.
Seems you know very little, but have strong opinions. I have no desire to discuss anything with a person such as that. Good day.
I thought energy could not be created or destroyed, only transferred.
According to Wiki, COP is a measure applied to heat pumps. Are these scam contraptions heat pumps?
LENR is definitely not a heat pump. COP is general term used in physics to measure the efficiency of an energy conversion process (as in a heat pump). It’s the ratio of input energy to output energy.
As LENR/Cold Fusion etc being a scam. It’s possible. I used to think it was, but I’ve read just about every single piece of data for the last 4 or so years. I think it’s the real deal. For it to be a scam, 100’s of people would have to be in on it now, going all the way back to Pons and Fleishman. With so many people in on it, and based on what I’ve read, I’m inclined to say something is there. Time will tell.
Or, some exothermic change of state of the powdered nickel or other things that are added to the powdered nickel. If nuclear level things are going on, a chemical analysis before and after the reactor has reacted should show the presence of elements afterwards that were not there before (and which didn’t come from the water charge either).
It would be very illuminating to get one of these into the hands of a really competent chemistry lab. Surely someone in mainstream chemistry could make this the subject of a PhD level study?
Reading through that mess, I saw no mention of the identities of any of the chemicals involved. The closest it came was to mention some kind of "mud" that apparently is prone to very exothermic reactions if exposed to air. As I see it, that highly reactive "mud" is sufficient to account for any rise in temperature occurring during that experiment. The energy output of chemical reactions can be incredibly high... explosives are a good example. I know that the "mud" cannot be nickel; to my knowledge, nickel does not react strongly upon contact with air.
The reaction 58Ni + p → 59Cu is a little unlikely; the Coulomb forces required to shove that proton into the nucleus are so high that, as I saw one physicist explain it, that much energy does not exist in the entire universe. If you want to transmute nickel to copper, I think the approach would be to shove a neutron into the nucleus, and wait for a beta decay. It would be quite a wait; the half-life of 59Ni is 75,000 years, and the decay product (from a positive beta emission) is 59Co, not copper.
The standard hot physics refrain, yet always made without examining the evidence.
The researchers I post review articles for are (or were, since many of them have retired) eminently qualified scientists. Storms had a successful career at Los Alamos National Labs, retired from there, and became a "hobby scientist" with his own lab. Hagelstein came out of Lawrence Livermore National Labs, and is now tenured faculty at MIT. Bockris is a scientist of impeccable credentials, with many hundreds of peer reviewed research articles, book authorships, and national and international science awards.
Add to that that I have followed up many of their referenced articles, and, based on forty years of experience, see that those articles follow the accepted rules of "good science". Having written similar articles myself and done "peer review" on other such articles, I think I know good science when I see it. The "hype and scams" you refer to do not exist. The SINGLE proven instance of fraud that exists in the field of cold fusion was perpetrated by the "hot physicists" at MIT.
Simply put, you are a liar, propagandist, intellectually dishonest, and lacking in science ethics. Although given other evidence, perhaps your ethical practices reflect the "new" science ethics practiced with such gusto by the "global warmers" ("scamming" the peer review process, denial of tenure, attempting to get researchers who don't agree with them fired). Unsurprisingly, the practitioners of this "new science ethics" are largely physicists.
I thought nickel was on the wrong side of the curve of binding energy. When did that change?
I can only find references to COP being used as a measure for heat pump efficiency. It's use for LENR appears to be a misapplication, intended to spread manure.
For it to be a scam, 100s of people would have to be in on it now, going all the way back to Pons and Fleishman.
If you want to play the numbers game, there are far more people in the scientific community who say it's a scam, including the USPTO.
All you have is appeals to (questionable) authority, personal attacks, and “Warthog says.” When it comes to putting up quality information, you have nothing.
Yes it will. Many are now looking into it, including CERN, NASA, and MIT. We will all know pretty soon whether this is a revolutionary breakthrough. I think it is.