Cold Fusion Experiment: Major Success or Big Hoax?

They are not sharing the data and experiment setup with anyone else, only customers, if I understand the article correctly.

So, no peer review = no science.

Wilipedia article about the E-Cat device.

The whole thing sounds shakey. "Rossi states that the device probably works not due to "cold fusion", but due to weak interactions between nuclei, without actual fusion happening."

...probably works? Rossi is not certain how it works?

While I support your bold opinion, I would have to continue your reasoning... and come to a different conclusion (note I agree with your facts).

The unstable forms of copper you mention beta+ decay back down to stable forms of nickel (as you've said), but if those daughter isotopes continue on with the magical process these people claim, it will eventually become a stable form of copper.

No, on two counts.

First, the copper decays that I cited are electron captures and not beta + decays. There are subtle differences between these two decay processes but differences none the less.

Second, the short daughter isotope list I demonstrated are the only paths observed by the single proton transmutations I cited. You should notice that the far right column of the isotope decay list identifies that the sole decays have a 100% odd in the branching percentage because there's only one way out. The paths I cited stop at either a stable isotope or an isotope with a half life significantly greater than recorded human history.

You're right on the decay modes. It is electron capture not beta+. Thanks for the correction. However, for the purposes of discussing the daughter nuclides, whether the process is B+ decay or electron capture doesn't make much difference... the daughter nuclide will end up with one less proton and one more neutron than the parent.

I think you missed my point, though. What is to stop their process from occurring on the daughter nuclides of the decayed particle?

For example we'll start with the first one you listed, Ni58. As you said Ni58 + p -> Cu59 (81.5s half-life) quickly decays to Ni59 (76,000yr HL). But you stop there. Why stop their magical cold fusion process from occurring with the new "stable" Ni59? ie, Ni59 + p -> Cu60 (23.7m HL) which will decay to Ni60 (stable).

I could list the whole chian here but to keep it short, if we continue on with this process we will eventually end up at a stable copper nuclide (Cu63).

So why should we stop at copper then. On an atomic time table the 81.5 second half life of CU59 is a long time to remain as a target for these magical tunneling(?) protons. This then leads to ZN60 with an even longer half life of 2.38 minutes to be a target of these nuclear bullets. Next comes GA61 with a brief half life of 0.15 seconds. I'll stop here.

My point is that if we choose to only consider the paths that agrees with these charlatan's boast then we are falling for their illusion.

I'm also highly skeptical of their power production boast. Are they really claiming that they produced 470kW of power and no body noticed. Where did this power go? If they dumped this power back into the power grid I'd expect some corroborating complaints from the local power producers that an unauthorized power was dumping onto the grid.

This type of bogus "research" with outrageous claims corrupts the scientific community as a whole.

Actually dumping 470 KWH worth of energy as heat is not hard at all and can easily go unnoticed by almost everyone in a commercial site.

Converting 470 KWH into BTU's gives around 1.6 million BTU's which is less than what a large 400+ Hp commercial truck or construction machines radiator systems dissipate at times.

To be honest my home built wood burning boiler system can easily pass 1.1 million BTU's imparted into the water jackets at peak burn during an extended warm up cycle with good dry wood and the fire box is only 2' square by just over 4' long!

Now you're grasping my point that these types of claims require a real outsider review and not just an internet magazine article that can only repeat the lies given to a reporter. If 470 KWH resided only as heat production and not the implied usable net output power then it can become difficult to isolate operations waste heat from actual heat production.

I think we're coming to the same conclusion.

Thinking back, I seem to remember that nuclear reactions tend to move toward iron. I haven't taken the time to go through the calcs, but I would imagine that if one calculates the theoretical energy for it (Ni + H) and compares it to the energy released from the mass defect, one would find the reaction consumes more than it releases. I could be wrong, but that's my guess.

The way I see it is that if they are actually producing some 400+ KWH of heat for 5 and a half hours or more they either have developed one of the highest power to size batteries ever made or just maybe this thing does actually work.

More truthfully I too am waiting patiently for a considerably more solid scientific review of the process and design along with an explanation as to how it works based on what exactly they are using for the internal power source or fuel.

If I invented workable cold fusion the only information I would share with others is how they can hook up to my grid and where they should send the check to at the END of the month. When a cold fusion inventor is only interested in these two things we should take him seriously.

Good point! When they have it grid connected and want a check, I'll start to take them serious.

I suspect delusion more than hoax, but it could be both.

One does not get genuine peer review by starting up one's own journal, as these guys have done.

I bet this eventually goes down in flames (or perhaps lack of flames, so to speak.)

[Moreover, peer review isn't always what it's cracked up to be. If a poor "scientist" is reviewed by peers, who would also be poor "scientists", the results are not likely to be promising....] A better concept would be "qualified critical review."

I believe that the E-CAT does generate more energy than has to be provided to keep it working. Cold Fusion (now called LENR) has been studied for 20 years since Fleishman and Ponds were driven out of the USA for daring to state that they had demonstrated cold fusion. In the USA alone, there have been 9,000 such experiments. At this point in time, 85 % of cold fusion experiments actually succeed in generating more energy than has to be supplied.

The US Navy is one of the major supporters of this technology, and is rumored to be the buyer of Rossi's 1 Mwatt plant which was accepted and paid for on 10/28/2011. It is also true that NASA has been discussing the E-CAT seriously with ROssi.

Even if the E-CAT fails, LENR will succeed eventually. The need for oil for heat and electrical power will go the way of the buggy whip eventually.

As long as "researchers" of cold fusion (or its euphemism LENER) continue to practice outside the realm of peer review science no one will be willing to give them any credibility - and for good cause!

This is just another example of pathological science, regardless of what the process really is.

When something is presented that can actually stand up to and pass the peer review process, the scientific world will take notice.

Until then, they do not deserve serious attention.

An equally controversial and allied subject is biological transmutation.

Thank you for that link. I found the subject of transmutation very interesting. The phenomena indicates to me that elements can "fuse" with out being exposed to the temperatures of the sun. The experiments lead us to (at least) believe that plants and animals have been harvesting this form of energy for a long time!

Really . You've bought into the occult particle ideas that Kervan proposed. This is precisely the type of phenomena that fits the description that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. In the case of the calcium deprived chickens that could now produce egg shells when potassium rich food was granted I ask if the birds were denied access to calcium rich stones for their gizzards. It just might be that these birds could not transfer the calcium from these stones/sand without the potassium in their diet.

Selecting one item from the linked article about Biological Transmutations:

The article: O₁₆ + O₁₆ ® S₃₂ explained as "Nature moves particles from one nucleus to another."

Doorman's recollection: ¹⁶O + ¹⁶O → ³²S explained as "Requires a nuclear fusion reaction."

Doorman's observation: What organism requires the isotope ³²S in such quantity that it will seek the isotope ¹⁶O and make the sulfur itself?

I remember hearing this quite a while ago. To refresh the old memory box I checked Wikipedia. Interesting article.