Foreword: I gave Ric Werme permission to do this essay. I don’t have any doubt that the original Cold Fusion research was seriously flawed. That said, this recent new development using a different process is getting some interest, so let’s approach it skeptically to see what merit it has, if any. – Anthony
Cold fusion isn’t usual fare for WUWT, at best it’s not a focus here, at worst it’s sorry science, and we talk about that enough already. However, it never has died, and this week there’s news about it going commercial. Well, it won’t be available for a couple years or so, but the excitement comes from a device that takes 400 watts of electrical power in and produces 12,000 watts of heat out.
Most people regard cold fusion as a black eye on science. It’s credited with the advent of science by press release and its extraordinary claims were hard to reproduce. Yet, unlike the polywater fiasco of the 1970s, cold fusion has never been explained away and several experiments have been successfully reproduced. Neutrons, tritium, and other products kept some researchers working long after others had given up. Even muons (from Svensmark’s Chilling Stars) have been suggested as a catalyst. Everyone agrees that theoretical help would provide a lot of guidance, but for something that flies in the face of accepted theory, little help has come from that.
Grandiose claims of changing the world have been lowered to “show me something that replaces my water heater.” Attempts at scaling up the experiments that could be reproduced all failed. Even had they worked, a lot of systems used palladium. There’s not enough of that to change the world.
As media attention waned, the field stayed alive and new avenues explored. Some people active in the early days of Pons & Fleishman’s press conference are still tracking research, and research has continued around the world. There are publications and journals, and conferences and research by the US Navy. And controversy about a decision to not publish the proceedings of a recent conference.
The term “Cold Fusion” has been deprecated, as focus remains on generating heat, and heat to run a steam turbine efficiently is definitely not cold. Nor is it the 30 million degrees that “Hot Fusion” needs. The preferred terms now are LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions) and CANR (Chemically Assisted Nuclear Reactions). I’ll call it cold fusion.
I keep a Google alert for news, and check in from time to time, and last week came across notice of a press conference about a cold fusion system that is going commercial. The reports beforehand and the reports afterward said little useful, but some details are making it out. Whatever is going on is interesting enough to pay attention to, and since WUWT has developed a good record for breaking news, it’s worth a post.
The bottom line is that Italian scientists Sergio Focardi and Andrea Rossi have a unit they claim takes in 400 watts of electricity and, with the assistance of nickel-hydrogen fusion, puts out 12 kilowatts of heat. Okay, that’s interesting and the power amplification doesn’t require some of the extremely careful calorimetry early experiments needed. The elements involved are affordable and if it works, things become interesting. (There are undisclosed “additives” to consider too.) The reactor is going commercial in the next few years, which may or may not mean it’s ready.
Several details have not been disclosed, but there will be a paper out on Monday. Dr. Rossi reports:
Yes, I confirm that Monday Jan 24 the Bologna University Report will be published on the Journal Of Nuclear Physics. I repeat that everybody will be allowed to use it in every kind of publication, online, paper, written, spoken, without need of any permission. It will be not put on it the copyright.
Major caveat – the Journal Of Nuclear Physics is Rossi’s blog. Peer review is:
All the articles published on the Journal Of Nuclear Physics are Peer Reviewed. The Peer Review of every paper is made by at least one University Physics Professor.
So it’s not like they’re getting published in Nature, Scientific American, or even a reputable journal. Still, it ought to be a welcome addition.
The mechanism involved is claimed to be fusion between nickel and hydrogen. This is a bit unusual, as the typical claims are for reactions involving deuterium (proton + one neutron) and tritium (proton + two neutrons) with the gas filtering into a palladium lattice. In this case, it’s reacting with the substrate.
Nickel has several isotopes that naturally occur, the belief is that all participate in the reactions. In http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Rossi-Focardi_paper.pdf discusses finding copper, which has one more proton than nickel, and various isotopes that do not occur in natural nickel. It also observes that gamma radiation is not observed while the reactor was running. Comments in other articles make suggestions about why that is. Apparently they see a short burst of gamma waves when the apparatus is shutdown.
Rossi leaves several hints in his comments, e.g. instability when the pressure of the hydrogen is increased, including explosions. (The commercial unit is designed to need enough electrical power so it can be shut down reliably.)
The best summary of the calorimetry involved is by Jed Rothwell who has been involved since the early days. He notes:
The test run on January 14 lasted for 1 hour. After the first 30 minutes the outlet flow became dry steam. The outlet temperature reached 101°C. The enthalpy during the last 30 minutes can be computed very simply, based on the heat capacity of water (4.2 kJ/kgK) and heat of vaporization of water (2260 kJ/kg):
Mass of water 8.8 kg
Temperature change 87°C
Energy to bring water to 100°C: 87°C*4.2*8.8 kg = 3,216 kJ
Energy to vaporize 8.8 kg of water: 2260*8.8 = 19,888 kJ
Total: 23,107 kJ
Duration 30 minutes = 1800 seconds
Power 12,837 W, minus auxiliary power ~12 kW
There were two potential ways in which input power might have been measured incorrectly: heater power, and the hydrogen, which might have burned if air had been present in the cell.
The heater power was measured at 400 W. It could not have been much higher that this, because it is plugged into an ordinary wall socket, which cannot supply 12 kW. Even if a wall socket could supply 12 kW, the heater electric wire would burn.
During the test runs less than 0.1 g of hydrogen was consumed. 0.1 g of hydrogen is 0.1 mole, which makes 0.05 mole of water. The heat of formation of water is 286 kJ/mole, so if the hydrogen had been burned it would have produced less than 14.3 kJ.
What should we make of all this? In a skeptical group like this, some healthy skepticism is warranted. On the other hand, the energy release is impressive and very hard to explain chemically or as physical storage in a crystal lattice. It will be interesting to see how things develop.
Interesting, socially speaking. The ratio of post types is waaaaay off standard here.
Sure, the insults fly on occasion on the hotter-topic threads, but generally the signal-to-noise ratio is fairly high here.
This one is about 1/3 cautious optimism, 1/3 questions and 1/3 insults. Kind of mushing things into categories, but you get the idea.
And the insults are averaging the *least* thoughtful posts (with exceptions) (i.e. the “free energy/perpetual motion” slams, which is not the claim).
I don’t know whether there’s anything to the device in question, and I suspect very few people posting here do. I do recall that the reaction to Pons and Fleischmann was pretty vitriolic at the time, and that kind of surprised me. I figured it would be more of an “Oh, that didn’t work? Well, let’s move on.” It, however, wasn’t.
Instead, it seems to have become a question of dogma – if you’re “in the club” you deride the subject. Alternatively, if you define yourself as “outside the club” you tend to defend it. I would think a higher percentage of people would take the “who can say” approach they do to most research.
I always said science was just as polarized and personal as other fields.
Domenic,
Oxidation, a chemical process that uses Oxygen to break down complex chemicals, produces heat as do many exothermic chemical reactions. There is no nuclear process occuring here and no conversion of mass into energy.
He was harangued in the columns of The New York Times (May 2, 1998) by one Robert L Park, a Professor of Physics at the University of Maryland, and gratuitously accused of being in the pay of the petroleum industry.
Uhu. Some people make careers out of making sure that no one thinks “outside the box.”
Topics like this are always a lot of fun, but they bring all the kook posters out of the woodwork and don’t help the image of WUWT.
I would much rather be reading cold fusion posts at realclimate.org.
There doesn’t seem to be much agreement on the difference between chemical and nuclear reactions on this board. As far as I know chemical reactions involve the formation and breakage of chemical (electrostatic) bonds that hold atoms together in chemical structures. Nuclear reactions involve the breaking or formation of nuclear bonds (strong and weak nuclear forces) that actually alter the atom causing annihilation of transmutation (conversion of an element (like Ni to Cu)). Gravity, as it is currently understood, is a distortion in spatetime caused by the mass of an object.
If there is no common acceptance of these (or other) principles then there can be no conversation. Calling chemical reactions nuclear reactions, on a whim negates any possibility of dialog.
Should be annihilation or transmutation in last post.
Ken Lydell says:
January 23, 2011 at 11:08 am
“Irving Langmuir coined the phrase pathological science in a talk in 1953….”
Thank you for saving me the effort of posting the links. This, and AGW, are the definition of Pathalgical Science.
Anyone care to debate that these guys have reinvented Raney Nickel? Going once…going twice….
That looks a lot like metaphysics already 🙂 We could also start talking about metaphysics’ possible worlds and all, as there was even a very veiled suggestion about that (or so I took it), but we had better stick to the non-meta stuff 🙂
But yes,…. infinities, that’s appealing…
Right, but not mass to energy, of course. The energy released here comes strictly from molecular chemical bonds, from the breaking down of molecules, respecting the conservation of mass.
I am reasonably certain that 0.4kW from a wall socket in the US is minimal; the maximum is very likely to be at least 5 times that figure, in most houses (unless there is something of which I am ignorant, such as the maximum cross-sectional area of pos & neg power cable allowed). That was my initial response to the o.4kW in, 12kW out hypothesis. Perhaps it is no wonder, if true, that the “inventors” wanted to call it ‘cold’ fusion. There’s quite an amount of heat energy there!
If it sounds too good to be true, then…
Wesley Bruce (11.45 pm) and Brian Josephson (2:33 am) have made sensitive, informed comments. Several have left some very telling URL’s. Sadly I found many comments here to be of the snide “pass the popcorn” variety. After investigating several of the links carefully, and reading up about transmutation of elements by plants (Prof Kervran), I am left with no doubt whatsoever that there is something serious in LENR. And we can choose to be part of this important discovery process – if we do the homework. Some of the homework is simply paying attention and applying commonsense. Like, noticing the number of excellent websites talking about LENR; the number of excellent contributors from around the world; the presence of university professors and involvement of university departments; quotes like these:
because I recognize other people who know the feeling of bearing unjust ridicule, and continuing to fight for truth, like I’ve known and climate skeptics have known – the same quality of quotes as I frequently see here. I find no signs of thimblerigging hucksters here.
It isn’t just two Italians out to make a packet, a name, whatever. It’s a whole movement, many of whom are qualified and skeptical scientists and engineers. IOW, another group that mainstream science has sidelined, just like us. IMHO they deserve intelligent appraisal and qualified support from us
Merovign says:
January 23, 2011 at 12:10 pm
I do recall that the reaction to Pons and Fleischmann was pretty vitriolic at the time, and that kind of surprised me. I figured it would be more of an “Oh, that didn’t work? Well, let’s move on.” It, however, wasn’t.
You are being unfair to the average Joe physicist. I lived through that time and I do not think there was a solid state or nuclear or even high energy physicist who was not at first very interested, many in a positive sense because it was something unexpected and new. What you describe is the backlash, when it was realized that the numbers did not add up. Some people reacted as if they had been taken in. Most just moved on.
I just hope that this claim is not along the lines of the infamous Blacklight Power crowd where for several years, public demonstrations and trial deployments have been promised just a few months away for over 3 years now. The goalposts move continuously.
I’ve been following Cold Fusion since the original controversy, and there is actually a growing body of evidence to support it, and nickel is what most of the latest papers I’ve actually read have been focused on. The short form? Excess heat and radiation have been observed in experiments, the problem? It’s poorly understood, and it’s a trial and error process to actually get a system that produces the effect. Since the MIT “expose” by hot fusion researchers who found negative results (by raising the baseline of their measurements above the actual positive results they found, a tactic that made Eugene Mallove, the then current PR person for MIT resign in protest upon discovery) “Mainstream science” has treated LENR as anathema, despite the thousands of positive results found and published in peer reviewed journals outside the US and Europe. Even the US NAVY has found positive LENR results.
The best theory I’ve heard so far is that microscopic channels in the nickel could be exerting sufficient casimir forces on the hydrogen to cause small amounts of fusion. As we can’t study the nickel at this level, it’s very hard to determine the precise diameter of a channel needed to cause the effect. This theory would also explain the BLP reports as basically a cold fusion effect too, and not “hydrinos” as it’s maker claims.
I’m skeptical about THIS particular device primarily because of the secrecy involved in the “extra ingredients” but I’m basically reserving judgement for the time being. I can understand the desire to keep the precise details under wraps for business purposes. My primary annoyance is the unprofessional way it’s been treated in such mainstream journals such as Physorg, who basically wrote an article for no other purpose but to cast aspersions on the possibility.
It seems that there is a very rare and expensive and unstable isotope of Ni that transmutes to Cu in a relatively short period of time. Doesn’t seem to be practical or cost-effective.
From nextbigfuture.com:
< “Nickel-64 can be purchased at 95% enrichment for about $100,000 for 5 grams. The ratio of isotopes is not controversial. Can these reactions be catalyzed ? Is that what is happening with many LENR and Blacklight Power experiments ?
I say yes, but experiments can be done to confirm or falsify this theory.
This theory has been updated by Jones Beene (H/T to Froarty in the comments)
An earlier version of the theory focused on Halo Nuclei but now it does not.
The O-P effect would give 59Ni as the activated nucleus – but this has a very long half-lie – thousands of years so that does not help us very much. However, with 64Ni you get 65Ni as the activated nucleus and it has a 2.5 hr half life and decays to copper. This is the range half-life that can explain “heat after death” and also the delay in heat buildup over time.
The Oppenheimer-Phillips process, or deuteron stripping reaction, is a type of deuteron-induced nuclear reaction which depends on charge shielding. In this process, the neutron component of an energetic deuteron fuses with a target nucleus, transmuting the target to a heavier isotope while ejecting a proton. An example is the nuclear transmutation of carbon-12 to carbon-13.
Let us make the clear distinction that this is a fusion reaction, followed by beta day of the heavier nucleus. The fusion is between deuterium and nickel. The ash is a proton, and eventually a beta particle and a transmuted element (to copper). The mechanics of interaction allow a nuclear fusion interaction to take place at much lower energies than would be expected from a calculation of the Coulomb barrier between a deuteron and a target nucleus.
This is because as the deuteron approaches the positively charged target nucleus, it experiences a charge polarization where the “proton-end” faces away from the target and the “neutron-end” faces towards the target. The deuteron must be accelerated of course, but the rate of acceleration, being a function of time, is expected to be influenced by time distortion within a Casimir cavity. In this hypothesis, the Casimir cavity of 2-10 nm is required. The fusion proceeds when the binding energy of the approaching neutron and the target nucleus exceeds the binding energy of the deuteron and the trailing proton. That proton is then repelled from the new heavier nucleus. This is one indication of the reaction – hydrogen in place of deuterium – which will poison the reaction unless removed. “>
Berényi Péter says:
You are right if you look at the mass deficit. But there is something else: Look at the spin of the nuclei involved:
Ni 58 0 Cu 59 3/2
60 3/2 61 3/2
61 3/2 62 1
62 0 63 3/2
64 0 65 3/2
The proton carries a spin 1/2. The reactions proposed therefore violate the conservation of spin, a very fundamental conservation law at the sub-atomic level.
Hence, those reactions will not occur, not in nature, not in the machine built by the authors. The only way the spin balance could be restored is if the excess spin is carried away by neutrinos, which then also have to take away energy. That will reduce the yield of the reaction to the point that you would have to add energy to create those neutrinos. That’s why I said the reaction would be endothermic.
But residential heating consumes huge amounts of energy.
And low-quality heat is also good enough for the desalinization of water.
Those two applications alone would be revolutionary, even though electrical generation wouldn’t be possible.
Loodt Pretorius says: January 23, 2011 at 6:16 am
RockyRoad says: January 23, 2011 at 9:27 am
_Jim says:
January 23, 2011 at 10:30 am
January 23, 2011 at 10:47 am
January 23, 2011 at 10:57 am
More informed comments. Thanks. It all helps build up informed foundations. Better still to check those from the horse’s mouth, and ask worrying questions in the LENR blogs and forums, from the most-likely appropriate group of experts.
blog here
blog here
blog here – worth a read – salutary point
blog here
PS: And a third application: warming a weater heater.
Oops–water heater.
Valkyrie Ice says: January 23, 2011 at 1:51 pm
Are you referring to a dishonest trick whereby Pons & Fleischman were incorrectly “discredited” because if so can you give a reference? I suspect this story is correct, but as Washington / Cromwell said (take your pick) “trust in God but keep your powder dry”.
For the benefit of the ‘chemical priests’ making their points of view known here…
I am always hesitant to use Wikipedia as a reference. However, in this case the article on mass-energy equivalence is a reasonable summary of E=MC^2, with no major bias that I can detect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%3Dmc%C2%B2
Any time energy is generated, the process can be evaluated from an E = mc2 perspective. For instance, the “Gadget”-style bomb used in the Trinity test and the bombing of Nagasaki had an explosive yield equivalent to 21 kt of TNT. About 1 kg of the approximately 6.15 kg of plutonium in each of these bombs fissioned into lighter elements totaling almost exactly one gram less, after cooling [The heat, light, and electromagnetic radiation released in this explosion carried the missing one gram of mass.][10] This occurs because nuclear binding energy is released whenever elements with more than 62 nucleons fission.
Another example is hydroelectric generation. The electrical energy produced by Grand Coulee Dam’s turbines every 3.7 hours represents one gram of mass. This mass passes to the electrical devices which are powered by the generators (such as lights in cities), where it appears as a gram of heat and light.[11] Turbine designers look at their equations in terms of pressure, torque, and RPM. However, Einstein’s equations show that all energy has mass, and thus the electrical energy produced by a dam’s generators, and the heat and light which result from it, all retain their mass, which is equivalent to the energy. The potential energy—and equivalent mass—represented by the waters of the Columbia River as it descends to the Pacific Ocean would be converted to heat due to viscous friction and the turbulence of white water rapids and waterfalls were it not for the dam and its generators. This heat would remain as mass on site at the water, were it not for the equipment which converted some of this potential and kinetic energy into electrical energy, which can be moved from place to place (taking mass with it).
Whenever energy is added to a system, the system gains mass.
A spring’s mass increases whenever it is put into compression or tension. Its added mass arises from the added potential energy stored within it, which is bound in the stretched chemical (electron) bonds linking the atoms within the spring.
Raising the temperature of an object (increasing its heat energy) increases its mass. For example, consider the world’s primary mass standard for the kilogram, made of platinum/iridium. If its temperature is allowed to change by 1°C, its mass will change by 1.5 picograms (1 pg = 1 × 10−12 g).[12]
A spinning ball will weigh more than a ball that is not spinning. Its increase of mass is exactly the equivalent of the mass of energy of rotation, which is itself the sum of the kinetic energies of all the moving parts of the ball. For example, the Earth itself is more massive due to its daily rotation, than it would be with no rotation. This rotational energy (2.14 x 1029 J) represents 2.38 billion metric tons of added mass.[13]
This reminds me of one of Martin Gardner’s articles, back when I still read Scientific American: Gardner’s creation, Dr. Irving Joshua Matrix, was demonstrating perpetual motion to venture capitalists (as I recall, the machine was a conveyor float type apparatus). Of course the machine’s power source eventually ran out, but by then Dr. Matrix had absconded with the investors’ money.
Yes, yes, “cold fusion”/LENR isn’t perpetual motion, but it’s the next best thing. And if there are gigabucks to be made from it, and if you’re weeks from commercial application, you don’t announce to the world what you’re doing until you’ve done it, especially if it’s not yet patented. Of course that’s exactly what you do if all you have is diddly and need money to produce more of it.
Now if in 15 years we’re all driving flying cars powered by Mr. Fusion, I’ll eat my words. Until then, I lump LENR in with astrology, perpetual motion, ESP, nuclear winter, CAGW, sustainability, etc., and have a good laugh at the expense of the true believers.
Dr. Matrix: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Joshua_Matrix
Okay, I finally have time to join in and comment on comments. This round is just comments on just Focardi and Rossi
I did something I’ve never done – I printed out a WUWT page. I got it down to 25 paper pages by disabling CSS and printing just the meat. Curious – Comments got numbers! I guess they’re just not available in this WP style.
Jryan says:
January 22, 2011 at 10:53 pm
> There is still a lot of thought that needs to go into the commercial viability of the reactor. It takes a lot of energy to produce hydrogen, assuming they need it in pure form. If it is being sequestered in the process then you have to consider the energy it took to produce that hydrogen.
It would have had to start in the system. Rothwell notes the hydrogen supply released 0.1 g of hydrogen. Burning that would release 14.3kJ. Assuming all the water vaporizedthe system generated 23,107 kJ, so they would have had to have 162 g of hydrogen to do that.
—–
Carl Bussjaeger says:
January 23, 2011 at 12:49 am
> “So it’s not like they’re getting published in Nature, Scientific American, or even a reputable journal.”
> I almost don’t care if this proves out or not. This line makes it all worthwhile.
That joke sort of fell off my fingers. I dithered on keeping it or purging it, but in the end it stayed. I apologize to everyone who read it while sipping their morning coffee.
—–
peter_ga says:
January 23, 2011 at 2:54 am
> Would there not be waste heat of some sort? Getting rid of it implies some sort of expense or environmental impact.
That’s one of the reasons the bar was lowered to “basement water heater”. While there are various low temperature heat engines around, their absolute efficiency is low unless you have a very cold heat dump.
The low temp weather forecast here in New Hampshire tonight is -15°F, I don’t know what that is in °C off the top of my head, less than -25 I think. I’d be happy with something that heats water tonight!
—–
Dave Springer says:
January 23, 2011 at 4:00 am
> Oh gawd! The Popular Science article…. So I’ve got two odd personal connections into this cold fusion project. I hope it’s for real!
Oh good – if things turn ugly, I’ll try shifting some of the blame on to you! 🙂
—–
anna v says:
January 23, 2011 at 5:06 am
> This should be up my alley.
Can you do me a favor? I’m probably overreacting, or remembering the first day of Climategate or even the first days of P & F, but I have no confidence in Rossi’s blog host handling a big load.
Can you keep an eye on it and make a copy of Monday’s paper as soon as you see it? Then make sure Anthony or I have it too. My Email address is in my website.
—–
Area Man says:
January 23, 2011 at 5:07 am
> This statement “the commercial unit is designed to need enough electrical power so it can be shut down reliably” is a bit ominous….
The reports of explosions are even more ominous! There are a few interesting tidbits and warning in Rossi’s comments in his blog. Near as I can figure, increasing the hydrogen pressure reduces the input energy needed. Hopefully tomorrow’s paper will clarify that.
—–
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
January 23, 2011 at 6:03 am
> It uses a tube filled with nickel powder, pressurized and heated. They point to copper in the recovered nickel powder as proof the fusion reaction occurred.
> The tube is made of copper.
I missed that last night. My fuzzy memory says that copper is a common contaminant in nickel. Either way, it’s a very good skeptical point to keep in mind. Maybe I’ll come up with a list.
One big problem in these fusion systems is that some of the fusion products are in truly trace amounts. Measuring them has triggered embarrassment and satisfaction. This system at least has runs producing a lot of joules, I’d hope that will make finding reaction products easier than most. Some of the comments in the papers about the device (e.g. peak at 63-65 weight) are just not satisfactory. Monday, Monday.
—–
J.Hansford says:
January 23, 2011 at 7:15 am
> So….. They have themselves a fuel cell?
No. Fuel cells produce electricity. This device consumes electricity.
—–
Frank says:
January 23, 2011 at 8:32 am
> … there was a subsequent beta+ decay (positron) radiation that was the supposed source of heat through positron / electron annihilation. That would in fact make this an antimatter reactor.
Yeah, isn’t that neat? Just like a thunderstorm! 🙂
> Fantastic if true, but how the proton overcomes the coloumb barrier is still very unclear to me.
It’s still very unclear to the physicists too.
—–
Drew Latta says:
January 23, 2011 at 9:27 am
> In the article this is said:
> “The proof comes with the team’s examination of the nickel material after use – the copper is plainly there – found using an atomic microscope at the University of Bologna.”
> A) ‘Atomic microscope’ suggests a high-resolution transmission electron microscope
What they meant was unclear to me. I was thinking “atomic force” microscope, but that would imply surface effects, which would be okay, maybe. The non-native english in the blog introduces some ambiguities.
> B) Copper contamination is the most common form of contamination in all forms of TEM and HR-TEM. In fact, carbon coated Cu grids are used to prepare and provide support to samples in the transmitted electron beam. Therefore, unless you use another kind of grid, you’re going to have Cu contamination by default.
One for the list. (C) too).
—–
Dave Springer says:
January 23, 2011 at 10:48 am
> … Steam turbines require superheated dry steam at very high pressure. My understanding at this point is that the catalytic substrate is destroyed by high temperature so this thing right now can only provide low-quality heat i.e. above the boiling point of water but not hot enough to drive a steam turbine.
I missed that last night. Would a hybrid system where the Rossi device boils water and a second stage to raise the temperature to something thermodynamically useful make sense? Probably not – steam turbines exhaust steam, not water.
> Just as an aside if low quality heat were usable for power generation everybody and his brother would have solar hot water heaters on their roof the low-quality heat of which would be used to drive a steam turbine generator to provide electricity for the house.
There is something to be said for water heaters that work at night….
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=5#comments
Watch out for this Tomorrow, Central European time, so it could be very early morning US time. Think interesting times are acoming:
>>Andrea Rossi
January 21st, 2011 at 6:59 PM
WARNING TO ALL OUR READERS:
THE REPORT OF THE BOLOGNA UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS REGARDING THE TEST MADE ON JANUARY 14TH WILL BE PUBLISHED ON THE JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR PHYSICS ON MONDAY JANUARY 24TH. THE REPORT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR FREE PUBLICATION IN ALL THE BLOGS AND MAGAZINES.
A.R.<<