Energy Catalyzer: Bologna University Test (with English subtitles: press "cc" to see the subtitles)

Uploaded by MayerAmschelBauer on 19.01.2011

There are some colleagues of the department of physics which are providing the calibration of different instruments that are used for measurement.
It is expected that within 10 minutes the calibration will be completed after which the experiment will begin and then we're almost there.
We are currently doing some preliminary steps, I immediately say what kind of measures would we do today.
Two types of measures. First of all, would we see the energy produced from this equipment and how we are going to do?
We would go to warm and vaporize the water. If we know which is the latent heat of evaporation
and how much water we are vaporizing for second, we could know which is the power that is produced from the apparatus.
Clearly this is a basic value, the real value is beigger than the power actually produced because the apparatus is not completely isolated now. Already this will give us an idea that the apparatus produces at least the power that we'll calculate.
Secondly we must be able to understand the source of this energy. And the first thing we must do, I think it's already been done, is to try to exclude that there is a chemical source.
Now the device is connected to a cylinder of hydrogen which is located here. And the more mundane explanation when someone sees something connected to a tank of hydrogen is to say, "Well it is burning hydrogen!"
Well, preeliminarly is we weigh the cylinder of hydrogen in order to see how much mass of hydrogen is in the tank and at the end of the test and we weigh again to see the hydrogen consumed.
The difference you would expect as an order of magnitude. Look now to be honest and scientifically correct the process that occurs within the reactor is unknown to me as it is unknown to anyone not working directly with Rossi.
It is covered by trade secret.
However talking in orders of magnitude as the difference in energy between chemical energy source and nuclear energy source as nuclear fusion for example, is the order of 10^6, then six orders of magnitude by a factor of one million.
It means that during the test we do not expect to measure hydrogen consumption except for the gas absorbed into the metals present in the cell. But we'll measure this, too.
How will we do this measurement? At the end of the test, we first start the unit, measure the I tell you that also measure other things, but measure produced energy.
At some point we will close the cylinder of hydrogen without shutting down the reactor and weigh the difference, we wait is a few grams. Few gram that could be interpreted as the hydrogen absorbed by metal.
At this point I have made some calculations, if I have a power of ten Kw then the apparatus should continue to work for 30 seconds per gram.
If the unit continues to operate for longer, the hydrogen in the apparatus does not justify the production by chemical energy source.
I can tell you that I have done a pre-test in the same laboratory, in 15 December, with the same reactor where we did exactly the same maneuver,
that is to close the hydrogen and the equipment continued to function for more than twenty minutes at full power, until it was late and we opened the water to turn it off and lower the temperature.
But we are not satisfied so we have brought by the department of physics two sodium iodide counters, for those who know it is a good scintillator.
is an inorganic scintillator, that have the function of little calorimeter.
Department of Physics, INFN(?), sorry. No, we got the two directors who are supporting us in this research, there is proffessor Zoccoli and proffessor Capiruppi, proffessor Capiruppi director of the department of physics and proffessor Zoccoli director of the INFN(?) in Bologna.
Then we took two sodium iodide scintillator and have them placed close to two holes in the shielding of lead and therefore also will measure the radiation output.
Why two revelators? And why these are in the back-to-back configuration ie in opposite directions?
Because when nuclear reactions occur, often are produced isotopes that decay by the so-called "Beta+ decay" with production of a positron and a neutrino is also clear that we do not have equipment to detect neutrino.
When this positron is producted immediately annihilates when touch the normal matter. The positron is an example of antimatter.
It annihilates immediately with an electron and produces two photons traveling in opposite directions, then the observation of production of photons in coincidence in opposite directions is a clear signature, it would be, well, we hope to test it, it would be a clear signature of "Beta+ decay".
Here this morning we have also measured the fund, the counts due to cosmic rays, you know that we are bombarded, nature gives us 200 particles per square meter per second by cosmic and natural origin.
So this morning whit the reactor shutted down, we did the fund counts obtained in ten seconds, some billing unit, for the solid angle, given for the direction in which the detectors are been oriented, clearly this fund will be deducted from the measure.
These measures, this set of interrelated measures we hope will give us the signature of the production of nuclear or at least non-chemical and probably nuclear energy by this reactor.
What you see here is the reactor itself, which I think is weighed in this moment, because the operations that we asked to do was also to weigh the entire reactor before and after the measurement. For the sake.
If inside the reactor there was an unknown chemical element, because I assure you I can't imagine what kind, that is slowly consumed, which is hidden to us and he is slowly consumed to produce energy, well at the end of the evening this item should weigh less.
The weigh, which is placed in the scale is sensitive to the tenth of a gram, so we should be sure that if something is not consumed ... It is a more check.
Okay now I go in to follow the final steps. I think that the reactor will be on soon, I see they are repositioning it in the measure position and that the reactor will be on soon.
What you see here, is the pump that brings water into the reactor at constant flow. This flow was measured. This yellow, this yellow here, is a peristaltic pump...
What? Right now I think 12 l/h but after I give you the exact number. In here there are all our equipment setup. We have chosen...
There's one thing to say, the setup we have chosen for nuclear measurements, was specifically chosen very simple.
When you can come to see it, people who know this type of electronic, can say, "Well that's electronic that is used here have at least twenty years." It's NIM(?) standard electronic.
I assure you that this ... we also have detectors ... What? If you want to bring in it, bring in it as well, we have also, Dr. Bianchini dealing with radiation protection
and that put near me a neutron detector, I hope that signs zero, because if something other than's bad for me...
We said that when we see the radiation protection expert who runs away, maybe we should run away too. No, but I say that whit this kind of electronic we tried to make a measurement that leaves no doubts.
If we put a setup, hyper-sophisticated, there could always be some bugs. We with two scintillators, a pair of amplifiers, the discriminatory ,an AND gate and some counters, we do everything.
Among other things I have to say, for those who know these things, we check also the accidental coincidences. Back to back that is ... Ok ... proffessor Stalnenos ...
...Now they gave us, gave us two holes in the shielding...That would be a spectrometer, they had provided us two holes back to back in the shielding of the reactor and that must be enough for us. However this is enought because we can measure something...
I can tell you that we would be in single counts for each counter. We'll measure the coincidences to see these famous "Beta+ decay" photons, but also to check,
delaying one of two counters ie putting it off time, completely uncorrelated to the other, to check the accidental coincidences,
those due to statistics. This is important because the value seen by the counters in coincidence, will be subtract from the total.
So...In December I made calorimetric measurements but I did not have the equipment to make gamma measurements and the unit was shielded completely.
At that time the radiation protection expert said, "Thank goodness we did not see anything." I did not know the thickness of the internal shielding. What? I do not know this because this is one of the parameters.
I can not respond because I don't know about any queries regarding the operation of reactor. I will answer questions about...What?
Yes, we will khow how the unite weight, especially we would know the difference in weight. However you have to ask questions about the unit at the engineer Rossi, who I'm sure he is prepared.
However he will answer if is the case, because there are issues. I also don't ask anything him, I just do my measurements. Okay I get back inside.
This test should demonstrate that with this technology we were able to obtain water heating, and thermal energy, which can be converted to electricity whit very low production costs.
This is the begin of a new physics. You can't find this in books and until yesterday several people said it was impossible.
Of course.
What happens there?
Basically happens that the hydrogen atoms are separated from their electrons and protons...but to answer you, I must speak a language a little difficult.
You try to simplify as much as possible.
The hydrogen is absorbed by nickel and then...nuclear atom of nickel at this point there is an atomic transmutation whit emission of...
The control unit of our systems are standard nuclear physics systems very well tested. An oscilloscope with a signal...for now there is no radiation.
Thank you very much for your presence I hope that everyone was able to enter and hope, i was able to explain the operation of the reactor at all.
I think so. The debate with the technicians and scientists will be long, so I give priority to reporters to answer their questions.
After we can talk more in-depth without the press that I think little affect.
The three curves that you've seen are one blue, one red and one yellow. The blue curve is the temperature curve.
The graph is a Cartesian axes graph, ie along the horizontal axis it shows the time in minutes and the ordinate, ie the vertical, shows the temperature in Celsius degrees.
You have seen that when we started the experiment the three lines were all three very close in the sense that we had about 13/15 degrees of temperature for both the incoming water and the outcoming water.
You who have been inside you saw the two thermocouples. Thermocouples are the instruments for measuring temperature.
Sorry maybe I do mundane explanations but I assume because you are reporter to talk to non-experts. So the thermocouples gave us the various temperatures. You can see the yellow line at one point go up.
Now the real problem is to understand why the yellow line at one point go up. Why did we get over 100 degrees centigrade vaporizing water?
Calculating the heat of vaporization that is the energy required to convert water into steam, and calculating the energy required to heat water,
ie the heat capacity of water, ie the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of one degree or more, we've got, now I will not say about the formulas because we would complicate the matter,
whit not difficultous calculation we can say that, the amount of water if I remember correctly it was around 16/17 kg/h of water,
and given the heat of vaporization, the amount of energy we have produced was around 10/12 kWh/h of energy flow out.
The average consumption in entry that is the energy that we consumed to produce these 12000W was an average of 600/700 W.
To answer your question about what are these three lines.
The red line does not mean anything because it is only the ambient temperature is the temperature of the room where we were.
The blue line is the inlet temperature, is the temperature of incoming water.
The yellow line is the water temperature after the reactor, and when the temperature was 101 was not water of course, it was steam.
One of the technicians had used an instrument that measures the dryness of the steam and actually everything was steam and not a mixture of steam and water.
This means that was dry steam. The steam was dry so we can easily confer about 600W, which is the energy of vaporization for each kg of water, we can give them the energy produced.
I hope I have answered your question.
The experiment was performed by us and we were subject to review.
We've brought this reactor to be reviewed, people who have done this test, which now give me the exact numbers of what happened, are professors at the University of Bologna.
They are strangers to the project and are not our employees.
Reactor is very generic term for any plant in which reactions of any kind take place.
So say the reactor is a bit like animals, we like to call it an energy catalyser.
Then there is a big question, behind this process there are theoretical problems that have not yet been resolved.
That is, quite honestly, I must say that we have just hypothesized from a physical point of view the reason why these results are obtained.
An exact theory about these reactions still needs much study.
After this study it's possible to have considerable improvement. Today we had a ratio of 15, ie we have generated about 15 times the energy input.
In my opinion we can get much more. There are reasons related to security to stay within the absolute maximum. Safety limits, so we don't overload the reactor that could give much more.
There is still much to we have the Ford T but we can get the Formula 1.
It's possible to put these modules in series or in parallel.
If you want to get higher temperature has to put them in series, is similar to what you do with electric batteries, if you wants to raise the voltage put them in series if you wants to raise the amperage put them in parallel.
In this case if you want to raise the temperature puts them in series, if you want to increase the heat amount at constant temperature puts them in parallel.
Important international agreements have been reached. In particular I do not know if they want to say or not, but in this room there are our partners who have started a process of extremely high level for the mass production of this unit.
If there aren't any questions from journalists, the debate is open to all.
Clearly I was quite curious about the nuclear part.
Consistent with the small instruments that I have brought it appears that there is a slight increase in general environmental gamma radiation.
About 50% unstable increase and this is very important, it means that this appear to not be an imbroglio as if it was stable because stable increase can be generated by a hidden source.
But look at now is one year.
The system was unstable, very good sign from my point of view, I asked to take measures ...
Thank you.
Of course. I asked you to make spectrum measurements to understand what was the gamma energy.
You said that, in this way I understood all then stopped me. As a scientist I am very sorry for this.
Yes, because you, teacher, are prepared and too intelligent to not understand that you, with that instrument, were able to read the inside of reactor.
I know, but when one calls scientists it is clear that he must play along.
I know but when the scientist accepts industrials man bid...
All right then, anyway, there is another point that perhaps would be, I do not know, reproducible.
I don't hear you, could you turn up the volume?
Then I observed two things. There was a kind of small gamma flash when you started the unit, I told this also to my colleagues, and another when you turned it off.
Now it's hard to believe that an electromagnetic disturbance was able to disturb two independent battery instruments, so it's interesting.
What I do not understand is why measurements of Beta+ gave values nearly zero?
Thank you, I am not on that fact in a position to respond because my goal is energetic. My interest is just that I supply 400W and I take 12KW...
I understand, however, also a nuclear power sign would be very nice here.
I know he's right, but inside the reactor is made extremely complex despite appearances, so it may be that the internal geometry of the reactor system hidden gamma rays.
No geometry can hidden gamma rays. Ok, thanks.
Thank you.
I wanted to make a comment, more a question than a comment. About gamma because I have lost this information, which obviously my friend had.
I understand that there are not measures of coincidence in this test. There aren't?
The gamma measurements. No gamma detected.
Ok I don't think that the lack of gammas is a problem I would expect it...
Frankly, even I, as rightly said prof. Cellani. Would be the icing on the cake.
I would expect however, no annihilation of positrons, because if I understand your theory, somehow, the protons enter into the nucleus of nickel isotopes and move these to copper, then they move back to nickel.
However, they move the items on the right side of the nuclides table.
It is known that the right side of the nuclides table are Beta- decays, and then if your interpretation was correct I don't expect any positrons emission.
What you said is plausible.
Ok thank you.
Thank you.
This is the third time I see an experience of Rossi-Focardi. I worked in parallel with my friend Focardi since 1990 but the level of production was 1/2/3W, accurately measured with very accurate calorimetry.
We have never exceeded this amount that appears Rossi-Focardi today exceede unequivocally and for the third time. I am a chemical physicist, and then I'm not a nuclear physicist.
I study about the periphery of the nucleus of the atom and not about nucleus so I ask some advice to nuclear physicists. I have a possible interpretation.
Focardi-Rossi speculate that to happen, the Beta+ and Beta- decay, it is clear that this produce two gamma rays with geometry of 180°.
I thought today we were also able to see this isotropy of the radioactivity. But she told me that this was a bit difficult experimentally.
Today, though, I have found that through two holes in the reactor placed antisymmetric there is a difference of gamma radiation as intensity, I do not know about frequency, but as intensity definitely.
Intuitively I would like to give an explanation for the lack, or at least the absorption of gamma photons that occurs in the bulk of the crystal lattice. There are three effects to be taken into account.
The first is the effect Mössbauer ie through the recoil part of these gamma rays could be transformed into kinetic energy of the nucleus of formed copper.
In the end by my friend Dufour(journal-of-nuclear-physics) only 1% of the gamma energy is absorbed by the Mössbauer system recoil.
The second effect that could be responsible for the absorption of these gamma rays is the inside photoelectric effect. In fact this is not just a surface phenomenon.
It's a surface phenomenon because we tried it with ultraviolet rays, but any photon, or more accurately any photon from 0 to 50 keV, is 100% converted into kinetic energy apart from the work of electrons extraction.
The rest of the photon is converted into kinetic energy. This means kinetic energy in the order of 500 keV. A terrible kinetic energy of the electrons in the crystal lattice.
In pratical terms, this energy is thermal energy in the de-localized plasma in Fermi band, the conductivity band. So that is transformed into kinetic energy ie heat.
It must be said, however, that the photoelectric effect internal work up to 50 KeV but from 50 KeV up to 500 keV does not work.
There is another concomitant effect in help that is the effect Conton(?) Depending on the angle that can create a myriad of gamma frequencies that can also transform them into heat energy through the photoelectric effect that is mobilizing electrons.
So I think we need to deepen this. This is an intuitive approach, I think it would be a theoretical work, with the time-dependent perturbation theory, with the appropriate Hamiltonian.
Unfortunately, we chemical physical study the periphery of the atom and the potential energy of the nucleus and the nucleus Hamiltonian is not in our competence.
It is therefore necessary to combine the two experiences of the periphery of the atom that chemists and chemical physicists with nuclear physicists experience who know better how it's formed the nucleus.
It is therefore necessary to try to find a possible interpretation, dear friends.
Pending the possible interpretation I conclude by saying that the master Watt, the master blacksmith Watts, had built the first steam engine and Thompson, Carnot came later to interpret with theory, but much later.
So go right ahead with a little optimism. Thanks friends.
I understand there is only one allotropic phase, not many phases. In terms of crystallographic the phase is unique.
So this explanation of the possible channels to justify this huge input of energy localized at the level of Armstrong or a few Armstrong, able to transalte a light nuclide to a more heavy nuclide overcoming the electrostatic barrier, is not.
This because there is not a different allotropic phase of nickel, which would explain the difference in energy or rather the energy needed to trigger the process.
However if there are, like Sergio confirm, significant structural changes detected by electron microscopy or I don't know with any kind of examination not too intimate in the material, this could also be a true indication that hydrogen or nickel are not the fuel but the potential energy contained in the nickel matrix.
Yes, I still have images of the samples analyzed with the electron microscope. So we can verify this with your point of view and evaluate this effect.
I curious to know if in addition to nickel, other metals can be used for this purpose?
Well, the answer is yes.
Ok thanks.
He said that you have analyzed with SIMS spectroscopy material that was six months in reaction. In the article you have published it says that you have seen a change in the isotopic ratio of two copper isotopes. The question is...
No nickel...
No it talk about copper.
Oh ... copper...
I wanted to know if there had been changes in the nickel, too. And how big were they?
Yes, Do you remember them? We have published them.
Online there is not.
Altought, we have also noticed changes in the nickel isotopes. Instead copper was produced and consists of a rare isotope that would normally not be found.
I did not remember that we had published it. The difference of the isotopes we found especially in the nickel.
We started with a nickel reactor loaded with 59 (?) And we ended six months after and as peak there was more copper than nickel.
Of course.
Gentlemen, we thank you so much for taking part in this test. Your presence, your kindness and your expertise are the encouragement to go forward. Thank you very much.