Rossi's invention: unlimited, safe and inexpensive energy or wishful thinking? Reporting from Fort Lee, New Jersey

Rossi's invention: unlimited, safe and inexpensive energy or wishful thinking?

Ludwik Kowalski, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus, Montclair State University

It is difficult to remain optimistic about the future, considering problems of population growth and limited supplies of energy. Our main fuels--oil, natural gas, and coal--are likely to be exhausted in the foreseeable future. Switching to alternative energy sources as soon as possible is imperative.

One promising initiative in that direction was undertaken by an Italian inventor, Andrea Rossi. His tabletop reactor--a cylinder containing one hundred grams (nearly 1/4 lb) of powdered nickel mixed with a "secret catalyzer"--was demonstrated at Bologna University on January 16, 2011. Thermal energy was generated at the rate of nearly 20 kW while common hydrogen gas flowed through the powder. The device generated about 15 times more energy than it used [1]. A repeat demonstration in February produced similar results. Not surprisingly, his reactor, named E-cat, became the center of international attention [2,3,4,5]; the world is waiting for new, inexpensive and danger-free generators of energy, to replace coal-powered plants and traditional nuclear reactors.

It is very unlikely that the excess energy, if any, produced by Rossi's reactor is due to cold nuclear fusion of hydrogen with nickel, as he claims. The probability of this is practically zero, due to mutual electric repulsion of atomic nuclei. But Rossi is an engineer, not a scientist. He does not claim to understand the energy generation process. That should not be problematic; scientists would certainly accept the claim if generation of energy were independently confirmed by other qualified researchers.

Invalid claims made by experimentalists can be identified in two different ways: by performing similar experiments or by comparing the reported results with accepted theoretical predictions. The first approach is conceptually simple. Suppose several competent researchers fail to validate a result, using the described procedure. This is usually a good reason for rejecting the initial claim. Reproducibility on demand is an important scientific requirement.

But suppose a reproducible result conflicts with an existing theory. What should be rejected, the experimental result or the theory? A theory, in this context, is not just an ad hoc hypothesis. It is a logical structure that is known to agree with a wide range of already verified laboratory data. Scientists know the rule--theories guide but experiments decide. But they are very reluctant to abandon accepted theories. To be reluctant means to insist on additional verifications of new experimental results. Rejecting a highly reproducible experimental result "on theoretical grounds" would not be consistent with scientific methodology.

Rossi's most puzzling claim--conversion of 30 grams of nickel into copper-- sounds like alchemy. What else can such a process be called? Alchemy and astrology are older than science. Ancient astrology gave birth to astronomy and ancient alchemy gave birth to chemistry. But alchemy is not dead. Here are two relatively recent claims, appearing on the walls of an Indian temple called Varanasi Birla:

(a) On 27 May 1942 AD (Jyaistha Shukla 1 Samvat 1998) in Birla House, New Delhi Shri Pandit Krishnapal Sharma made approximately 1 tola (11.7 grams or 0.4 oz) of gold from 1 tola of mercury in front of us. ... ."

(b) "In the month of charitra mas, Samvat 1999 (Indian calendar, 1943), a resident of Punjab, staying in Kashi, one Pandit Krishnapal Rasavaidya, performed the experiment in Rishikesh in the presence of Mahatma Gandhi's PA Mahadeva Desai and Goswami Ganesh Dutta and G K Birla. Mercury provided by Desai was made into gold, about 18 kg in weight (40 lb). ... ."

Chemists believe that transmuting one element into another is not possible, unless a nuclear process is involved. Science, however, is not dogmatic; its attitude to such claims, if made by reputable experimentalists, is always the same. Describe your protocol without hiding anything, they say, and we will try to replicate your results. Several scientists asked Rossi to reveal the nature of his catalyst. But he consistently refused. His answer amounted to saying that "I am a businessman and I do not want to give away the secret." Such an attitude, common in the business world, is unacceptable in science.

Rossi claims that two of his reactors, able to generate thermal energy at the rate of 1000 kW each, are already sold to undisclosed investors [6,7]. Will these risk-taking decisions be rewarded in 2012? It remains to be seen. One thing is certain; lasting commercial success--a large number of satisfied customers--would provide motivation for organized efforts to master this new technology.

SOURCES AND RESOURCES:

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia) is an active participant in Condensed Matter Nuclear Science research. His scientific article, devoted to Rossi's claims, will soon be published (Progress in Physics, January, 2012).

1) F. Celani, New Energy Times, http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/36/3623rf-celani.shtml

2) H. Mills, http://pesn.com/2011/03/07/9501782_Cold_Fusion_Steams_Ahead_at_Worlds_Oldest_University/

3) M. Levan, http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3108242.ece

4) M. Levan, http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3144827.ece

5) J. Rothwell, http://www.lenr-canr.org/News.htm

6) E-cat, www.e-catworld.com/2011/10/rossi-second-1-mw-e-cat-plant-sold-projects-exponential-growth-of-sales/

7) Ruby Carat, http://coldfusionnow.wordpress.com/