Hello group,
I just found this in the comments section in the Swedish edition of Ny
Teknik's last article on Rossi's Energy Catalyzer (by the way, lots of
information and interesting insights can be found there!):
http://aleklett.wordpress.com/2011/04/08/rossis-energikatalysator-–-en-stor-bluff-eller-helt-ny-fysik/
It apparently contains a comment by Sven Kullander himself. Let's see
what Google Translate yields in english:
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=sv&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Faleklett.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F04%2F08%2Frossis-energikatalysator-%E2%80%93-en-stor-bluff-eller-helt-ny-fysik%2F
Short link: http://tinyurl.com/3o3aaoo
Entire text copied/pasted below. Sven Kullander's personal comments
further below:
* * *
Rossi energy catalyst - a big hoax or new physics?
It has called me to comment on what the new technology called Rossi's
energy catalyst and it will be a pleasure to do it because I have to
pick up my skills from the time when I was doing research on various
nuclear reactions. There will be a fairly detailed review.
First I would like to mention that Professor Sven Kullander, who is
chairman of the Royal. Energy Sciences committee, since the beginning of
the year also is a professor emeritus of my research team at Uppsala
University. He sits in the room next to mine so the discussion of
Rossi's experiment was an issue every time we met in recent weeks. I
always try to be as critical as possible while it is exciting to be
pretty close to the center of something that is either a fake or
something new and exciting. There are many scientists who criticize Sven
that he even has sexual relations with the experiment, but as scientists
we have a responsibility to investigate the alleged phenomenon is real
or a hoax. The fact that Sven has been involved is quite natural since
he is chairman of the KVA's energy committee and if anyone thinks that
he has accepted the results when they have completely wrong, but by
getting the present and look to open a position to confirm or reject. As
a researcher, you want an explanation on what is happening and right now
we do not see any explanation of the knowledge we currently have on the
chemistry and physics. It may be entirely new physics that must be
explained or a scam that must be disclosed. Here you can read the trip
report that Sven Kullander written .
The biggest problem is that there is a "black box" in the center of the
plant and Rossi refuses to open the lid before he has a patent on the
invention. He is an engineer, a skilled engineer, and he is thinking
like an engineer. As a researcher, it gives priority to fame and fortune
and research results are published for all to read and understand. Of
course there is the opportunity to do some measurements and determine
certain parameters, but the heart of the plant are embedded in a sheath
of lead, and blyhöljet is the black box. Sven and I talked about the
experiment before he left for Italy and today we again discussed what
they saw and recorded. To calculate how much energy it takes to heat
water to boiling point and how much energy it takes to evaporate the
water belongs to elementary thermodynamics that produced energy are OK.
It is time to look at the black box.
When Rossi was in Uppsala for a few weeks ago he brought with him two
samples. One was the nickel powder so that it looks like before it is
placed in the black box and the second was a test which reportedly had
been fuel in the energy catalyst for two and a half months. Energy
effect during the time stated and the total amount of energy can be
calculated. Researchers at Angstrom has examined what the spent fuel
contained in addition to nickel and it was concluded that there was 10%
copper and the isotope ratios of copper was about the same as in natural
copper, 70/30. Known chemical reactions can not explain the amount of
energy measured. A nuclear reaction can explain the amount of energy,
but the knowledge we have today says that this reaction can take place.
It's time to pick up my core physical skills.
Nickel is an element with 28 protons and the number of protons
determines the charging that the nucleus has, +28. Hydrogen has the
charge +1 and Coulumbkraften make that two positively charged particles
repel each other. This means that in a test where there are hydrogen and
nickel and in which hydrogen is the thermal energy so it can not be a
nuclear reaction. The energy is measured can be explained by a nuclear
reaction, but the knowledge we have about nuclear reactions to end the
nuclear reactions that can explain the amount of energy. It is this fact
that makes many are critical of Sven Kullander that he even cares about
Rossi. Those of you who have followed my struggle for Peak Oil know that
I am not afraid of a challenge, but then I am a nuclear physicist, I
must be critical and take out everything that shows that it can not be true.
The fact that Nickel has 28 protons allows the nucleus is particularly
stable and we have many nickel isotopes are stable, they do not undergo
radioactive decay (CORRECTLY name is ionizing radiation, but the media
does not use that expression). The stable nickel isotopes is Ni-58
(68.1%), Ni-60 (26.2%), Ni-61 (1.1%), Ni-62 (3.6%), Ni-64 (0.9%). In the
trip report which is available on new technology website, we read that
in the sample as Rossi did in Uppsala there are 10% copper by isotopic
distribution 70/30. Copper has two stable isotopes, Cu-63 and Cu-65, and
these two isotopes can be formed of nickel on the hydrogen nucleus,
which has a mass, merged with the Ni-62 and Ni-64. If the original
sample is natural nickel to form Ni-62 and Ni-64totalt together 4.5% of
the sample, and if all these nickel isotopes are converted to copper,
you get only 4.5% copper and 10% not measured. If all the Ni-62 Ni-64 is
converted to copper would be obtained isotopic distribution of 80/20,
which is close to the natural composition 70/30.
It has been suggested that copper may have formed by Ni-58 is C-59 which
decays to Ni-59, which in turn picks up a hydrogen nucleus, so that
Cu-60 is formed which decays to Ni-60, which picks up a hydrogen nucleus
so that Cu 61 is formed which decays to Ni-61, which in turn picks up a
hydrogen nucleus and bildart Cu-62 which decays to Ni-62, which picks up
a hydrogen nucleus to form Cu-63 which is stable. If this reaction chain
would be true even though none of the responses that I mention can be
made with the knowledge we have today, then isotopic distribution
Cu-63/Cu-65 be greater than 80/20, probably closer to 99/01. Right now,
my conclusion is that the isotope distribution measured and the fact
that it has 10% copper indicate that the sample is contaminated with
natural copper. Of course I am willing to change my opinion if you can
prove me wrong.
If the reactions discussed here are in reality, there will be products
that are highly radioactive and it is these radioactive product which
decomposes and emits heat. There is a similar process that gives rise to
the meltdown of the Japanese nuclear reactors, but the difference is
that it only takes one hour before "the new reactor" cools. The fact
that there is lead around the heart of the plant may indicate that we
have radioactive decay has slowed in the lead so it will be hot and this
heat warms the water. If I could mount up Rossi's energy catalyst in the
basement of Angstrom Lab oratorio, mount the appropriate detectors so
that one can directly measure the pulse of the heart of the plant, then
it would be easy to record the gamma-ray energies that the test
produces. The radioactive isotope can be formed, especially Cu-59,
decays by beta plus decay, and at this decay has always gamma energy 511
keV, an energy that is easy to detect. So far it has not detected this
decay.
What will be the final comment? The water that passed the heart of the
facility has been heated so that the flow is evaporated and there is
currently no chemical processes that can explain this energy flow to the
heart contains the components that Rossi states. He has not told the
whole secret. The nuclear reactions that are possible can not explain
the amount of copper with the isotopic composition measured. If there is
a capture of a hydrogen nucleus, which with today's knowledge is not
possible, then, there will be radiation in the form of gamma rays. With
known technology it would be easy to sign this radiation.
Let us finally play with the idea to found a new way to boil water, how
can this affect the future supply of energy? Today we use fossil fuels
and uranium to boil water and in a nuclear reactor, the energy of the
fission motion when uranium is split and from radioactive decay of
fission, the so-called residual effect. What we are discussing here can
be compared with the residual effect, ie 10-15 percent of the energy of
a nuclear reactor in operation. To get an energy flow of meaning, there
must be facilities of a nuclear power plant size and number must be
quite a few.
What shall we do as scientists? Shall we say nonsense as many do today,
or should we try to understand what is happening? I myself have nothing
against that reveal a scam, or join in and verify something that no one
could imagine. Both extremes belong to that which makes life as a
researcher incredibly interesting.
(Read Sven Kullander's post to the blog, which I now lyter in as part of
the same)
Sven Kullander
Posted on 04/09/2011 at. 6:16 am
I like Kjell a background with some connection to Rossi's experiments
based on the atomärnor, hydrogen and nickel, to be able to react to an
atomic level. My topic was high-energy physics = nuclear and particle
physics. During part of the 60's I worked with direct nuclear reactions,
with the exclusion of protons from the nuclei, also in the area around
the nickel. Especially the external proton shells were of interest,
their extent and binding.
For me, the abnormal production of energy that I witnessed on the City
of Bologna impossible to explain with current experience. However, it is
relatively easy to show that it still could happen, namely that if the
formation of a different kernel than nickel-58, origin of the nucleus,
the energy gain about 8 MeV per reaction, each nucleon, proton and
neutron, is the mass specific area is bound by an average of 8 MeV. If a
free proton, one of the protons in molecular hydrogen is bound and this
leads to another stable core of nickel-59, released about 8 MeV. The
corresponding energy gain for the other isotopes would be involved. It
is an exothermic reaction regardless of what it now is sort of process.
Kjell says that many scientists criticize me because I lieth me to
experiment, something that surprises me because it is necessary to keep
in proximity to at all in a rational way to examine and discuss about
the whole thing is true or false. Otherwise, the discussion
hypothetical. And besides I'm curious, this is also included in my
duties in the Academy's energy committee to have an intelligence of energy.
That said, I was really very critical of my first contacts with Rossi
that were mediated by Ny Teknik reporter Mats Lewan who himself has an
MSc in engineering physics.
After numerous questions from my side to Rossi, I was together with
Hanno Essen, President of the Society Science and popular education,
invited to Bologna to the site have an answer. The aim was to see if it
really was abnormally high energy and also to get to know the people
involved, was the suspect or where the normal thinking and wondering
about what seems to happen.
Together with Hanno Essén, we visited Bologna on 28-30 March. The
measurements we followed are listed in our travel report can be
downloaded from the New Technology. Measurements were classic with the
measurement of water flow, temperature change and steam generation. Both
Hanno and I followed both calibrations, start-up and I followed the
implementation until the end. Temperatures were continuously monitored.
The measured 25 kWh for about six hours of driving can not be explained
by a chemical process. 25 kWh answers about the energy content of 2500
cm3 of oil (I travel report I have indicated a slightly higher value,
which Kjell pointed out, he uses the figure is often). But there are
only 50 cm3 volume of the fuel chamber. So if the chamber was completely
filled with a "combustible", the energy density per liter have been 20 ×
25 = 500 kWh per liter or per kg with a material of density one. There
is no chemical substance with the energy density! Had it been myoniska
atoms had et been good. Atomic and molecular energy processes lies in
the energy elektonvolt per reaction while the core processes is the
mega-electron volts per reaction. There are a million-fold difference in
ennergiutbyte calculated per unit mass.
Nuclear physicist Levi at Bologna University has over 18 hours of test
driving and independence of Rossi also come to the conclusion that
energy production can not be of chemical origin. He plans to further
prove the thesis of nuclear reaction measure another 100 hours to be
absolutely sure that there are no overlooked errors or warehouse uses
energy quantities.
The only option that the declaration would not be nuclear reactions is
that something förisetts in the measurement process. Or that Rossi
somehow tricked us. However, I think that both Rossi and physicists at
the University of Bologna seems sincere in its intent and do not think
there is a deliberate bait.
It would not be long before we get answers about the phenomenon is real.
Rossi's business in the U.S. is building a plant on
1 MW for Athens to be completed this fall!. We have reason to follow the
development regardless of where we will end up in the end.
* * *
Cheers,
S.A.
