Celani Group Zeroes in on LENR Markers, Mechanism

Italian scientist Francesco Celani states that he and his research group have observed some interesting experimental evidence that may lead to a better understanding of the mechanism, stability and repeatability of the LENR phenomenon using copper-nickel alloys.  While Andrea Rossi and Defkalion seemingly have solved the stability and replication issues with the e-Cat and the Hyperion respectively, Celani  plans to make his findings PUBLIC at the 2012 World Sustainable Energy Conference from January 10-12 in Geneva, Switzerland.  An abstract to his planned presentation can be found here.  It does not give too many details about his presentation but it does offer a very good history of cold fusion from 1989 to present.   A preview to his presentation has appeared on the 22Passi blog .  Passerini  reports:  “Francis has authorized me to anticipate that an announcement of Geneva will be of great scientific value.”  Updated abstracts and a more complete explanation will be made available shortly accordingly to Daniele Passerini of 22Passi.  Part of an early draft reads as follows:

In these weeks our group, working with long and thin wires having the surface coated with micro-nano-particles, get re-confirmation of a phenomenon, by us, seldom observed in some previous experiments: the specific alloy used (Cu-Ni), that usually has Positive Temperature Coefficient (PTC) of the resistance, if absorbs large amount of Hydrogen, changes to Negative TC. Such phenomenon is correlated to anomalous heat production and increases as the anomalous heat increases. If such key phenomenon will be kept under full control, because its behavior can be observed with simple instrumentation, it can be open the door to systematic work, worldwide, to find the “optimal” material and operating point.

Although Andrea’s Rossi e-Cat is already in the process of commercialization, many remain skeptical because of a poor understanding of the mechanism in LENR as a whole.  Celani’s presentation may help to address at least some of that skepticism.

In addition, many in the scientific community are hesitant to cast aside their extreme doubt about LENR without a clear theoretical understanding of the process.  While the tendency to emphasize theory over experimental results, and in some cases totally ignore experimental results due to lack of a theory, is contrary to scientific inquiry, it is a very real mindset and is prevalent in many scientific circles.  One can decry such close-mindedness as an obstacle to the acceptance of a variety of phenomena, including but not limited to LENR, but it a reality and must be accepted as such.

U.S. Department of Energy official  Al Opdenaker  III has re-enforced this mindset in yet another e-mail in response to an LENR inquiry.  A member of the e-Cat Facebook community (Cold Fusion “Andrea Rossi” Method), David Lang, recently wrote Mr. Opdenaker thanking him for the open-mindedness he expressed regarding LENR in the e-mail exchange posted on this site a couple of weeks ago.  In response, Mr. Opdenaker wrote:

I was a total skeptic in 1989 with P and F. It sounded like total craziness to me.  I have switched to a willing to see how things go with the Rossi device and several other similar ideas that are currently out there.  I have tried not to get wrapped up in whether it is cold fusion or LENR or even magic if it can be demonstrated to work, I will accept it.  Several people I respect say that the Rossi device can lead to real advances in energy in the next 10 years or so and that sounds like really good news for all of us. The proof needs to be in the pudding as they say. Let’s look at the experimental results and the theoretical backup and it can be judged from there.

Well, the experimental results are already there.  One does not really have to look very far to find them.  I think the real hold up is the “theoretical backup.”  Reading between the lines of these comments by Mr. Opdenaker, I would say that he is getting the most resistance from his contemporaries on this issue, especially at the DOE where one his bosses until recently (November 2011) was Steve Koonin, a long-time opponent of coldfusion/LENR, who resigned in wake of the$535 million Solyndra scandal.  Coincidentally (or perhaps not) Opdenaker’s willingness to talk openly about cold/fusion LENR seems to have begun just about the time of Koonin’s departure.   But, make no mistake, he still faces significant doubt and resistance about this technology at the DOE and the fact that he has been so willing to discuss it of late is to his credit.

Hopefully, Francesco Celani will be able to provide information that, in the very least, will increase the ability of scientists worldwide to reproduce LENR experiments.  If this is the case, experimental evidence due to relatively easy reproducibility will be undeniable.  The Celani Group findings appear to offer new insight into the mechanism of the cold fusion reaction.  Once the mechanism is understood, one could surmise that a comprehensive, widely-accepted theory explaining the phenomena would be forthcoming sometime in the near future.

Somewhat in the same light, a book has recently been published by Camillo Urbani that attempts to address theoretical issues regarding LENR.  The book is based on regular installments that have appeared on the forum of Francesco Piantelli associate Roy Virgilio, energeticambiente.it.  The book, in short, attempts to explain why cold fusion is not easily accepted by concrete-thinking, scientific fundamentalists (my words not his) such as many theoretical physicists.  See a preview of the book here.  While it reportedly attempts to explain some basic concepts of physics to us mere mortals, it also apparently tries to lay some theoretical framework for cold fusion that even its critics can understand.

Between the upcoming presentation of Celani and the new book by Urbani, as well as a number of existing theoretical works such as Widom-Larsen, The Control of the Natural Forces, Bose-Einstein, and Amplification of Energetic Reactions, among others, perhaps a broad theoretical framework for cold fusion is being laid right before our very eyes.  Before we know it, cold fusion/LENR may be so easy to understand that even a theoretical physicist can do it.

"No theory, no fire."

"No theory, no fire"

**************************************************************

Clicked here for updated abstract.

__________________________________________

For the latest news and updates see Headlines/Chatterings.

__________________________________________

e-mail Admin
Short URL for this page:  http://wp.me/p1SDhJ-O0
About these ads
This entry was posted in Articles, Headlines, Science and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Celani Group Zeroes in on LENR Markers, Mechanism

  1. Roger Bird says:

    I hope these researchers don’t stop researching LENR just because it looks like Rossi is “winning”. First, Rossi may still prove to be a phony. And second, Rossi is contributing very little to the theoretical understanding of what is going on. We NEED the theoretical so that we can move forward to bigger and better things.

  2. Ivan Mohorovicic says:

    New information about Piantelli’s work will be disclosed during a Celani workshop in the WSEC 2012 Conference in Geneva, starting tomorrow:

    http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg60762.html

    • Ben says:

      That is very interesting Ivan. It would be great to get some substantial Piantelli news after these many months.

  3. Sandy says:

    I disagree with the proposition that scientists sometimes ignore experimental results because they do not have a theory to explain the results. It’s not a matter of close-mindedness; it’s pure cowardice.

    Scientists know that LENR-based technologies will upset the multi-trillion-dollar petroleum industry. Some scientists pretend to be close-minded so that they will not have to provide honest assessments of LENR technologies. They thereby avoid becoming targets for the wrath of Big Oil.

    Their close-mindedness is really just an excuse for their bravery deficit.

  4. Ivan Mohorovicic says:

    Also don’t miss this email by Francesco Celani (Google Translation needed here, unfortunately)
    http://22passi.blogspot.com/2012/01/ancora-cortesi-precisazioni-da-celani.html

  5. Hi,

    I disagree with the approach that “.. many remain skeptical because of a poor understanding of the mechanism in LENR as a whole” and similar statements in the comments; that’s not how science works; we have been happily using gravity for millennia, and only recently the phenomenology of this interaction has been specified by Newton and others, yet we use it to send spaceships to explore the solar system although there is no established mechanism for it; likewise, we can explode nuclear weapons and operate nuclear power stations with an incomplete understanding of nuclear matter, not to mention particle physics…
    regards,

    Paolo Palazzi

  6. Pingback: Celani Group Zeroes in on LENR Markers, Mechanism | e-Cat Site

  7. Ivan Mohorovicic says:

    I urge the admin to change the quote from Celani to this one, which is more correct, and was originally already in English (I guess that Google Translating English in English doesn’t yield good results):

    In these weeks our group, working with long and thin wires having the surface coated with micro-nano-particles, get re-confirmation of a phenomenon, by us, seldom observed in some previous experiments: the specific alloy used (Cu-Ni), that usually has Positive Temperature Coefficient (PTC) of the resistance, if absorbs large amount of Hydrogen, changes to Negative TC. Such phenomenon is correlated to anomalous heat production and increases as the anomalous heat increases. If such key phenomenon will be kept under full control, because its behaviour can be observed with simple instrumentation, it can be open the door to systematic work, worldwide, to find the “optimal” material and operating point.

  8. Roger Bird says:

    I am very happy about Celani’s work, but it would appear to me that he is only optimizing the reaction, not figuring out how it happens. Perhaps I am mistaken.

    • bkrharold says:

      That is true, however the correlation of anomalous heat production with a change in resistance from positive to negative coefficient, is a clue that could be useful to a theoretical physicist to help in formulating a theory.

  9. Brad Arnold says:

    I heard that when you fire up a LENR generator an angel dies. We must understand the theory of LENR – to use it without understanding the bedrock principle is too much of a risk. Saving the planet and allowing us to economically travel into space are just secondary concerns – our first concern is to do no harm:(

    BTW, a friend of mine wants people to only have access to the technology that they understand. Imagine such an ideal world:)

    • pipmon says:

      Hmmmm…..reading Romain Gary are we? I don’t think he meant it literally.

      The notion that we should (must!!!) understand the mechanisms of anything before we can use it is a very constraining idea. Had that notion been adhered to over the centuries we’d still be on the ‘bedrock’ ! (bedrock=stone age)

      • Brad Arnold says:

        Sorry to be paranoid, but I was trying to be humorous in the previous post. People that know me and have read my (numerous) postings know that I am totally pro-LENR. BTW, have you seen that picture of the caveman with the caption “Theory before fire?”

        • pipmon says:

          I don’t doubt. However my comment was really more about your opening line. I remember reading Gary’s “Charge d’Âmes” many many years ago and the image of the factories that convert souls into energy (which is the central theme of the book) is of course pretty much in line with your “angels dying to fuel the LENR”. It made me wonder if that is what had prompted your comment.
          PS:Yes I saw the caveman, typical theoretical physicist! (JUST KIDDING!)

Comments are closed.