The video is from June 2011 and is available at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ
I have transcribed it, mostly from the subtitles.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Transcript of "LENRevolution"
Directed by Manual Zani
--- 00:00:24 | Rossi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=0m24s
Given the delta T, and vaporization heat, we produced an amount of
energy, they will give me the exact figures later, estimated on the
order of around 10 - 12 kWh.
--- 00:00:37 | GIWS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=0m37s
AN inventor and a scientist claim that twenty years of research in the
field of cold fusion and low energy nuclear reactions may soon lead to
the deployment of an industrial device capable of producing great
amounts of clean and cheap energy.
If this were to be confirmed, we would have the power of nuclear
reactions together with the advantages of sustainable energy at our
disposal.
I believe that there is only one way in order to define this:
Revolution. Specifically, a Low Energy Nuclear Revolution.
--- 00:13:22 | TV presenter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=13m22s
On March 23rd, chemists Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann rocked the
world of science. They announced that they had achieved cold fusion
in their laboratory at the University of Utah.
--- 00:01:24 | Focardi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=1m24s
This is a name which has been historically matched to this kind of
process. When this activity began, it was seen in contradiction to
the nuclear fusion which takes place in high-temperature machines and
which may be termed "hot".
As a consequence, this nickname was born, and it's hard to get rid of
it.
--- 00:02:05 | Ret. Prof. Emilio Del Giudice
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=2m5s
The whole subject of low temperature nuclear reactions has a variety
of components. There is something which can, strictly speaking, be
called cold fusion. It is the process through which deuterium nuclei
fuse within a metallic matrix to form helium nuclei. But this is not
the only kind of nuclear reaction which takes place. There are other
nuclear reactions as well. I assume that the one we have lately been
talking about, in Rossi's machine, belongs to the latter category
where we have nuclear reactions not necessarily linked to fusion,
reactions in which protons penetrate inside nuclei.
Reactions take place: if these are exothermic, then the energy which
is released can be put to use. However this whole class of phenomena
which are mutually differing among - and their only common is that
they take place at room temperature.
--- 00:03:10 | Prof. Francesco Celani, I.N.F.N. Frascati
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=3m10s
At the beginning there was an exorbitant number of people: I mean they
were all jumping headlong into a seemingly trivial topic in order to
gain outstanding fame. When all these opportunists realized it would
take real hard work in return for modest results, they made themselves
scarce.
--- 00:03:40 | Shelley Thomas
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=3m40s
The day before an international conference in Salt Lake City Nature
magazine today attacked cold fusion research with a study from the [?]
backyard.
--- 00:03:50 | TV reporter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=3m50s
University of Utah physicists reported they found no evidence of a
nuclear reaction after monitoring experiments inside the Pons
Fleischmann lab for five weeks.
--- 00:03:59 | Unknown physicist
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=3m59s
In five weeks of observation, we saw no signs of known fusion
processes. That's it. That's all we said.
--- 00:04:08 | Ret. Prof. Christos Stremmenos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=4m8s
Fleischmann and Pons's paper was published around 1989, and obviously,
at the time, even at the mass media level, there was a huge burst of
information, which unfortunately lasted only a few weeks. The haste
with which they wanted to make this {information} disappear was
obvious. See now, I'm not a conspiracy advocate, but I judge facts as
they actually happened. Instead of deferring to this new "anomaly" -
as it was called at the time - and investigating it in depth, they
basically covered it up, as far as scientific news are concerned.
--- 00:05:10 | TV reporter 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=5m10s
The wave of skepticism over the University of Utah's fusion experiment
is running through the world of science like an epidemic again.
--- 00:05:17 | TV reporter 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=5m17s
In some of the most severe and almost personal attacks yet, scientists
are using words like "circus" and "fraud" to describe the
Pons-Fleischmann work.
--- 00:05:33 | Quote
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=5m33s
The New York Times
As for the University of Utah, it may now claim credit for the
artificial-heart horror show and the cold fusion circus, two
milestones at least in the history of entertainment, if not of
science.
Boston Herald
{Newspaper reads: MIT bombshell knocks fusion `breakthrough' cold.}
In today's Boston Herald, a scorching attack from a physicist at MIT.
A quote from the Herald
{Quote}
Boston Herald
Everything I've been able to track down has been bogus and I think we
owe it to the community of scientists to begin to smoke these guys
out.
--- 00:05:52 | Celani
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=5m52s
The people who stayed on were, on the one hand, real professionals in
their field who knew what they were doing; on the other hand, they
were willing to conduct their research on intensely cross-disciplinary
terms. In my opinion this was the first major instance of genuine
team work.
--- 00:06:20 | Stremmenos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=6m20s
The "issue", which was happening in a solid state by electrolytical
means, stimulated my interest so I approached some colleagues of mine,
on a peer-to-peer level, like Prof. Cammarota, who is a metallurgical
physicist at Industrial Chemistry in Bologna, in order to replicate
this experience of Fleischmann and Pons's.
--- 00:06:52 | Del Giudice
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=6m52s
I remember when the newspapers reported the news on Fleischmann: one
morning Giuliano calls me up on the phone, he wakes me up and says:
"Have you read today's paper?". "No, I haven't, what's the news?"
"Well, there's these two guys who say they've found... if it's not a
hoax it's probably matter of coherence" - Giuliano says - "the kind we
have been studying. Let's see if we can find an explanation for
this".
--- 00:07:19 | TV reporter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=7m19s
Dr. Giuliano Preparata today chastised his colleagues for what he
calls a closed mentality for new ideas.
--- 00:07:26 | Dr. Giuliano Preparata, University of Milano, Italy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=7m26s
But if you, you know, just stay there, rigid, you know, you don't want
to talk, people don't even want to - my colleagues won't even discuss
this thing. I mean there's no way of really going ahead and doing
better.
--- 00:07:43 | Focardi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=7m43s
I met Piantelli one year after the Fleischmann and Pons announcement,
at a conference in Udine. We discussed the event among ourselves, and
with Prof. Habel from the University of Cagliari, who is a common
friend, then began our research.
Piantelli had already observed strange phenomena in nickel, so, when
we decided to work together, we started with nickel. We got some
results - obviously not like the ones we are getting now - and kept
going in that direction.
--- 00:08:33 | Stremmenos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=8m33s
I asked the Dean of the Faculty to let me use a bunker. You know, one
of these bunkers where they usually keep gas cylinders. We had five
or six of these bunkers, and we turned one into a lab. We took a
piece of palladium foil, and some heavy wate from Monte Coccolino, and
began the experiment.
--- 00:09:06 | Focardi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=9m6s
We would feed a certain amount of energy to the experimental cell, and
it worked. It produced some energy, but not enough for it to be
useful. And at intervals we were able to stop and restart it. There
were some slight effects, but due to their limited extent they were
certainly not exploitable.
--- 00:09:34 | Stremmenos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=9m34s
We would be in touch whenever I came to Bologna, and sometimes even
over the phone: "Sergio what are you up to? Are you still working?",
"Yes". "So give me the latest news". (You know, this is how it goes
among colleagues.) And at a certain point he says: "My dear
Stremmenos, I believe we are at crucial moment. I met Mr. Rossi, who
works with nickel etc. he's built this small system to heat up his
workshop". I say: "What?". "Yes yes, it's a huge step, both in
quality and quantity." One week later I was here in Bologna.
--- 00:10:34 | Eng. Giacomo Guidi, nuclear medicine researcher
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=10m34s
Rossi introduced his audience to two kinds of devices: a larger and a
smaller one, both termed "energy catalyzers". One week later I was
here in Bologna. The larger device is the one used in the January
14th test, and it has a thermal power output capacity ranging from 15
to 30 kW. The smaller device, on the other hand, of which some images
have been released showing the unshielded core, has a 2 to 5 kW
thermal power output capacity.
In its simplicity, the Rossi reactor is almost embarrassing.
It consists of a piece of copper tubing, inside of which lies a
stainless steel reaction chamber. The latter is filled with powdered
nickel, probably of nanometric gauge, which reacts with hydrogen at a
pressure of around 25 atmospheres in the presence of a secret
catalyst. According to the first tests, this type of reaction is
apparently nuclear; it is capable of producing a strong thermal output
in the reactor core.
Water is made to flow through the device between the copper tubing
and the inner stainless steel reaction chamber. As it flows through
the tube the water heats up all the way to vaporization temperature.
--- 00:11:50 | Levi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=11m50s
{Jan. 14th 2011, Bologna}
Right now we are conducting some preliminary operations. Let us state
right away what kinds of measurements we are going to take today.
Two kinds: first of all we are going to verify the energy production
of this apparatus. How are we going to proceed? We will heat some
water and vaporize it, and since we obviously know what the latent
heat of vaporization is and how much water we are vaporizing per
second, we are able to tell what power is being produced by the
apparatus.
--- 00:12:32 | Daniele Passerini, blogger
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=12m32s
I think we arrived around 3 pm. People began coming in, a few at a
time. It took about an hour for everybody to get there. Then Rossi,
Focardi and Levi explained what was going to happen: the reactor was
going to be switched on and thermal power was going to be produced.
This was the preliminary explanation; after that, the reactor was
turned on, and shortly after we could see that the temperature values
were rising. They kept it working for about half an hour, then they
switched it off and the press conference took place.
--- 00:13:05 | Prof. Giuseppe Levi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=13m5s
They called it press conference, but what went on on the 14th was
actually a public demonstration, "public" in a manner of speaking,
because it was by invitation only, we invited several colleagues.
Since this was an experiment which was being introduced into our
department, it was advantageous that colleagues be informed - also to
give them a chance to criticize.
--- 00:13:21 | Celani
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=13m21s
When the news came out on Rossi's work and his considerable excess
thermal values, considering that I was more or less often in touch
with Focardi, also as a personal friend of his, I said: "What would
you think if I came to take a look?". "Oh sure, with pleasure".
After several days I received a short email by Rossi in which he was
formally inviting me to attend the demonstration. I said: "Thank you,
I shall come, I will bring a few instruments of my own, just to be
sure" etc.
So I went, and brought a suitcase with 20 kg of instruments with me.
--- 00:14:07 | Levi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=14m7s
We need to understand what the source of this energy is, and the first
thing we had to do - I believe it's already been done - is to try and
rule out any chemical source.
I've seen the reactor three times and it started up every time and
looked like it was producing energy; but that's not all: the
quantities of energy are decisively greater than those relevant to
former experiments.
Here we are talking about kilowatts, in other experiments it was a
matter of watts.
So the factor is: from one hundred to one thousand times more energy
than was seen in past experiments.
--- 00:14:47 | Focardi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=14m47s
On average, the relationship between thermal energy
gained and input electrical energy was in the order of around 200
times.
This does not mean we are multiplying energy by 200, because thermal
energy has less value than electrical energy. If we were to
re-transform it into electrical energy this {ratio of} 200 would
decrease. But as far conservation of energy is concerned, this is
what counts.
--- 00:15:18 | Levi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=15m18s
At the present time, on the basis of the current experiments,
I'm sufficiently certain about what we witnessed, and I can say that
both in December and January energy was produced with power on the
order of around 10 kilowatts.
We also ran another private test, a "technical" and "private" one -
these technical tests are necessary to enable us to understand how to
set up the final test - and this was a long test, lasting about 18
hours, in which the MINIMUM power produced was on the order of 15 kW
- this is extremely conservative data. Actually, in that trial, in
the beginning the "object" started off in a rather explosive way -
explosive because it's a new machine, a machine which produces energy.
We had an {energy} production peak - OK, I hope that they don't
chastise me, saying we didn't test it in every possible way -
estimated in the graphs at about 120 kW of power.
Rossi immediately damped the machine, he switched off the machine. We
restarted it, and the system ran for one hour at 40 kW. I have the
data.
--- 00:16:32 | Focardi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=16m32s
In those experiments, we had a system to measure the temperature. We
were therefore able to follow what was going on by increasing the
power a little at a time. On various occasions I noticed that the
process is triggered at around 60 degrees.
What I mean is that I saw that, below 60 degrees, temperature rises
slightly and slowly, and that means that the thermal effect is
undergoing its normal development.
Then, suddenly, at around 60 degrees, we begin to notice thermal
surges; this means that the process has been triggered, and that the
system is being heated by the undergoing processes.
Then, after that, the system no longer increases in a linear manner.
--- 00:17:17 | Levi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=17m17s
Once it exceeds a critical temperature value - it takes a while,
because the system needs to load, and the reaction has spread to the
whole sample - after 20 or 30 minutes it is capable of working by
itself; and if you don't suddenly cool it down, change the pressure or
perform a switch off maneuver, it will not shut down.
{Some time ago?}, when I was working with Focardi, I made a couple of
rough {?} and said: "Listen, warn Rossi that this thing might
explode".
I was running a couple of calculations on the {micro}granules, and the
amount of energy they were capable of absorbing and releasing in
return ... at a certain point it began to ... I saw that it was
capable of being self-sustaining.
And blow up it did! This is a good sign - it means that it's working.
There is no source of energy which will not run out of control, if it
works.
They say, that is Rossi said to me - by the way, I must be
super-cautious about everything I get told, meaning that I must shelve
the information and say: "Perhaps... that's very nice... maybe some
day we will investigate it". - that on one occasion an experiment of
his blew up and that his neutron detectors (these detectors have a
special gel which fills up with bubbles if neutrons are emitted, you
can find them on the Internet as well) were found full of bubbles.
Experimental fact: explosion + bubbles. Bubbles can also be the
result of mechanical shock, so you cannot be sure about the neutrons.
However, it IS interesting. Meaning this: let's look for a reinforced
lab, and at some time try to drive one of these reactors into a
critical zone (with us at a good distance, with a bunch of cables 30 m
long, and detectors all around it) blow it up and observe the result.
Because, if you can blow it up, if you know the critical zone and how
to avoid it, you also know how to control the object.
--- 00:19:34 | Guidi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=19m34s
In order to understand whether this reactor actually
works through a nuclear reaction, three aspects must be kept in mind:
First: if the reactor can really be kept running for months and
doesn't need to be recharged, then only a nuclear reaction can justify
this sort of energy output.
Secondly, the possible presence of gamma rays or other ionizing
radiation released by the reactor.
Thirdly, one must to ascertain whether in the reaction ashes there are
any elements which have been subject to transmutation i.e. were not
there when the experiment started.
>From what Rossi and Focardi have stated, all three conditions have
been confirmed.
--- 00:20:14 | Celani
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=20m14s
Before the experiment began, without others realizing it, I ran some
checks to make sure, in the first place, that there were no
radioactive sources hidden somewhere in the reactor,
secondly, that there were no generators of powerful electromagnetic
interference capable of jamming electronic instruments.
Thirdly, that there were no massive power cables around, capable of
simulating a power excess with nothing but a 10 kW water boiler.
I ran these checks without Rossis's knowledge and everything seemed
OK. At a certain point Rossi said he was about to begin the
experiment. I then decided to use the gamma-spectrometer (which is
battery-operated as well) without the power cable, because if there is
any electromagnetic interference, this may be carried through the
ground wire, and can alter the measurement.
Everything was working : a battery powered mini-Geiger, a microwave
detector, also battery powered, and an ELF detector, battery powered
as well.
Therefore, four independent instruments, all battery powered.
After various vicissitudes, because the reactor was having major
problems, some inner resistors had broken down, Mr. Rossi came out of
the room delighted: "The reactor has started". Before he came out, a
few minutes before, I had independently measured that both the gamma
detector and the mini Geiger had hit the top of the scale, whereas the
two detectors of electromagnetic interference were not showing
anything.
This meant that a short but intense emission of gamma radiation had
taken place.
Afterwards, everything went back to normal, and we stayed in the hall
to see what was happening. After about half an hour, I don't recall
the time exactly, I was allowed to go back and take a look at the
working reactor with my portable detector set for gamma count, and I
began to perform a check.
I noticed that there was an increase of total gamma radiation compared
to the amount recorded before the beginning of the experiment, not a
dangerous increase, around 50%. And, most important, it wasn't a
stable increase, rather a very, very unstable one. This means that
there was something live inside, changing the emission, the feeble
emission, of gammas.
--- 00:23:37 | Focardi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=23m37s
During the first experiments, when we were working in Bondeno, we were
using an open experimental system, and on those occasions I was using
a Geiger detector, set for the gamma scale, through which I verified
the presence of gamma emissions during its functioning.
--- 00:24:02 | Guidi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=24m2s
What was expected from the experiment was the evidence of high energy
gamma rays, a symptom of "beta+" decay, a specific type of nuclear
reaction.
--- 00:24:31 | Levi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=24m31s
So, we brought in two sodium iodide scintillators, and positioned them
close to two holes in the lead shielding of the reactor. In this way,
we will measure output radiation as well.
Why two? And why are our counters positioned, as the English
technical expression goes, back to back, that is to say in two
opposite directions?
Because, when nuclear reactions occur, we often get isotopes which
decay, and undergo what is known as beta+ decay, that is, with the
emission of one positron. And of a neutrino as well, but we obviously
don't have the equipment to detect that here.
When this positron is produced, it is immediately annihilated in
normal matter. A positron is an instance, let's call it that, of
antimatter. {It?} gets annihilated immediately with an electron in
normal matter, and produces two photons: two of them traveling in
opposite directions.
So the observation, the production of photons in mutual coincidence,
in two opposite directions, is a clear signal... it would be - and we
hope to verify this - a clear signature of beta+ decay.
{Levi, in another setting}
Through the release of two photons at this energy, 511 keV, our
detectors should have been able to pick up several pairs of photons
in coincidence, emitted from the apparatus.
The fact that we haven't seem them only means that have negated THAT
model of reaction. It does not mean that the apparatus is not
working.
--- 00:26:00 | Dott. Stefano Bagnasco, C.I.C.A.P
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=26m0s
The fact that he was expecting these gamma 511 keV "back to back", in
opposite directions, and that this did not take place is very curious.
It surprises me that he knows so little of his device so as to expect
something that in the end does not occur. Nevertheless, the fact
remains that he has always stated that he has focused on the
production of energy and that he never really gave much attention to
the nuclear and radiation phenomena.
--- 00:26:32 | Levi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=26m32s
We made a mistake - perhaps our first mistake, and this shows how
difficult it all is, because doing science is not a piece of cake.
The mistake was that we already had a model for the reaction in mind.
It is an excusable mistake, because even Focardi already had the model
for the reaction in his mind: nickel-proton dry fusion.
--- 00:26:53 | Reporter asking a question
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=26m53s
Doctor Fleischmann, are you willing to acknowledge any possibility
at all that your observations are wrong and you did not have fusion,
or are you completely convinced you had fusion?
--- 00:27:07 | Fleischmann
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=27m7s
I have always been ready to acknowledge the fact that our experiments
may be faulty. Always. I said this at the beginning, I said that
throughout every meeting with the press. I have emphasized that you
can not prove something right, you can only prove it wrong.
--- 00:27:29 | Celani
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=27m29s
While I was talking to Rossi on the various aspects and so on, I
commuted the spectrometer from performing a numerical count to peak
identification, in order to understand whether these 511 keV were
really there. For a few minutes everything went smoothly, then Rossi
realized that I had touched something that I wasn't supposed to, and
he got somewhat angry. So I had to switch it off.
--- 00:28:02 | Stremmenos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=28m2s
Celani wanted to get a spectrum. But getting a spectrum is like
detecting the identity of the elements inside the reactor hereby
revealing the industrial secret of Rossi's catalyst.
--- 00:28:22 | Dott. David Bianchini, E.F.A Group Advisor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=28m22s
During the initial stage of the project, measurement was supposed to
involve a spectrometric measurement, that is to effectively check what
the energy of the photons which might have been released in a nuclear
reaction was; but we weren't allowed to do this, and the only thing we
were able to do was to perform a dosimetric measurement on the outside
of the reactor shielding.
--- 00:28:46 | Guidi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=28m46s
In any case, there is also such a thing as low energy gamma radiation,
which the reactor is capable of shielding. These gammas belong to a
class of highly exothermic reactions, and justify the presence of
nuclear reactions inside the reactor core.
--- 00:28:59 | Levi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=28m59s
There will be a research agreement between us and Rossi, it is
currently being defined, and part of our job will be submitted to
industrial secrecy. The Department of Physics will be completely free
to publish the results of its experiments, whether the results are
positive for Rossi or not.
--- 00:29:22 | Bianchini
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=29m22s
I have no knowledge of the experimental protocol, I've seen proposals
and Levi and I have discussed them. As far as my competence is
concerned, it will be a measurement of spectrometric activity, the one
we hadn't been allowed to do. A long-term monitoring inclusive of
neutron monitoring, because the process could be associated with
neutrons, it should be somehow associated with neutrons.
Certainly, a lot will depend on what Rossi allows us to do with the
machine.
--- 00:29:59 | Levi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=29m59s
One of the tests we are going to perform, with all due caution,
because we must follow an extremely strict protocol for this kind of
analysis, is research on possible nuclear transmutations of the sample
after it has been used. But let me tell you this: the mere drawing up
of a protocol, a strict protocol, in order to perform these
measurements with reliable results, is a major effort.
--- 00:30:29 | Stremmenos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=30m29s
We set up a company in Greece, Defkalion, whose goal is to carry out
the project at the, let's say, industrial level, with all the proper
contrivances.
--- 00:30:49 | Angelo Saso, Rainews24 reporter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=30m49s
In Greece there's this Defkalion Green Technologies, gathering a group
of anonymous investors - the odd thing being that, so far, nobody has
wanted to associate his/her own name to this. Somehow, it's still a
"black box"; the hearsay is that there are anonymous investors who
have already allocated 200 million euros.
Moreover, Greece is now risking default, and this is also quite
peculiar.
In America, other investors are willing to put up other millions of
euros; so here's a mechanism that somewhat reminds me of Petroldragon.
A mechanism in which money just becomes available because somebody
puts his trust in Andrea Rossi's inventiveness. Let's hope for the
best.
--- 00:31:37 | Stremmenos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=31m37s
I can tell you for sure that the current government of Greece, which
has declared ... has given absolute priority to the development of a
"green economy", is extremely favorable. It's also obvious, due to
the current economical difficulties in Greece, that we are not going
to ask the Greek government for one single lira, or as we say
nowadays, not one single euro!
--- 00:32:20 | Saso
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=32m20s
I asked Rossi who was putting the money into the enterprise, and he
replied in these terms: "Nobody. Actually, I'm playing American
football with my bones." This is the exact sentence he used in the
interview. It appears however that, both in Greece and in America,
there are investors willing to supply the money.
--- 00:32:38 | Stremmenos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=32m38s
The Swedes have now joined in their interest for this thing, so in the
future we shall try to set up a Stockholm/Bologna/Athens axis!
--- 00:32:52 | Bianchini
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=32m52s
These two Swedish physicists came to see what was going on. Rossi
told them about the discovery and they were extremely interested. A
test was organized. Rossi produced some steam, starting from water at
18 degrees. The description was ample, we had the opportunity to
evaluate all the working parameters of the machine. Even the
geometric description of the reactor, the relevant documentation, are
now more comprehensive.
The test with the Swedes was a real discussion, in the course of which
they had the chance to interact even while the machine was working for
everything concerning various details on pump, flux, and resistor
control etc. This was very much appreciated, because a lot of
skepticism was laid to rest.
On their part, there was a lot of satisfaction because the first
obvious result is that this is absolutely not an electrochemical
reaction, thereby endorsing the hypothesis of a nuclear reaction.
--- 00:34:10 | Saso
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=34m10s
What impresses most is the Swedes' report. The Swedes who see this
experiment check out everything they can, then they go back to Sweden
and write a report about which mentions a nuclear reaction. Two very
qualified individuals, from a scientific point of view, not just
anybodies. This is still inexplicable to me. What I mean is that if
you get this kind of acknowledgement, it's hard to think of it as a
hoax, because of the high level verification.
--- 00:34:38 | Guidi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=34m38s
Today we hear comments from numerous scientists, some of them quite
famous, who support the possibility that Rossi and Focardi have
rendered a controversial physical phenomenon industrially exploitable,
a phenomenon that over the past twenty years has gathered low-key
support. On the part of many, the reaction to the news has been one
of alarm and worry. The question is: what should we really worry
about? If Rossi is right, we have a new, low-cost energy source. If
Rossi is wrong, we can go right on living in a world which is scraping
the bottom of the barrel of environmental sustainability and
fossil-fuel resources.
--- 00:35:09 | Stremmenos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=35m9s
I believe that in science intuition comes first, as with Einstein. He
would first have an intuition of something, and then hand it over to
technicians and mathematicians who would formulate it in a way which
matched his intuition, which was always right.
--- 00:35:29 | Bagnasco
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=35m29s
Personally, I never met Rossi, but I have to say that he has guts.
He's raised the stakes in a certain sense. He says: my device is not
the kind of device that works every once in a while, requires careful
measurements, then you will see that there is some slight effect. He
brought out a contraption which releases 12 kW. It's impossible to
make mistakes with something like that for any length of time.
--- 00:35:51 | Celani
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=35m51s
It's obvious that I am emotionally involved in favor of this kind of
research because I think there is something solid about it. But it's
also clear that we need to be extremely cautious with respect to new
results because, if by chance there is any hidden error, and it
persists for a long time, the risk is bringing discredit upon the
whole community, and that means thousands of people.
--- 00:36:21 | Levi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=36m21s
There's obviously a part of me, and of everybody I think, which says:
"That's great! Maybe we've found a solution to the energy problem."
So, as a person, I can express this hope. But when I put my
scientist's cap on, a scientist must not express hope, or wish for
something. A scientist must look at the facts. Look at the facts,
check the way he is looking at them, have somebody else check the way
he is looking at them and then come to a conclusion.
--- 00:37:10 | Caption
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=37m10s
... to be continued in the following months, as the story goes on
--- 00:37:10 | Credits
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ&t=37m10s
produced by
PHIZERO
Leonardo Monti
Manuel Zani
with the contributions of:
Luca Nervegna
Keyframe
Lorenzo Magnani
Andrea Boghi
Fabio Cappelli
directed by:
Manuel Zani
scientific committee by:
Eng. Giacomo Guidi,
Nuclear Medicine Researcher
cinematography:
Luca Nervegna
stagehand:
Marco Mello
titles and c.g. 3d by:
Christian Balducci
Danilo Ortelli
translation:
Alessandro "Alex" Passi
Michelangelo Miccolis
Francesca Colussi
service:
LM cineservice
music:
"Revenge" (by A. Grant)
"Victory Of Science" (by A. Grant)
The pictures from Fleischmann and Pons
first press conference are from:
SPECIAL COLLECTIONS DEPT.
J. WILLARD MARRIOTT LIBRARY
UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
TV footage from:
KSL TV (Salt Lake City, Utah)
Footage from the experiment made in Bologna
on 14-01-2011
comes from youtube efagroup2010 channel
Photos for the experiments for
courtesy by Giuseppe Levi and Daniele Passerini
Thanks to:
Gregorio Guidi for his "input",
Justin Keith Riley,
visual resourcer specialist J. Willaerd Marriott Library,
"137 film" staff for their courtesy,
I.N.F.N. Frascati,
Univesità degli Studi di Bologna,
Facoltà di Scienze dell'informazione,
passi.blogspot.com and Daniele Passerini, Alessandro {Ale?}
COMECER S.P.A. who allowed us to film into their lab,
and obviously all people that worked for free or in some way
helped this work and participated!
Free for non commercial use.
Televisions, radios, newspapers, in or out the net, and web sites with
advertising can contact us for permission:[email protected]
--
Berke Durak
