Return to the clickable list of items

170) Kanarev and Naudin

Ludwik Kowalski (9/2/04)
Department of Mathematical Sciences
Montclair State University, Upper Montclair, NJ, 07043

Here is the e-mail message received from Stefan Sundström in Sweden today: “Mr Kowalski: In your seeking for information on cold fusion, I recommend you to study the work of Mr. Kanarev. You can find and download his article and books on this site <> I also recommend you to take a lock at the European patent data base . . .” The link brought P.M.Kanarev’s document entitled “Prof. Kanarev's View Point on the Energy Problem: WATER IS THE MAIN POWER CARRIER OF FUTURE POWER ENGINEERING.” The author seems to be a theoretical physicist from the Kuban State Agrarian University in Krasnodar, Russia. In the reply to Stefan I wrote: “I do not consider myself competent enough to deal scientifically with ‘the axiom of space - matter - time unity.’ But if you send me a short simplified essay on that subject, at the level accessible to high school physics teachers, I might post it on my web site.” I also asked about Stefan’s background and and about one particular claim made by Kanarev.

I suspect that the phrase “power carrier,” in the title of the article, is probably a poor translation of a Russian term for the “energy resource.” I am sure the author knows the difference between power and energy; he certainly does not think that power can be carried by a substance. By the way, it is not the first time that I see how a foreign author puts himself into unfavorable situation by posting a poorly translated article. Translational errors would most likely be corrected in a peer-reviewed article, published in a scientific journal. Quick publishing over the Internet is far from being perfect; it has many negative “side effects.”

The above was written in anticipation of an essay from Stefan. But the reply received today (9/3/04) did not contain an essay. He wrote: “I am not a scientist; I am a open minded family man. If we learn what energy is then we could tap on to something new, and do something better for our children.” In other words, he is layman aware of negative aspects of utilization of available energy resources. I understand frustration of people like him. He is desperate to hear about better alternatives.

His message contained the URL for the laboratory of Jean-Louis Naudin (in Paris) and a suggestion that students should study the description of French experiments on excess heat. I did correspond with Naudin last year but for some reason he stopped responding to my questions. I expected him to publish the fascinating results at the last International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF10) but he did not come. Will he come to the next conference, ICCF11, in Marseilles? I hope so. His results, described at

are interesting. Naudin constructed a simple device, named cold fusion reactor (CFR) to generate excess power electrochemically. This URL shows results of numerous experiments designed to test reproducibility. He performed 32 such experiments and in all of them exit power was larger than input power, sometimes by the factor larger than two. Two other teams of researchers, one in the US and another in France, also confirmed generation of excess heat. In one case a toy engine was run on the excess power of the CFR.

I wish I were able to convince myself that the recorded excess power could not possibly be due to chemical reactions taking place inside the cells. Unfortunately, this possibility is not even mentioned. The name of the device, CFR, implies nuclear origin of excess power and I expected to find a justification of such claim. That is why I was disappointed. But I was impressed by graphical illustrations and by simplicity of the apparatus. I plan to replicate his results as soon as a chemistry collaborator is found.

Naudin’s document begins with a declaration: “I have used the experimental protocol fully described by Eugene F. Mallove at . Mallove, who died tragically this summer, was the editor of Infinite Energy magazine. I did fetch his description of the experimental protocol to which Naudin refers but found no discussion of chemical reactions. Why should I rule out a possibility that the excess heat is due to chemical reactions taking place inside the reactor? But, as said before, I am not a chemist. Perhaps what is not clear to me would be obvious to a chemist. Mallove wrote that the experiment “involves high-temperatures, high-voltages, explosive mixtures of oxygen and hydrogen, caustic solutions, and steam generation. . . . It is visually and audibly spectacular -- brilliant glowing, pink, purple, lavender with white flashes on an underwater tungsten (W) electrode ( e.g. 2 mm x 5 mm W foil or 1 cm x 1.6 mm diameter tungsten welding rod). A plasma-like underwater discharge on the electrode that often manages to disintegrate or melt tungsten underwater.” Why should I exclude a possibility that some of the chemical reactions in CFR are exothermic? The current and voltage, in experiments described by Mallove, were 5 A and 180 V. No wonder that intensive underwater sparking and boiling takes place. I had a chance to experiment with similar underwater sparking two years ago but no calorimetric measurements were made.

Another thing that impressed me was that one of the teams that confirmed Naudin’s findings consisted of highly trained electrochemist. On the other hand, I was slightly disappointed that the identity of the US laboratory, in which the confirming calorimetric experiments were conducted, was not specified. The document shows the photo of two researchers from Louisiana, and their names (two nice looking young girls, probably students), but not the name of the laboratory, or the name of the project director. Was it a high school project or a projects at a well known university? Such information is important when controversial results are presented. Why was it not provided by Naudin?

Before finishing this unexpected essay let me reflect on what came to my mind as I was reading Kanarev’s paper again. I was thinking about similarities between his claims of Adamenko and those of Adamenko. Both scientists introduce themselves as theoretical physicists. Both refer to totally unheard off, and hard to believe, experimental results. Both are seeking foreign and domestic investors to support their projects. I suspect that these two people know each other very well. Perhaps they were working in the same Soviet laboratory about fifteen years ago; perhaps they learned physics from the same teachers. What a coincidence; I was informed about work of these scientists by strangers, and approximately at the same time (see unit #168).

Reading Kanarev’s paper I was thinking about the Chinese scientist, Xing-liu Jiang, who wrote to me about zero point energy. This was described in my unit #162. After posting that, I asked the scientist to comment on what he wrote. He never did and I do not know why. Perhaps he expected me to be more knowledgeable in theoretical physics. Yes, my limitations prevent me from penetrating Kanarev’s reasoning leading to new ways of obtaining energy from water. Perhaps a knowledgeable person will send me a simplified description of that reasoning. The best I can do is to show some quotes from Kanarev’s paper:

Problems of power engineering are well known. The power carriers, which are used nowadays, are not only exhaustible, but they cause a considerable damage to environment. Nearly 40 years ago it was announced that controlled thermonuclear fusion could be the future inexhaustible energy source. More than 25 billion dollars have been spent for the investigation of this source, but there is no positive result. This state can be explained by a considerable lag of theoretical investigations from the possibilities of industry to implement any installation in order to check an intuitive idea being formulated. As a result, the main attention has been paid to an experiment, not to a theory.” What is wrong with using experimental evidence to validate theoretical anticipation?

“As there was no acceptable theoretical description of the planned process of thermonuclear fusion control, a positive result could be obtained only by chance. Theoretical prognostication of this result was impossible due to the absence of any notion concerning the models: the electron, the proton, the atom of hydrogen and the ions of chemical elements, which form plasma. Orthodox physics did not even set itself such task.” My impression was that quantum mechanics, and quantum electrodynamics, made big progress in dealing with such topics.

“Modern industrial installations require 4 kWh for production of 1 cubic meter of hydrogen from water. When this hydrogen is burnt, 3.6 kWh of energy is released. If the energy expenses for production of hydrogen from water are reduced by twofold or threefold, it becomes a competitive energy carrier. If it is possible to reduce these expenses of hydrogen tenfold, it will become the cheapest energy carrier. In this case, coal, oil and natural gas fail to compete with it. Our investigations have shown that there are some plasma electrolytic devices and modes of their operation, which reduce energy expenses for obtaining one cubic meter of hydrogen up to 0.40 kWh. In this case, more than 1000% of additional energy is obtained. A laboratory device with such indices was made one year ago.”

The transition from a laboratory installation to the industrial one requires additional investigations with the use of rather expensive spectrometers, gas analyzers, electronic sets for simultaneous registration of more than 10 induces of the plasma electrolytic process. As hydrogen is an explosive gas, it is impossible to ignore the investigation stage for making the laboratory installation the industrial one. During the scale operation, dangerous radiations can take place, which accompany the transmutation process of the chemical element nuclei.

Five patents have been received for the investigation results; three positive decisions concerning the issue of the patents and three claims are in the process of consideration. Three editions of the book ‘Water as a New Source of Energy’ are available with the detailed theoretical description of plasma electrolysis of water and the quantitative calculations of the experimental results. . . . As the author has kept walking along the corridors of the Russian power without success for five years in order to get financing, the last hope remains – to find a foreign investor. The author is busy with this problem as it is clear that a delay in financing is equal to a loss of priority in this topical field of investigations, which solves two global problems of the mankind: the energy problem and the environmental problem.”

P.S. (9/26/04)
In Kanarev’s Page at I see some starnge phrases. On page 3, for example, I see “binding energy of the electron in the atomic nucleus” and “electron begins to absorb thermal photons.” On the next page I see “the proton should capture 2.531 electrons in order to become a neutron” and “particle ‘being dissolved’ in the ether.” Sentences in which these phrases appear might have some profound meaning to a theorist. But I am not a theorist. The ideas of electrons being captured by atomic nuclei, or being dissolved in the ether, are in conflict with what I know about nuclear phenomena. I hope someone more knowledgeable will comment on Kanarev’s project and ideas.

Return to the clickable list of items