by E.N. Tsyganov
(UA9 collaboration) University of Texas Southwestern
Medical Center at Dallas, Texas, USA
Abstract
Recent accelerator experiments on fusion of various elements have clearly demonstrated that the effective cross-sections of these reactions depend on what material the target particle is placed in. In these experiments, there was a significant increase in the probability of interaction when target nuclei are imbedded in a conducting crystal or are a part of it. These experiments open a new perspective on the problem of so-called cold nuclear fusion.
Introduction
Experiments of Fleischmann and Pons made about 20 years ago [1], raised the question about the possibility of nuclear DD fusion at room temperature. Conflicting results of numerous experiments that followed, dampened the initial euphoria, and the scientific community quickly came to common belief, that the results of [1] are erroneous. One of the convincing arguments of skeptics was the lack in these experiments of evidence of nuclear decay products. It was assumed that “if there are no neutrons, therefore is no fusion.” However, quite a large international group of physicists, currently a total of about 100-150 people, continues to work in this direction. To date, these enthusiasts have accumulated considerable experience in the field. The leading group of physicists working in this direction, in our opinion, is the group led by Dr. M. McKubre [2]. Interesting results were also obtained in the group of Dr. Y. Arata [3]. Despite some setbacks with the repeatability of results, these researchers still believe in the existence of the effect of cold fusion, even though they do not fully understand its nature. Some time ago we proposed a possible mechanism to explain the results of cold fusion of deuterium [4]. This work considered a possible mechanism of acceleration of deuterium contaminant atoms in the crystals through the interaction of atoms with long-wavelength lattice vibrations in deformed parts of the crystal. Estimates have shown that even if a very small portion of the impurity atoms (~105) get involved in this process and acquires a few keV energy, this will be sufficient to describe the energy released in experiments [2]. This work also hypothesized that the lifetime of the intermediate nucleus increases with decreasing energy of its excitation, so that so-called “radiation-less cooling” of the excited nucleus becomes possible. In [5], we set out a more detailed examination of the process. Quite recently, a sharp increase of the probability of fusion of various elements was found in accelerator experiments for the cases when the target particles are either imbedded in a metal crystal or are a part of the conducting crystal. These experiments compel us to look afresh on the problem of cold fusion.
Recent experiments on fusion of elements on accelerators
For atom-atom collisions the expression of the probability of penetration through a Coulomb barrier for bare nuclei should be modified, because atomic electrons screen the repulsion effect of nuclear charge. Such a modification for the isolated atom collisions has been performed in H.J. Assenbaum and others [6] using static Born-Oppenheimer approximation. The experimental results that shed further light on this problem were obtained in relatively recent works C. Rolfs [7] and K. Czerski [8]. Review of earlier studies on this subject is contained in the work of L. Bogdanova [9]. In these studies a somewhat unusual phenomenon was observed: the sub-barrier fusion cross sections of elements depend strongly on the physical state of the matter in which these processes are taking place. Figure 1 (left) shows the experimental data [8], demonstrating the dependence of the astrophysical factor S(E) for the fusion of elements of sub-threshold nuclear reaction on the aggregate state of the matter that contains the target nucleus 7Li. The same figure (right) presents similar data [7] for the DD reaction, when the target nucleus was embedded in a zirconium crystal. It must be noted that the physical nature of the phenomenon of increasing cross synthesis of elements in the case where this process occurs in the conductor crystal lattice is still not completely clear.
Figure 1. Up – experimental data [8], showing the energy dependence of the S-factor for sub-threshold nuclear reaction on the aggregate state of matter that contains the nucleus 7Li. Down – the similar data [7] for the reaction of DD, when the target nucleus is placed in a crystal of zirconium. The data are well described by the introduction of the screening potential of about 300 eV.
The phenomenon is apparently due to the strong anisotropy of the electrical fields of the crystal lattice in the presence of free conduction electrons. Data for zirconium crystals for the DD reactions can be well described by the introduction of the screening potential of about 300 eV. It is natural to assume that the corresponding distance between of two atoms of deuterium in these circumstances is less than the molecular size of deuterium. In the case of the screening potential of 300 eV, the distance of convergence of deuterium atoms is ~510ˆ12 m, which is about an order of magnitude smaller than the size of a molecule of deuterium, where the screening potential is 27 eV. As it turned out, the reaction rate for DD fusion in these conditions is quite sufficient to describe the experimental results of McKubre and others [2]. Below we present the calculation of the rate process similar to the mu-catalysis where, instead of the exchange interaction by the muon, the factor of bringing together two deuterons is the effect of conduction electrons and the lattice of the crystal.
Calculation of the DD fusion rate for “Metal-Crystal” catalysis
The expression for the cross section of synthesis in the collision of two nuclei can be written as
where for the DD fusion
Here the energy E is shown in keV in the center of mass. S(E) astrophysical factor (at low energies it can be considered constant), the factor 1/E reflects de Broglie dependence of cross section on energy. The main energy dependence of the fusion is contained in an expression
that determines the probability of penetration of the deuteron through the Coulomb barrier. From the above expressions, it is evident that in the case of DD collisions and in the case of DDμcatalysis, the physics of the processes is the same. We use this fact to determine the probability of DD fusion in the case of the “metal-crystalline” DD-catalysis. In the case of DDμ- catalysis the size of the muon deuterium molecules (ion+) is ~5×10ˆ13m. Deuterium nuclei approach such a distance at a kinetic energy ~3 keV. Using the expression (1), we found that the ratio of σ(3.0 keV)/σ(0.3 keV) = 1.05×10ˆ16. It should be noted that for the free deuterium molecule this ratio [ σ(3.0keV)/σ(0.03keV)] is about 10ˆ73. Experimental estimations of the fusion rate for the (DDμ)+ case presented in the paper by Hale [10]:
Thus, we obtain for the “metal-crystalline” catalysis DD fusion rate (for zirconium case):
Is this enough to explain the experiments on cold fusion? We suppose that a screening potential for palladium is about the same as for zirconium. 1 cmˆ3 (12.6 g) of palladium contains 6.0210ˆ23(12.6/106.4) = 0.710ˆ23 atoms. Fraction of crystalline cells with dual (or more) the number of deuterium atoms at a ratio of D: Pd ~1:1 is the case in the experiments [2] ~0.25 (e.g., for Poisson distribution). Crystal cell containing deuterium atoms 0 or 1, in the sense of a fusion reaction, we consider as “passive”. Thus, the number of “active” deuterium cells in 1 cmˆ3 of palladium is equal to 1.810ˆ22. In this case, in a 1 cmˆ3 of palladium the reaction rate will be
this corresponds to the energy release of about 3 kW. This is quite sufficient to explain the results of McKubre group [2]. Most promising version for practical applications would be Platinum (Pt) crystals, where the screening potential for d(d,p)t fusion at room temperature is about 675 eV [11]. In this case, DD fusion rate would be:
The problem of “nonradiative” release of nuclear fusion energy
As we have already noted, the virtual absence of conventional nuclear decay products of the compound nucleus was widely regarded as one of the paradoxes of DD fusion with the formation of 4He in the experiments [2]. We proposed the explanation of this paradox in [4]. We believe that after penetration through the Coulomb barrier at low energies and the materialization of the two deuterons in a potential well, these deuterons retain their identity for some time. This time defines the frequency of further nuclear reactions. Figure 2 schematically illustrates the mechanism of this process. After penetration into the compound nucleus at a very low energy, the deuterons happen to be in a quasi-stabile state seating in the opposite potential wells. In principle, this system is a dual “electromagnetic-nuclear” oscillator. In this oscillator the total kinetic energy of the deuteron turns into potential energy of the oscillator, and vice versa. In the case of very low-energy, the amplitude of oscillations is small, and the reactions with nucleon exchange are suppressed.
Fig. 2. Schematic illustration of the mechanism of the nuclear decay frequency dependence on the compound nucleus 4He* excitation energy for the merging deuterons is presented. The diagram illustrates the shape of the potential well of the compound nucleus. The edges of the potential well are defined by the strong interaction, the dependence at short distances Coulomb repulsion.
The lifetime of the excited 4He* nucleus can be considered in the formalism of the usual radioactive decay. In this case,
Here ν is the decay frequency, i.e., the reciprocal of the decay time τ. According to our hypothesis, the decay rate is a function of excitation energy of the compound nucleus E. Approximating with the first two terms of the polynomial expansion, we have:
Here ν° is the decay frequency at asymptotically low excitation energy. According to quantum-mechanical considerations, the wave functions of deuterons do not completely disappear with decreasing energy, as illustrated by the introduction of the term ν°. The second term of the expansion describes the linear dependence of the frequency decay on the excitation energy. The characteristic nuclear frequency is usually about 10ˆ22 sˆ-1. In fusion reaction D+D4He there is a broad resonance at an energy around 8 MeV. Simple estimates by the width of the resonance and the uncertainty relation gives a lifetime of the intermediate state of about 0.810ˆ22 s. The “nuclear” reaction rate falls approximately linearly with decreasing energy. Apparently, a group of McKubre [2] operates in an effective energy range below 2 keV in the c.m.s. Thus, in these experiments, the excitation energy is at least 4×10ˆ3 times less than in the resonance region. We assume that the rate of nuclear decay is that many times smaller. The corresponding lifetime is less than 0.3×10ˆ18 s. This fall in the nuclear reaction rate has little effect on the ratio of output decay channels of the compound nucleus, but down to a certain limit. This limit is about 6 keV. A compound nucleus at this energy is no longer an isolated system, since virtual photons from the 4He* can reach to the nearest electron and carry the excitation energy of the compound nucleus. The total angular momentum carried by the virtual photons can be zero, so this process is not prohibited. For the distance to the nearest electron, we chose the radius of the electrons in the helium atom (3.1×10ˆ11 m). From the uncertainty relations, duration of this process is about 10ˆ-19 seconds. In the case of “metal-crystalline” catalysis the distance to the nearest electrons can be significantly less and the process of dissipation of energy will go faster. It is assumed that after an exchange of multiple virtual photons with the electrons of the environment the relatively small excitation energy of compound nucleus 4He* vanishes, and the frequency of the compound nucleus decaying with the emission of nucleons will be determined only by the term ν°. For convenience, we assume that this value is no more than 10ˆ12-10ˆ14 per second. In this case, the serial exchange of virtual photons with the electrons of the environment in a time of about 10ˆ-16 will lead to the loss of ~4 MeV from the compound nucleus (after which decays with emission of nucleons are energetically forbidden), and then additional exchange will lead to the loss of all of the free energy of the compound nucleus (24 MeV) and finally the nucleus will be in the 4He ground state. The energy dissipation mechanism of the compound nucleus 4He* with virtual photons, discussed above, naturally raises the question of the electromagnetic-nuclear structure of the excited compound nucleus.
Fig. 3. Possible energy diagram of the excited 4He* nucleus is presented.
Figure 3 represents a possible energy structure of the excited 4He* nucleus and changes of its spatial configuration in the process of releasing of excitation energy. Investigation of this process might be useful to study the quark-gluon dynamics and the structure of the nucleus.
Discussion
Perhaps, in this long-standing history of cold fusion, finally the mystery of this curious and enigmatic phenomenon is gradually being opened. Besides possible benefits that the practical application of this discovery will bring, the scientific community should take into account the sociological lessons that we have gained during such a long ordeal of rejection of this brilliant, though largely accidental, scientific discovery. We would like to express the special appreciation to the scientists that actively resisted the negative verdict imposed about twenty years ago on this topic by the vast majority of nuclear physicists.
Acknowledgements
The author thanks Prof. S.B. Dabagov, Dr. M. McKubre, Dr. F. Tanzela, Dr. V.A. Kuzmin, Prof. L.N. Bogdanova and Prof. T.V. Tetereva for help and valuable discussions. The author is grateful to Prof. V.G. Kadyshevsky, Prof. V.A. Rubakov, Prof. S.S. Gershtein, Prof. V.V. Belyaev, Prof. N.E. Tyurin, Prof. V.L. Aksenov, Prof. V.M. Samsonov, Prof. I.M. Gramenitsky, Prof. A.G. Olshevsky, Prof. V.G. Baryshevsky for their help and useful advice. I am grateful to Dr. VM. Golovatyuk, Prof. M.D. Bavizhev, Dr. N.I. Zimin, Prof. A.M. Taratin for their continued support. I am also grateful to Prof. A. Tollestrup, Prof. U. Amaldi, Prof. W. Scandale, Prof. A. Seiden, Prof. R. Carrigan, Prof. A. Korol, Prof. J. Hauptmann, Prof. V. Guidi, Prof. F. Sauli, Prof. G. Mitselmakher, Prof. A. Takahashi, and Prof. X. Artru for stimulating feedback. Continued support in this process was provided with my colleagues and the leadership of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, and I am especially grateful to Prof. R. Parkey, Prof. N. Rofsky, Prof. J. Anderson and Prof. G. Arbique. I express special thanks to my wife, N.A. Tsyganova for her stimulating ideas and uncompromising support.
References
1. M. Fleischmann, S. Pons, M. W. Anderson, L. J. Li, M. Hawkins, J. Electro anal. Chem. 287, 293 (1990).
2. M. C. H. McKubre, F. Tanzella, P. Tripodi, and P. Haglestein, In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2000, Lerici (La Spezia), Ed. F. Scaramuzzi, (Italian Physical Society, Bologna, Italy, 2001), p 3; M. C. H. McKubre, In Condensed Matter Nuclear Science: Proceedings Of The 10th International Conference On Cold Fusion; Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA 21-29 August, 2003, Ed by P. L. Hagelstein and S. R. Chubb, (World Sci., Singapore, 2006). M. C. H. McKubre, “Review of experimental measurements involving dd reactions”, Presented at the Short Course on LENR for ICCF-10, August 25, 2003.
3. Y. Arata, Y. Zhang, “The special report on research project for creation of new energy”, J. High Temp. Soc. (1) (2008).
4. E. Tsyganov, in Physics of Atomic Nuclei, 2010, Vol. 73, No. 12, pp. 1981–1989. Original Russian text published in Yadernaya Fizika, 2010, Vol. 73, No. 12, pp. 2036–2044.
5. E.N. Tsyganov, “The mechanism of DD fusion in crystals”, submitted to IL NUOVO CIMENTO 34 (4-5) (2011), in Proceedings of the International Conference Channeling 2010 in Ferrara, Italy, October 3-8 2010.
6. H.J. Assenbaum, K. Langanke and C. Rolfs, Z. Phys. A – Atomic Nuclei 327, p. 461-468 (1987).
7. C. Rolfs, “Enhanced Electron Screening in Metals: A Plasma of the Poor Man”, Nuclear Physics News, Vol. 16, No. 2, 2006.
8. A. Huke, K. Czerski, P. Heide, G. Ruprecht, N. Targosz, and W. Zebrowski, “Enhancement of deuteron-fusion reactions in metals and experimental implications”, PHYSICAL REVIEW C 78, 015803 (2008).
9. L.N. Bogdanova, Proceedings of International Conference on Muon Catalyzed Fusion and Related Topics, Dubna, June 18–21, 2007, published by JINR, E4, 15-2008-70, p. 285-293
10. G.M. Hale, “Nuclear physics of the muon catalyzed d+d reactions”, Muon Catalyzed Fusion 5/6 (1990/91) p. 227-232.
11. F. Raiola (for the LUNA Collaboration), B. Burchard, Z. Fulop, et al., J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys.31, 1141 (2005); Eur. Phys. J. A 27, s01, 79 (2006).
by E.N. Tsyganov
(UA9 collaboration) University of Texas Southwestern
Medical Center at Dallas, Texas, USA
Dear Achille:
It is not easy under the authorizations profile. It is not impossible a strategy, though.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Ettore Colizzi:
Yes, we made thermo-mechanical/mathematical models, which, for obvious reasons, are confined in the field of the industrial secrets of our company.
Thank you for your insight,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Caro Dott. Rossi,
mi sono sempre domandato perchè non vende l’energia prodotta rimanendo proprietario degli e-cat? Ai prezzi attuali dell’energia, in quanto tempo un e-cat viene ammortizzato?
Grazie, buon lavoro, Achille Conti
Dear Daniele Passerini:
Yes, they made honestly their job for TG2.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Adriano:
Of course a granted international patent could help.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Ken Hancock:
As I said, I have a strict confidentiality agreement on this issue.
I am very sorry for this.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Goran Crafte:
I do not think so, but I respect your intuition.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Gentile Ing. Rossi, buon giorno!
L’altra notte anche io ho seguito on-line la grande avventura, e ho fatto le ore piccole sul blog di Daniele Passerini…
Fantastico, non c’è altro da dire.
La Rai, come sa, ha dato la notizia (anche se non ha assistito al test).
Stiamo aspettando da un giorno all’altro la notizia tramite l’Associated Press che aveva l’esclusiva, ma apparentemente non c’è niente sulla carta stampata. Come può essere che una notizia così importante venga taciuta?
I giornali sono prolissi nel parlare di cose insignificanti, ma in questo caso tacciono.
Non me lo so spiegare. Possibile che i Puppeters siano così potenti da condizionare l’AP?
Cordiali saluti
Italo
Dear John M.:
1- The power generator had a power of 300 kW: it has been used not only to power the resistances of the reactors before they arrived to the self sustaining mode, but also to power the accessory electric motors: the water pumps and the heat dissipators and this is the reason why the power generator has been turned on also during the self sustained mode of the reactors.
2- The de-rating factor over the time is irrilevant. so far the charge is changed every 180 days of 24 hours per day operation
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr Rossi,
Many Congratulations on your first 1MW generator sale !
Like others here I have a few questions, in good faith.
– What was the capacity of the portable generator used in your customer test ? This answer may squash some of the sceptic’s arguments. (I’m assuming that it is less than 0.5 MWH)
– What is the E-CAT de-rating factor over time (ie: what % of the rated power is being Outputted after 2, 4 & 6 months) ?
Best Wishes in maintaining your excellent progrees.
John M
By the way, Andrea Rossi,
A while ago I proposed a theory that hydrogen protons are transformed to anti-protons inside your e-cats, but re-transformed to normal protons before they hit the nucleus of the nickel atoms. Is that a theory you can find any value in?
Göran Crafte
Dear Andrea Rossi!
It seems like you have done it!
I wanna press your hand when you come to Stockholm (or maybe Oslo) to get your Nobel Prize! I even wanna give you a great hug!
Warmest regards,
Göran Crafte
Dear Mr Rossi,
Many congratulations on a successful demonstration and sale to the first customer.
I know you won’t breach customer confidentiality, but I wonder if you would go as far as clearing up some confusing speculation that’s going around?
I recall you saying clearly that your customer was a U.S. industrial giant. However many claim to have identified a large Italian company as being represented at the test. So they were not the purchaser, – but simply acting as an agent for the US company?
Many thanks and may God bless your work,
Ken
Caro Andrea Rossi,
complimenti per questa grande “avventura”.
sono un semplice appassionato di fisica che segue la vicenda da Gennaio e ..
orgoglioso Italiano (nonostante tutto).
Riuscira’ a risolvere le questioni del brevetto in modo da far capire meglio, spero senza speculazioni, questa scoperta?
Grazie tante e buona fortuna.
Adriano
Dear eng. Rossi, the E-Cat has gone on the italian state television TG2, in prime time!
Dear Giovanni:
The sole thing that moves things is a honest and efficient work.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Giovanni:
Good comment, thank you.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Caro Ing. Rossi
non pubblichi questo mio post, è “one way only”.
Venerdì 28 di ritorno da Verona a Roma dove abito sono passato in Via dell’Elettricista, era l’una, per essere vicino all’evento anche se non ho osato andare oltre la conoscenza delle due hostess…. ho immaginato la Sua concentrazione nella conduzione del test. Ho avuto una impressione di grande calma e sicurezza.
I miei più cordiali ed affettuosi auguri di grande successo.
Giovanni
Dear Ing. Rossi
I was surprised looking this evening at TG2, they reported your test:
http://www.tg2.rai.it/dl/tg2/Page-51fc176a-1c60-4232-a024-732f3ba3f42a.html
Watch Service #11 and #12
Is something moving???????
My Best regards
Giovanni
Dear Dr Rossi,
Out of my personal interest, since a few months I try to follow the developments related to your “e-Cat”, which thing appears to be possible only on the web. However, as a man of Science – and as an engineer myself – I am frustrated by seeing that there are significant technical aspects, which seem to remain controversial for no reason. Therefore, I feel compelled to ask a fundamental question by directly addressing the source, that is yourself.
Going to the point: the Middle-Ages are over since a while; science and myths can not be any longer confused. We all should know too well that we are able to model the physical reality with accuracy much greater than the one needed for the e-Cat (an issue I happen to deal with so often in my professional life).
The question is therefore: did anyone ever build and use an accurate thermo-mechanical computerised (or mathematical) model of an e-Cat?
Since the tones of the debate I have had the chance to see strongly suggest this was never done, I wonder how can that be, also considering the entourage of academically qualified people you are in contact with.
Please note, that it is certainly not our ignorance about the mechanism of the heat production which can prevent a sufficiently accurate mathematical model from being established, since the downstream thermodynamics is not influenced by the nature of the heat source. Neither the cost can be considered prohibitive, actually being – I would guess – just a drop in the ocean, compared to the cost of the hardware involved in your demonstrations. Moreover, I do not see how any restrictions to preserve the know-how could interfere in the preparation of such a model in any significant way.
Among other consequences, a correlated (calibrated) mathematical model would allow to clear the table of all (I mean all) the disputes about the power actually produced; disputes stemming from the influence of the location of the temperature sensors, the water vapour characteristics, the suspected contributions of the system thermal capacity, etc.. Moreover, the predictability of the behaviour and the consequent stabilisation would benefit from such a tool too, and possibly even the understanding of the nature of the heat source would.
Would you please be so kind to respond.
In conclusion, I must say it is not the first time I write something about the e-Cat. I did already about six weeks ago on a blog kind enough to host an article of mine. Should any (Italian speaker) be interested, that can be found at:
http://primaveradiprato.blogspot.com/2011/09/riceviamo-unaltro-importante-contributo.html
With kind Regards,
Ettore Colizzi
Dear Mr. Rossi,
What you needs is a public reference customer that allows clients and policy makers alike to visit and see a BIG-cat unit in full operation.
Getting the technology commonly accepted is probably the best snake-defense available.
As you yourself already have pointed.. your opponents will start to use the big guns.
Dear Valery Tarasov:
Thank you!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Luca Salvarani:
1- thank you
2- yes, I confirm all
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Francesco Toro:
Basically, I agree.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Anthony:
I mean a very complex path of authorizations our attorneys are taking care of. Too complex to talk about here.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Ben Metcalfe:
Just a case!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Fyodor:
Skepticism is a sound sentiment. We respect it and continue to work.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Dear Carlo:
Paradoxically, it’s easier to get authorizations for a 1 MW plant than for a household unit.
There is a difference between experimentation and contractual tests.
The work is going on.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Luke Mortensen:
1- yes
2- yes
3- yes. gaskets
4- different
5- Miami (Fl), Boston (Ma), Manchester (N.H.)
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
1. Is the 1MW container gone?
2. Have you started building another 1MW in another container?
3. Any improvements you want in version 2?
4. Will the buyer of the next 1MW container be the same customer or a different customer?
5. What city will you be working (hiring) in the US?
Best wishes,
Luke Mortensen
Caro Dott. Rossi, premetto che non faccio parte degli ultra-scettici e che molte delle cose che lei dice e fa mi sembrano piuttosto convincenti.
Alcune però fatico a capirle: com’è possibile che sia già partita la commercializzazione dell’impianto industriale quando fino a pochissimi giorni fa lei si dichiarava insicuro del successo della dimostrazione?
Possibile poi che per trovare un compratore sia stato necessario realizzare un impianto da 1 Mega-watt? Il singolo E-cat per uso casalingo di cui aveva già dato dimostrazione nei primi mesi dell’anno, molto più facile, credo, da realizzare e da far funzionare, non era sufficiente a destare l’interesse degli investitori, pur trattandosi di un’invenzione assolutamente rivoluzionaria? Non sarebbe poi bastata una sperimentazione un po’ più lunga, diciamo di qualche giorno, per fugare molti dubbi?
Io sono persona del tutto inesperta, quindi può darsi che le mie siano domande sciocche, tuttavia le sarò grato se vorrà rispondermi! Cordiali saluti e in bocca al lupo per il futuro
Dear Mr. Rossi
Congratulations on your test. You have indicated that you are now manufacturing industrial units or will begin soon. Do you have customers yet for these commercial units. If so do you anticipate being able to tell us the names of these customers? I believe that it will overcome a lot of skepticism if there are known customers for your device.
Also, can you tell us anything more about the research being done at Bologne and Uppsala? When will it begin. Have they received their Ecats yet?
Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Congratulations. Was the date of the 1MW test chosen to deliberately coincide with the 100th anniversary of the first Solvay Conference?
I came across this Wired article:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/10/solvay-congress/
…while reading their coverage of your experiments, and found the coincidence (if such it is) compelling.
In hope for the future,
Ben.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
Can you clarify what you mean when you say “started the authorization process” for home units? Do you mean you have begun to consult with governmental regulatory agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Energy? Please clarify. Thank you.
Carissimo ing. Rossi buonasera.
Oggi ho cercato vanamente tra i vari TG, GR e Giornali almeno due righe di encomio sulla sua invenzione. Ho trovato solo un “fragoroso” silenzio…sembra incredibile.
Che tristezza! Ma non abbattiamoci… per fortuna esiste il Web.
Quando la sua creatura comincerà a diffondersi sul mercato dando buoni frutti saranno costretti ad occuparsene. Penso che la colpa di questo mutismo sia proprio della comunità scientifica italiana ingessata e, per certi versi, persino gelosa dei suoi passi in avanti.
Il fatto è che Ella non ha fatto il solito percorso di lecchinaggio tra i “dotti” della scienza (che magari camin facendo si attribuirebbero dei meriti) e questo ha dato molto fastidio.
Attendiamo fiduciosi i prossimi passi commerciali. Ritengo che il mercato (che in definitiva siamo noi consumatori) sarà molto ben disposto ad investire e raccogliere la sua energia “free”.
Cordiali saluti
Caro Andrea Rossi
1-Innanzitutto congratulazioni, se le merita davvero! ero certo che ce l’avrebbe fatta e cosi è stato!
2-Se posso permettermi vorrei farle una domanda un po’ personale: ho appena letto un commento di Hank Mills e di Sterling D. Allan in risposta a quell’***** . Nell’articolo a parte le considerazioni tecniche sull’e-cat, si facevano anche considerazioni sulla sua persona per sottolinearne la credibilità: si dice che si è dedicato anima e corpo al progetto lavorando come un matto: anche 14-18 ore al giorno, che ha rifiutato proposte di investimento e donazioni, che per portare avanti l’impresa facendo affidamento sui suoi mezzi e rischiandolo (come fanno i veri imprenditori!) ha dovuto vendere le sue quote in altre aziende e la sua casa…. Volevo chiederle se poteva confermare tutto questo! Io non sono affatto uno scettico sull’e-cat, quindi non ho bisogno di essere convinto, però se come penso queste cose sono vere la dicono lunga sia sulla bontà del suo lavoro, sia soprattutto sulla sua persona; e credo che quelli che la deridono ad oltranza avrebbero molto da imparare al riguardo! Per quanto mi riguarda queste cose valgono ancora più dei test che ha reso pubblici! Vada avanti cosi!!!
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Thank you for your courage to make the cold fusion discovery real. You has opened door to new physics and better life. All the best to you.
Valery
Dear Mr Rossi,
On a lighter note, after the heartiest congratulations, I wish to thank you for having saved my old artillery cap.
The bet was on with a hyper-skeptical Scotsman whether your E-Cat was a hoax. Now I expect the Scotsman to munch his Glasgow bunnet but I won’t be a snake: he can use Worcester sauce to make it more palatable!
good morning,
Thanks a lot Ing. Rossi.
I try to comunicate with the mail adress you give to me.
Best regards.
Paolo r
Gent.mo Ing. Rossi,
Sono felice per il successo dell’esperimento(la più bella notizia che io ricordi, una notizia che fa sognare…). Come Istituto Dermatologico di Verona, possediamo una piccola beauty farm sul lago di Garda, dove c’è una piscina interna di circa 120 mc, attualmente riscaldata a pannelli solari termici supportati da una caldaia a gas. Vorremmo sostituire questo tipo di riscaldamento con un ecat da circa 20 Kw. Potremmo accedere ad un ecat industriale o dobbiamo attendere le concessioni per la distribuzione degli ecat domestici? Anche molte beauty farm ed alberghi del trentino a.a., con cui siamo in contatto, sono interessati…
Molti cordiali saluti
Claudio Prati
Dear Sterling Allan:
You can just ignore the snake: he has been corrupted from well known persons, and he is a puppett paid to write what he writes. The problem is not the puppet: if there was not this snake, there would have been another ready to get money in change of falsification. The problem are the Puppetteers, not the puppett, but we know how to handle them. They are Paper Tigers.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Paolo Ravenna,
You can contact
info@leonardocorp1996
for commercial issues.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
gentile dott. rossi,
grandi complimenti per la prova. Ho visto anche che rai 3 si e’ interessata alla cosa. Sono a Sua completa disposizione per la commercializzazione del prodotto in italia ed all’estero. Ho una discreta esperienza. Mi faccia sapere via mail se possiamo parlarne con urgenza. Sono di Ravenna, e sono a vostra completa disposizione. Grazie e cordiali saluti a Lei ed al Prof. Focardi.
Paolo R.
Dear Vladimiro Miozza:
Thank you!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Francesco D.M.
The plant we tested on the 28th is mobile, being a regular container that can be transported everywhere by truck, ship, air-cargo.
Yes, we got the Help of God, and this makes me indebted. I always pay my debts.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear AR Slnk:
Thank you for your kindness. It helps to go on: we are just at the first step of a long path.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Paolo:
1- Started
2- No
3- We have just started, not finished, our work
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Gianluca:
We have already started the commercialization of the industrial plants. For the household E-Cats we have started the authorization process.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Caro Ingegner Rossi,
innanzitutto complimenti per il risultato.
Quello che oggi mi preme conoscere è il futuro della sua brillante scoperta. Pensa che la sua tecnologia potrà essere messa a disposizione di tutti noi? Si possono già ipotizzare degli scenari per la commercializzazione del prodotto? Per quanto tempo ancora dovremo comprare energia derivata dal nucleare o dai carburanti fossili? Non teme che le grandi multinazionali del petrolio possano porre degli ostacoli allo sviluppo industriale del suo lavoro?
Grazie per avermi dato una nuova speranza.
Caro Dott. Rossi spero che gli impegni che avrà non le impediranno di rispondermi, come gentilmente ha sempre fatto. Adesso è il momento di maggior contatto con tutti noi che la sosteniamo, per poter diffondere la conoscenza di questa tecnologia..Perchè da voi stessi; dai media lo posso purtroppo immaginare, non viene pubblicizzato con ogni mezzo questo risultato e la prossima entrata in produzione ? Il vostro acquirente cosa ci guadagna a tenersi tutto per se ? Non è che verra’ abbuiato tutto come al solito ? La cosa al momento è troppo ristretta a pochi eletti e quindi facilmente criticabile da altri. Quali saranno le sue prossime mosse ? E’ bastato facebook e twitter per la primavera araba.. penso lo stesso per la sua invenzione; dove c’è la conoscenza c’è la libertà.
Per un futuro migliore
un abbraccio Paolo