Peer Review

All the articles published on the Journal Of Nuclear Physics are Peer Reviewed. The Peer Review of every paper is made by at least one University Physics Professor.

Is the Rossi energy amplifier the first pico-chemical reactor?

Jacques Dufour
CNAM Laboratoire des sciences nucléaires, 2 rue Conté 75003 Paris France

Direct Download

The nuclear signatures that can be expected when contacting hydrogen with nickel, were derived from thermal results recently obtained (Rossi energy amplifier), using the type of reaction paths proposed as the explanation of the energy produced. The consequences of proton or neutron capture have been studied. It was shown that these consequences are not in line with the experimental observations. A novel tentative explanation is thus described. Should this explanation be true, it is proposed to call pico-chemistry the novel field thus opened.
In a recent paper [1], it was shown that, if the reaction path occurring in a Rossi energy amplifier [2], was mainly proton capture, the lead thickness required to completely suppress the gamma flux produced, would be in the order of tens of cm. The lead screen used (2 cm) should thus have resulted in a lethal gamma dose emitted in the surroundings. Another explanation, different from proton or neutron capture is thus to be found. In [3], the concept of pico-chemistry was presented, that could explain the generation of photons in the range of tens of keV, thus compatible with the lead screening used in the energy amplifier.
In chemistry, compounds are formed by the binding of the components through their outer electronic shells. Ionic, metallic and covalent hydrides of metals are known. Thus, Nickel hydride NiH can be viewed as an hydrogen and a nickel atoms maintained at a few angstrom distance, through a metallic bound.
In contrast, in a pico-nickel hydride, a (shrunken) hydrogen atom would be inside the electronic cortege of the Nickel and bound to the nickel at close proximity of its nucleus. In [3] a tentative explanation was given, of the possibility of such an exotic hydride. Another approach is presented in this paper.
Possible existence of a small hydrogen-like dipole and reaction with a nickel nucleus:
Various concepts of a shrunken hydrogen atom have been presented. In [4], the possibility of having bound states of a proton and an electron with lower radius and higher ionization energy than the usual Bohr values is claimed. These bound states were called hydrinos and attributed to the possibility of having fractional values for the main quantum number of the hydrogen atom. In [5] a metastable state is justified by the electron spin/proton nuclear spin interaction being first order in the environment of a lattice (it is third order in vacuum). This state was called hydrex and proposed as an explanation for fission-like reaction occurring in metallic lattices. Finally, the interaction of a proton and an electron could result in a virtual neutron [6], that could be captured by and react with the Ni nucleus.
In this paper, the evolution of a virtual neutron like association between a proton and an electron, in contact with an atom is examined.
At the surface of various materials (metals, metal oxides, metal hydrides…), electrons are more or less free to leave the solid (work function). In an hydrogen environment, it is conceivable that from time to time a virtual neutron can be formed between such an electron and a proton [6], with a deficit of energy of 0.781 MeV:
The life time of this virtual neutron is limited by the Heisenberg uncertainty relation ∆t∆E>h, which sets the maximum distance d it can travel:
The maximum of d is thus some 250 fm and the virtual neutron, formed at the periphery of an atom has hardly any chance to reach the close vicinity of the nucleus of this atom. It can nevertheless sufficiently penetrate the outer electronic cortege of the atom so as to feel the (screened) positive potential of the nucleus of the atom, when reverting to a proton and an electron. An electrical dipole is thus formed, which is attracted by the nucleus of the atom. One can wonder if the resulting effect of the action of the positive charge of the nucleus will ultimately end up in the destruction of the dipole, the proton being rejected to infinite and the electron bound to the nucleus. This would certainly be the case if the nucleus where not surrounded by its electronic cortege (Z time ionized nucleus). In the case of an atom with its electrons, an equilibrium position of the dipole could be reached, at close vicinity of the nucleus. To demonstrate the possibility of such a bound state, the complete Hamiltonian of the system would have to be solved, which is not possible. A semi-empirical approach has thus been developed, to reach the orders of magnitude of the characteristics of such a dipole and its interactions with an atom A. This could be used as a guide when looking at the experimental results expected in case of an excess energy measured in the system hydrogen/nickel (energy of radiations emitted, characteristics of the by-products).
In order to distinguish this concept of shrunken hydrogen atom from others, it is proposed to call it Hypole (Deupole and Tripole being the 2 other isotopes).
Semi empiric description of the Hypole:
Figure 1 gives a description of the Hypole, which is proposed to be written H¯Ni when the host atom A is Nickel and its (possible) bound state with the Ni atom, a Nickel pico-hydride NiH¯Ni.
d is the distance between the centers of gravity of positive and negative charges in the hypole.
r is the distance between the proton and the electron.
R is the distance between the center of the nucleus of the atom A and the center of gravity of the hypole.
Z is the charge number of the atom A
The potential that the dipole proton/electron feels from A is at first order (when d/R is small):
During its attraction by A, the spatial extension of the dipole is limited by the repulsion of the inner layers of the electrons of A, resulting in a shrinking of this hydrogen-like object and in a limitation of its polarization. In order to get first guesstimated values of the size and energy of the hypole and of the bound state it might form with A, following assumptions are made:
1. The action of the electronic cortege of A (especially the s electrons of A) on the dipole and the presence at short distance of the Z protons of A are equivalent to the attraction of the electron by the proton in the hypole being multiplied by a factor K>1. Hence, the (pseudo) coulomb interaction in the dipole is:
2. d is small and proportional to R. Hence, d=kR, with k small.
3. The electron of the hypole H¯A cannot be found in the nucleus of the atom A (competition with the s electrons of A). Hence, r≤R
With these assumptions, the Bohr radius of H¯A would be:
and its energy of formation:
In a similar way, the Bohr radius of AH¯A would be:
and its energy of formation:
with mH being the mass of the hydrogen atom.
Under assumption 3, the smallest possible bound object AH¯A is obtained for
In that case meK=mHKZ. Expressing the energies as a function of the unknown k, one gets:
finally yielding the following value for the total energy given by the hypole formation followed by its binding with A:
The bulk of the energy is coming from the formation of the Hypole. EH¯A likely to be of the order of magnitude of the energies that can be found close to the A nucleus, that is the s electrons energy E^sA.
A guesstimated value of k is thus:

In the case of Nickel and taking for E^sNi the average value 10.5 keV, the following guesstimated description of H¯Ni and NiH¯ Ni is obtained (Table 1):

Properties of the Hypole:
The hypole is a picometer size hydrogen-like object. It can only exist when embedded in the electronic cortege of an atom A, where its equilibrium position is very close to the nucleus of A. Its size and energy of formation depends upon A. In the case of Nickel, the size is some 2 picometer and the energy of formation round 10 keV. Hence the names and notations proposed.

The best way for characterizing an hypole, is to measure the mass of the corresponding A/pico-hydride. In the case of nickel, following masses are expected, that take into account the energy of formation (Table 2):

The mass differences given by Table 2 could be easily detected using a high resolution TOF Mass Spectrometer on an acidic solution of the nickel pico-hydride (probably possible see below, chemical properties). SIMS TOF Mass Spectrometry is not adapted, since the primary ions energies are of the order of the energy of formation of the hypole. An ICP TOF Mass Spectrometer would be adapted.

As regards the chemical properties of NiH¯Ni, they should be close to the Nickel ones. The outer electronic layers of NiH¯Ni indeed see the positive charge of the nickel atom, the effect of the hypole H¯Ni being second order in that respect. A shift of the characteristic rays given by nickel in ICP-AOS could be observed.
Finally the radiations emitted during the hypole formation, would be photons in the 10 keV range, thus completely suppressed by the 2 cm layer of lead in the energy amplifier. Faint signals of higher energy photons (annihilation radiation) could anyhow be detected. They might be the signature of an inherent instability of the hypole and of the corresponding pico-hydride, which is discussed now.

Stability of the (nickel) hypole:
The nickel hypole is a small object of picometer dimension and at picometer distance from the nickel nucleus. Its virtual neutron state may have a non zero probability to penetrate the nickel nucleus and react with it according to the neutron capture route developed in [6] and [1]. Most of the gamma photons resulting from the stabilization of the primary excited nickel nuclei are of energy higher than 1 MeV [1]. They mainly interact with the lead shield by producing electron/positron pairs, ultimately yielding the annihilation radiation. From the experimental observations, the rate of virtual neutron capture should be very low (some 10^-20 s^-1, in the experiment 2009(3-5/4-26) presented in [2]).

In this paper, a rough description is given, of a novel chemical interaction. Orders of magnitudes of the main characteristics of this still hypothetical interaction are given.

It is hoped that this approach will be of help when trying to understand the thermal results obtained with the energy amplifier.
Should the experimental results and their interpretation be true, pico-chemistry would become a reality.

[1] J. Dufour “Nuclear signatures to be expected from Rossi energy amplifier” Journal of nuclear physics May 6th 2010
[2] S. Focardi and A. Rossi “A new energy source from nuclear fusion” Journal of nuclear physics
[3] J. Dufour “Very sizeable increase of gravity at pico-meter distance: a novel working hypothesis to explain anomalous heat effects and apparent transmutations in certain metal hydrogen systems” J. of condensed matter nuclear science 1 (2007) p 47-61.
[4] R.L. Mills and W.R. Good “A unified theory derived from first principles” Black light power, Inc. (1992)
[5] J. Dufour, D. Murat, X. Dufour and J. Foos “Experimental observation of nuclear reactions in palladium and uranium: possible explanation by the hydrex mode” Fusion Science and Technology Vol.40-July 2001- p.91-106
[6] L. Daddi “Virtual neutrons in orbital capture” Journal of nuclear physics March 18, 2010

90 comments to Is the Rossi energy amplifier the first pico-chemical reactor?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Wolfgang Reimer:
    1- Confidential
    2- These data will be published after the end of the tests on course
    3- Same as above
    I am very sorry, but all your questions are such that I cannot give an answer, due to our policy aimed to wait for the end of the tests before publishing any related data.
    Thank you for your kind words and wishes,
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Curious Adron:
    What I can tell you within the limits of non confidential issues is that the capture we are making here is mosquitos-capture. The place we are in in the evening gives us a veritable opportunity for to exploit this technology: we are acheving good results with the help of chemistry ( spray and kill) and of mechanics ( slaps). The results, day by day, can be either positive or negative.
    Warm Regards,

  • Wolfgang Reimer

    Dear Andrea:

    Happy belated birthday! May health, creative power, and happiness be always with you!

    I closely follow your amazing story since my Italian friend and fellow Marco told me about your first public demonstration in January 2011. I also met you one time in Zurich for shaking hands and taking a photo (at the E-Cat conference in September 2012).

    And I read Mats Lewan’s book “An Impossible Invention”. Absolutely fascinating and thrilling.

    I would like to ask you some questions regarding the E-Cat (Hot-Cat):

    1) Did the Hot-Cat tested in Lugano already have the two-stage system design (mouse + cat)? I assume not, because that would have required two charges, one for the activator and a different one for the cat and the report does not mention this.

    2) For a single-stage Hot-Cat what is the maximum COP you reached so far (keeping the system in a yet stable control regime)?

    3) In the two-stage system design is the first stage (activator/mouse) intentionally “throttled” to a COP slightly larger than 1 for some reason or is this already the maximum COP achievable for the activator (e.g. due to a different charge/fuel or design)?

    I wish you (and the all mankind as future beneficiary of the Rossi Effect) that all your ambitious plans will work out and humanity can peacefully use your clean energy source soon.

    Best regards,


  • Curious Adron

    One question: somebody talks of neutron capture, some of electon capture: which kind of capture are you making in your process? I mean, within the limits of non confidential things.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Misty Kacik:
    As for what I could read it seems to me a serious work; the China Institute is prestigious and China is a nuclear power: their physicist come from a top level school. My work could be useful in Countries like China, for obvious reasons.
    Warm Regards,

  • Misty Kacik

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    What do you think of the replication of the Rossi Effect made by the China Institute for Atomic Energy ? They made a reactor as descibed in the Lugano Report and got the same COP, moreless.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Thank you for your simpathy.
    Warm Regards,

  • Dr Rossi:
    Perhaps nobody understands that you could stop working and enjoy a golden retire, at your age, but you are burning all the remaining of your life, after a hard life so far, for this cause.
    Thank you, Andrea, for your hard work.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Sorry, this is one of the most important know hows related to the operation of the E-Cat.
    Warm Regards,

  • Robertgennick

    Dr Rossi:
    Can you inform the teams that are trying to replicate your results which is the treatment you do on alumina to make the reactors?
    Thank you,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Michele Bartoli:
    I agree upon one fact: if we arrived here the merit has to be given to our Lord.
    Warm Regards,

  • La strada per scoprire e comprendere dove conduce lo studio sull’infinitamente piccolo che crea il tutto-esistente,probabilmente porta direttamente al cuore del Creatore; cuore del Creatore che agli umani non potrà mai essere permesso di sondare e penetrare in pieno; ma all’uomo allo stato attuale delle cose, un aiuto tramite qualcosa di indispensabile, come l’amplificatore di energia di Rossi, il Creatore amorevolmente lo ha concesso.
    Adesso gli uomini di scienza, hanno la responsabilità di collaborare a far si che questo dono miracoloso, possa trasformarsi in utile realtà per l’intero pianeta.

  • [...] Is the Rossi energy amplifier the first pico-chemical reactor …Jul 18, 2010 … Is the Rossi energy amplifier the first pico-chemical reactor? by. Jacques Dufour CNAM Laboratoire des sciences nucléaires, 2 rue Conté … [...]

  • pix

    As I said many times, this reaction is based on Randell Mills “hydrinos”, or “shrunken hydrogen atoms” as you may call them.
    What is needed to make “shrunken hydrogen”?- elevated temperature and certain “catalyst”.This was all openly disclosed by Mills in his publications and patents.In 1991 Thermacore filled patent for this kind of reaction.
    So, what we need to have to start reaction?
    1.Atomic hydrogen.To make this hydrogen gas H2 need to be heated and contacted with certain metals like Wolfram or Nickel-then it dissociates to atomic hydrogen.
    2.Introduce atomic hydrogen at elevated teperature to certain “catalyst” , energy emission takes place when atomic hydrogen “shrinks” when reacts with catalyst substance. Catalysts were openly disclosed by Mills. One of them could be K2CO3.
    3.”Shrunken” hydrogen atom then further reacts with Nickel metal, coming into crystalline structure of Ni more easily- then propably neutron/proton capture mechanism takes place yelding more energy.
    So, as we see, energy is created during at least 2 steps: “shrinking” of atomic hydrogen ( Mills theory) and then by neutron/proton capture of “shrunken” hydrogen atom with Ni metal.
    Fact, that nanometer Ni powder is in use multiplies reaction area and probability of reaction.
    Summarising,the “father” of this reaction is Randell Mills.Without his “shrunken” hydrino atom reaction of neutron/proton capture could not take place.
    Of course there are also other important things- like Ni powder preparation. Ni powder should be super-clean and de-gassed in deep vacuum to remove all impurities.
    If I would design a cell- I would use inside reactor Ni powder with one of Mills catalysts in powder state.Then by use of el. heater inside introduce H2 gas.
    All those reaction steps will take place inside reactor. At elevated temperature and presence of Ni powder H2 gas will dissociate to nascent hydrogen, then will “shrunk” in contact with “catalyst” and in “shrunken” state penetrate more easily into Ni metallic structure causing further reactions.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Jacques Dufour!
    What a pleasure to have you again here!!!
    Thank you very much for your usual important contribution,
    Warm Regards,

  • Dufour Jacques

    Dear Mr S.Woosnam
    I suggest you read the paper by J.L Russel “Virtual electron capture in deuterium”, published in Ann. Nucl. Energy, vol 18 N°2 pp 75-79, 1991.
    In this paper, Russel shows that if the neutrino has a very small mass, a virtual di-neutron may have a sufficient life time to trigger nuclear reactions. I hypothesize that the life time of the corresponding virtual neutron is sufficient to penetrate the electronic cortege of an atom, but not sufficient to reach the nucleus. Hence the proposed pico-chemistry mechanism. That the neutrino has a non zero mass in now communly accepted. Experimental results on the products in Rossi type experiments could give a precise evaluation of this mass.

  • S Woosnam

    Thank you for your reply, Andrea.
    I’ve had a further look at this today. For the case of the virtual neutron borrowing some kinetic energy from the field in addition to the energy needed to create it from the electron and proton, the maximum distance travelled by the neutron is a little over 5fm and occurs when the beta value is about 4.07% (of the speed of light). Clearly this isn’t enough to penetrate the electron cortege. Maybe if the proton (or electron) has a large amount of initial velocity, this might help matters (the energy of the field needn’t be as uncertain) or if energy were borrowed from somewhere else e.g. as Widom & Larsen suggest, or some form of Casimir effect. I am being heuristic here – just making speculations.
    I agree with your comment, it would be great to hear further from Mr Dufour.
    Illegitmi non carborundum.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear S. Woosnam:
    Your comment needs an answer from Jacques Dufour: it will be a pleasure to hear again from him!
    Warm Regards,

  • S Woosnam

    Dear Mr Rossi,
    From reading Jacques Dufour’s paper, I’m not sure his analysis about the maximum distance travelled by a virtual neutron is correct. As I understand it, the required energy deficit to generate the neutron from the electron-proton system may be “borrowed” from the field for a short period of time (equivalent to the energy of the field being uncertain). But the lifetime of the virtual neutron is inversely proportional to the amount of energy “borrowed”(Heisenberg). The maximum allowed lifetime therefore corresponds to the minimum amount of energy needed, which would be the differences in the proton+electron and neutron rest masses (ignoring the neutrino) – 0.781Mev as Mr Dufour notes BUT this would only create a stationary neutron (no kinetic energy); it is therefore not correct to say that this neutron can travel up to the speed of light and move 250fm, since to do so would require more energy to be borrowed, which would shorten the lifetime of the neutron. I feel some sort of relativistic correction may save Mr Dufour’s theory, but without this I cannot see how it holds. Do you agree, and do you think a relativistic version of Dufour’s theory might be useful? If so, would you care to speculate what role relativity has to play?
    Best regards.

  • Mr Rossi, SIR
    The Universe is stranger than any imagination! Bigger than any imagination!

    The “God” particle may have been found — But I bet it is again divisible.

    Mr Rossi, I salute you —- If you need a 70year old to run errands, polish copper pipes, bend lead shields, go buy you a beer, who fears not the men in black, please, let me know.

    Mike MacDonald, Tasmania maclegends at bigpond dot com

  • Jacques Dufour, I don’t think exotic nuclear reactions are behind the missing Gamma radiation but rather our understanding of catalytic action and the theory of Casimir effect. Presently we assume the vacuum fluctuations in Casimir effect are “upshifted” such that longer wavelengths can not exist between Casimir boundaries and the total energy density is therefore reduced. I am proposing a relativistic interpretation of Casimir effect where the longer wavelengs still exist and the boundaries appear to shrink away into the distance for a local observer in the cavity. This is based on the paper “Cavity QED” by Zofia Bialynicka-Birula, another paper on Relativistic hydrogen by Jan Naudts and “The Light Velocity Casimir Effect” by Tom Ostoma and Mike Trushyk where the measured velocity of light “appears” to increase due to Casimir geometry. My point is time dilation better explains the seeming increase in C calculated by entry and exity of light thru a cavity, it also gives an alternate explanation of “fractional” hydrogen orbits in this environment as a relativistic effect unseen by the local observer inside the cavity AND it would explain the missing radiation as not only “DOWNshifted” but also attenuation since the “contraction” we observe remotely is actually spatial displacement locally. We are trained to think of relativistic effects as requiring near luminal velocity to INCREASE vacuum energy density before dilation can occur but it would appear that Casimir supression can REDUCE vacuum energy density by doing just the opposite – spatial confinement – de- celeration or even “negative” acceleration AND instead of slowing time from our perspective it accelerates it.
    My blog does not speak to the nuclear paths but I am convinced this relativistic interpretation and energy density pumping above and below the disassociation threshold for h2 provides the initiating environment that makes otherwise improbable nuclear reactions probable.See my blog “Gas property of constant motion disassociates h2 in opposition to changes in casimir force”. I think it makes a strong argument as an initial energy source for the Rossi patent consideration – where most patent offices treat this field like perpetual motion this approach cites the inexhaustible gas motion based on HUP as exploitable between inertial frames – something that excuses them from being unaware since this simply doesn’t occur at the macro scale except at a slow gravitational gradient – not to mention driving any rectifying device between different inertial frames would take more energy than we could hope to rectify at the macro scale. At the nano scale we have free motion of h1 and h2 courtesy of HUP and thermal energy, If we suddenly have the ability to travel between frames the removal of energy to the point of liquifying or solidifying gas is irrelevant because it can be restored thru time dilation.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear P.G. Sharrow:
    Thank you for your insight,
    Warm Regards,

  • P.G.Sharrow

    Jacques Dufour; I believe,to correctly describe the operation of the “Rossi” reactor, you will have to dispose of the Bohr atomic model. Even Planck and Einstein disliked this idea of the “nucleus surrounded by electron cloud” Electron shells are wave like force fields of “charge” created by the charge spins of the protons. An “electron” is a charge carrier or a unit of “dark matter /dark energy” that carries a specific signature of spin, charge and velocity. When you can “see” this it will become much easier to visualize the behavior of the “hydrogen to neutron and back” in the nickel.
    L. Daddi has a very good view of the construction of the atomic nucleus but he does not want to let go of the “electron cloud” concept of a proton orbited by an electron.
    Charge / spin in the constituents of the proton create the electron shell of charge and force. Change in the “charge spin” in the proton will change the strength and harmonic position of the electron shell.

    Sometimes we need to go back to the beginning and start over.
    The “Rossi” device was created one experiment at a time. Only things that worked were retained and added to. Applied science, the way God created the universe, and not by stringing theory to theory and then postulating a creation. I look forward to the recreation of the physics of applied science. pg

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Ralph:
    Thank you for your comment. I have taken my precautions, because they are necessary.
    There is people who know everything and that will go on, just in case.
    Warm Regards,
    Andrea Rossi

  • Ralph

    Congratulations Mr. Rossi
    For the benefit of the world I hope that this approach will work out. I feel I must warn you that you are up against not only the Physics community and a fixed mindset but you are also up against the Energy industry both companies and countries. The energy industry is extremely powerful and stands to lose Trillions of dollars if you succeed. Given the war for oil that we have seen it is quite apparent that human lives are something that they do not consider having any value. Therefore I strongly recommend that you implement some sort of failsafe mechanism so that in the event of a planned accident or planned suicide the information about your device is given to the world. WIKILEAKS and multiple other methods of dispersing this information should be considered and please hold very confidential any information of those information outlets. I know this sounds paranoid but given the powers threatened in the world I think that it is prudent.

  • Mike Ross

    Absolutely dedicated to the principle of Peer Review, as I am – I am forced to wonder who Peer Reviewed Newton, or Einstein, or Bohr?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Nick:Probably you did not read one of the two methods o ryou didn’t read both. My process is substantially different.
    Warm Regards,

  • Nick Tininenko

    From what I’ve read so far, it seems as though this process is indeed very similar, if not identical, to the process being developed by Dr. Millsian and Blacklight Power…Have you had any discussions with them? Perhaps this could be further validation of both your processes…

  • Great addtion to this site.

    This article is very worthwhile.

  • Anything one man can imagine, other men can make real

  • Andrea Rossi


  • Joseph Fine

    Long-Range Yukawa Potential:


    ” These reactions are likely to emit X-Rays in the keV level of energy, which could sustain the reaction once initiated. ”


    Jacques Dufour1, Xavier Dufour, Denis Murat, Jacques Foos CNAM – Laboratoire des Sciences Nucléaires – 2 rue Conté – CC304A – 75003 Paris

    Dr. Rossi,

    I read this Oct 2008 paper by Jacques and Xavier Dufour et al of CNAM on the subject of Pico Chemistry and the “long-range” Yukawa Potential.

    This paper is very interesting because it is comprehensible and fills in a lot of gaps in my knowledge and is relevant to our discussion of Pico-Chemistry, X-rays and, perhaps, hypoles.

    This paper deals with Palladium and Deuterons rather than Nickel and Protons but the underlying physics ought to be similar.

    Perhaps, Dr Dufour could comment on his expectation of the behavior of a Nickel-Hydrogen system as well as the possibility that these experiments may be accessible via your Energy Amplifier.

    Thank you,

    Joseph Fine

  • Andrea Rossi

    Thank you for this info, Dr Fine.

  • Joseph Fine

    Pico-chemistry Lab Equipment: An X-ray spectrometer

    Dr. Rossi:

    I apologize for not checking my E-mail recently.

    Here are some links on X-ray detector instrumentation. I meant to ask if you find significant levels of X-rays ‘inside’ the reactor.

    AMPTEK (and others) manufacture X-ray and Gamma Ray detectors.

    An AMPTEK SDD (or similar) may be used to find evidence of hypole radiation at 10-11 Kev.

    Looking forward to learning of your results.

    Theory will have to catch up.

    Best wishes,



    Amptek, Inc. has recently added silicon drift detectors (SDDs) to its family of X-ray detectors. Although new to Amptek, SDDs are a mature X-ray detector technology offering higher performance than conventional planar detectors.
    An SDD has less electronic noise than a comparable planar detector, particularly at short peaking times.

    This gives the SDD better energy resolution at moderate count rates and much better energy resolution at high count rates. The difference is most significant at low energies (where Fano broadening is least.) This application note will provide some background information on SDDs, on how they compare to planar detectors, and when they are recommended.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Dr Fine,
    I reply to your email of November 8th: actually, I didn’t write that in our process there are no radiations, since radiations are the source of the energy we produce, I said we do not have residual radiations outside the reactor, in the sorrounding environment.
    Warm regards,
    p.s. Yes, today is the X Rays day…Thanks to Roentgen.

  • Joseph Fine

    Dr. Rossi,

    Have you measured any X-ray output at the proposed (Prof. Dufour) hypole formation energy of approximately 10.5 Kev?

    According to WOLFRAM ALPHA, the wavelength that corresponds to 10,500 eV is about 118 pm. If hypole formation rate can be increased and, as the quantity of ~118 pm photons increases (if there are any), perhaps a feedback mechanism can be developed whereby it, in turn, will increase or “stimulate” the hypole formation rate – thus resembling an X-ray laser. (So that means reflectors are needed to keep the photons in the vicinity. )

    Just as an electron can be ’stimulated’ to radiate a photon and fall to a lower energy level when illuminated with a photon of the proper wavelength, an electron in close proximity to a nucleus (i.e. in wave function collapse, contraction or Zimzum*) may be ’stimulated’ by an X-ray photon to fall to a metastable level (the hypole-hydrino-Santilli neutron state) then radiate another X-ray photon.

    * Zimzum/(Tsimtsum) The concept that God contracts from completely filling up the universe/spacetime in order to continually provide room for the creation.

    ( Experimenters are urged to err on the side of caution. )

    J. F.

    “Your theory is crazy, the question is whether it’s crazy enough to be true.”
    – Niels Bohr

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Sir:
    To publish your article on the Journal Of Nuclear Physics you have to mail it as an attachment in Word to:
    Your article will be checked by an attorney to verify that the content is legal and will be peer reviewed by a physics professor. The peer reviewing will take from one to three months, depending on the complexity. If it will be accepted, it will be published for free, as all the papers of our Journal.
    Warm Regards,
    The Board Of Advisers

  • S M T Islam

    Dear Sir,
    I want to send an article on my Ph D research work on TRIGA Mark-II Research Reactor for publishing in your journal.Please inform me the rules & resulation and format for publication. My email address is

  • Andrea Rossi

    Interesting insight.
    I didn’t try, jet, but I will.

  • Andrea Rossi

    We want to suggest to our public the new book:
    The Author is Prof. Franco Casali, teacher of Neutrons’ Physics at the University of Bologna.
    It is a very interesting book, rich of adjourned data regarding the production of energy by means of nuclear reactors, written in easy and delighting language, readable also from not experts, but nevertheless with a high professional profile.
    The publisher is CLUEB,
    The price is 14 euros, the roialty of the Author will be entirely given to buy a solar panels powered pump to draw water for an African village.
    Journal Of Nuclear Physics

Leave a Reply




You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>