by
Prof. Ch. E. Stremmenos
.
Leaving aside for the moment any rigorous theoretical approach based on quantitative analyses, I would like to focus, qualitatively only, on the subject of shielding of dispersed protons in the electronic cloud within the crystal structure. The Focardi-Rossi approach considers this shielding a basic requirement for surpassing the Coulomb barrier between the hydrogen nuclei (protons) and the Nickel lattice nuclei, resulting into release of energy, which is a fact, through a series of exothermic nuclear processes leading to transmutations, decays, etc.
The reasoning presented in this note is based on elementary considerations of
· The hydrogen atom (Bohr) in its fundamental energy state
· The Heisenberg uncertainty principle
· The high speed of nuclear reactions (10ˆ-20 sec)
The hydrogen atom (Bohr) in its fundamental state, in the absence of energy perturbations, remains indefinitely in its stationary state shown below. This is due to the in-phase wave (de Broglie), which follows the “circular” path of its single orbiting electron. The wave length and radius of the “circular” path are determined by the fundamental energy state of this atom.
When hydrogen atoms come in contact with the metal (Ni), they abandon their stationary state as they deposit their electrons in the conductivity band of the metal, and due to their greatly reduced volume, compared to that of their atom, the hydrogen nuclei (naked protons) readily diffuse into the defects of the nickel crystalline structure as well as in tetrahedral or octahedral void spaces of the crystal lattice.
It should be underlined that, in addition to the deposited hydrogen electrons, in the nickel mass included are also electrons of the chemical potential of the metal. Jointly these electrons constitute the conductivity electronic cloud, distributed in energy bands (Fermi), and quasi free to move throughout the metallic mass.
In this dynamic state of “non-localized” plasma, based on the uncertainty principle (Heisenberg),
it is conceivable that, for a very short time period (e.g. 10ˆ-18 sec), a series of neutral mini atoms of hydrogen could be formed, in an unstable state, of various size and energy level, distributed within the Fermi band, which is enlarged due to the very short time (Heisenberg).
The neutral mini-atoms of high energy and very short wave length – which is in phase with the “cyclic” orbit (de Broglie) – are statistically captured be the nickel nuclei of the crystal structure with the speed of nuclear reactions (10ˆ-20 sec).
For these mini-atoms to fuse with the nickel nuclei, apart from their neutral character for surpassing the Coulomb barrier, they must have dimensions smaller than 10ˆ-14 m, where nuclear cohesion forces, of high intensity but very short range, are predominant. It is assumed that only a percentage of such atoms satisfy this condition (de Broglie).
The above considerations are based only on an intuitive approach and I trust this phenomenon could be tackled in a systematic and integrated way through the “theory of time dependent perturbations” by employing the appropriate Hamiltonian, which includes time:
The mechanism proposed by Focardi – Rossi, verified by mass spectroscopy data, which predicts transmutation of a nickel nucleus to an unstable copper nucleus (isotope), remains in principle valid. The difference is that inside the unstable copper nucleus, produced from the fusion of a hydrogen mini-atom with a nickel nucleus, is trapped the mini-atom electron (β-), which in my opinion undergoes in-situ annihilation, with the predicted (Focardi-Rossi) decay β+ of the new copper nucleus.
The β+ and β- annihilation (interaction of matter and anti-matter) would lead to the emission of a high energy photon, γ, (Einstein) from the nucleus of the now stable copper isotope and a neutrin to conserve the lepton number. However, based on the principle of conservation of momentum, as a result of the backlash of this nucleus, the photon energy γ is divided into kinetic energy of this nucleus of large mass (heat) and a photon of low frequency.
Furthermore, it should be noted that the system does not exhibit the Mössbauer* phenomenon for two reasons:
1. The copper nucleus is not part of the nickel crystal structure and behaves as an isolated atom in quasi gaseous state
2. Copper, as a chemical element, does not exhibit the Mössbauer phenomenon.
In conclusion, it should be underlined that the copper nucleus thermal perturbation, as a result of its mechanical backlash(heat), is transferred to its encompassing nickel lattice and propagated, by in phase phonons (G. Preparata), through the entire nano-crystal. This could explain why in cold fusion the released energy is mainly in the form of heat and the produced (low) γ radiation can be easily shielded.
.
Prof. Ch. E. Stremmenos (ATHENS, DIC. 1910)
Dear Mr Riccardo:
The times of patent processes average from 2 to 6 years.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Oltre all’enorme utilità del congegno, che i risultati sperimentali sembrano confermare a pieno titolo, sarebbe estremamente interessante comprendere il funzionamento teorico del tutto… a quanto ho capito non è ancora chiaro al 100% nemmeno a voi, giusto? 🙂
Comprendo le problematiche brevettuali e la conseguente prudenza nel diffondere informazioni troppo sensibili: queste potranno essere diffuse solo a brevetto convalidato, o sbaglio?
quindi la mia domanda è: quali sono le tempistiche per ottenerlo?
I miei complimenti ed in bocca al lupo! 😉
——
Experiments seem to confirm the excellent usefullness of the machine: it would be very interesting to understand the physical process in detail… as i read, it’s not completely clear even to you, right?
I understand the problems related to the patent, and the caution in revealing sensible information: you will release them when the patent will be validated, don’t you?
so, my question is the following: what’s the timing to get the patent?
My congratulations and good luck! 😉
Deare Mr Vladimiro Chiarucci:
Thank you.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Dear Rossi
I follow you constantly and you confirm that you are giving me an enthusiasm
incredible!
I remain puzzled by the danger that can only be for her to potentate
economics of energy that you are going to mess up.
I am sure that she, too strong of persecution in Italy for its
discoveries, sapra’gestirsi.
I remain his loyal fan and I look forward to the start of his first
Central! What sra ‘the moment of truth’ to which all the skeptics will have to
bow.
Force engineer!
Vladimir Chiarucci
Caro ing.
vi seguo costantemente e vi confermo il fatto che mi state dando un entusiasmo incredibile!
Rimango perplesso solo dal pericolo che possono costituire per lei i potentati economici legati all’energia che andrete a sconvolgere.
Sono certo che lei , forte anche delle persecuzioni subite in Italia per le sue scoperte, sapra’gestirsi .
Rimango un suo fedele tifoso e aspetto con ansia la partenza della sua prima centrale!Quello sra’ il momento della verita’ a cui tutti gli scettici dovranno inchinarsi.
Forza ingegnere !
Vladimiro Chiarucci
Dear Mr Pietro Cambi:
Your proposal is difficult to combine with the necessity of industrial intellectual property due to the investors.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Salve, Ingegner Rossi. Ho avuto un colloquio con il Professor Focardi sul vostro lavoro. Spero di poter ospitare sul blog che gestisco per conto della mia associazone un vostro intervento, nella forma che preferirete. nel frattempo, sempre nell’ottica di scappare dalle logiche accerchianti che ben conosce, quella delle Majors dell’energia, FORSE potrebbe essere valutata una licenza di tipo “creative Commons” per la vostra scoperta.
http://www.creativecommons.it/Licenze
In questo modo si salverebbero i diritti di sfruttamento commerciali lasciando libero campo alla ricerca.
http://www.aspoitalia.it/
http://www.aspoitalia.it/blog/nte
Hi, Engineer Rossi. I had an interview with Professor Focardi on your work. I hope I could haveon the blog that I manage on behalf of my organization, an intervention from you or Prf. focardi in the form which you prefer. Meanwhile, in the aim to escape the encircling logical, familiar, of the energy majors, perhaps you could consider a license on the srot of “creative commons” for your discovery.
http://www.creativecommons.it/Licenze
In this way it would save the rights of commercial exploitation, leaving the field open to people all over the word for research and free and open developments.
http://www.aspoitalia.it/
http://www.aspoitalia.it/blog/nte
Dear Carlo Ombello:
You are right, thank you,
A.R.
I guessed this is a physical phenomenon.
Dear Rossi,
you will progressively be exposed to the media, with more and more attention devoted to your past, whether you like it or not. Do not offer yourself to easy criticism, do answer question by question! If you just say “I don’t want to talk about it anymore”, you will just make them happy to torture you even more. I think you have the truth on your side (trial acquittals, your success in the US, etc.), use it with short, sharp answers to the ones who want to “mud you up”. Be smart with the media, start thinking about using an expert team to help you fight back on false accusations. The best defense is a good offense.
We all are with you.
All the best
Ing. Carlo Ombello
Dear Mr Koen Vandewalle:
Thank you for your kind considerations and for your useful insights. As for the skepticism, I think it is constructive and correct, as a matter of fact. Besides, many mass media are sustaining our evolution, increasingly as the time goes on while our tests become tougher and tougher. In any case remember that the only real judge is the market: in October we will start our 1 MW plant for our Customer and this will be the real start of our industrial development. The market, at last, is the sole judge.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
the denial of your discovery and invention in the mass-media and the disbelief from the established scientists must be hardly bearable. Most the ones who have actually seen that it really works, did the effort to search for an explanation.
Personally, and probably you feel the same, i find that we were taught some incomplete or erroneous theory on physics and chemistry, which blocked all further evolution of understanding the matter. When people do not understand the basics, they never will create. Most people are excluded from mathematics, but in fact they could, if they were encouraged, develop other ways of understanding.
For me, 10 kW from a one-litre bottle during hours, days, months.. is absolutely sufficient proof. I don’t see any reason why some dare to hesitate. From the movies and interviews on the other hand, we can see most journalists don’t understand, and they are filming the instruments, and the talking people. This only indicates how spoiled we all are. An infinite source of warm tap-water for instance, well every one believes he has this already in his home. Nothing spectacular they think.
Your inventions arrive at the right moment in history, now that “big oil” has no more reason to deny (and force the hide of) a better solution.
Whatever your patent will be or not be, it should better not fall in the hands of corporations. My opinion is that it should serve humanity and not (only) serve the profit.
I understand your catalyst is not some element. I already assume that in a “fire” there must be at least some less-covered atoms that are willing to accept some extra mass.
Congratulations,
Koen Vandewalle
Dear Mr Michael Ledford:
Thank you,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Mr. Rossi,
I have just recently stubled upon your experiments, I, along with the rest of honest humanity hope with all hope that you are able to complete this project without the intervention from the banks and corporations. This may cause some markets to fail and economies to fall but for the betterment of mankind, I and all other humanists are behind you.
Dear Mr Dan St Louis:
Thank you,
Warm regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
My sincere congratulations on your discovery and invention. I don’t think any other one single invention will have the great positive impact on the planet as your invention will. This invention gives me hope that the best days for humanity are ahead of us and not behind us. My best wishes for your continued success.
My very best regards,
Dan
“All the proofe of a pudding, is in the eating.” — William Camden, circa 1605
Dear Mr. Rossi, don’t let the critics wear you down. I’m writing a summary of your technology with comments and photos from related experiments leading up to your invention. It will be available soon on my EnerZize.com site. I’ll let you know here or by private email when it’s ready.
Once this essay is finished I would love to interview you by phone for an audio project related to new energy prospects.
This machine portends a new era for mankind, assuming you and your supporters can continue development and marketing without being blocked by competing trillion-dollar forces. One is given a vision of the journey of Columbus, the discoveries of Galileo, and so many more. Wonderful.
Hello Mr. Rossi,
Indeed a great discovery you´ve made! But wouldn´t it be great to make the energy catalyzer open source for the world and solve the energy crisis in the world? Like Linus Torvalds did with linux? No one will survive life even how much money they have… Just a thought!
Good luck in the future Rossi!
//Finland
[…] his own money. Plus, he is not seeking scientific validation; he goes directly to customers.Cold fusion will help us out of economic stagnation?Physics discussion.Ni-H cold […]
I am not a physicist, but reading this with great interest because if this becomes viable commercially, it will be a very good form of green energy – something the world needs and certainly growing giant economies like China and India need. Apart from having lived in Bologna!
Best Wishes
S Kaur
Dear Mr M. Han,
Sorry, I do not know Peter Jansson. Anyway: no more public tests will be done: in October we start up the 1 MW plant, after that we will be on the market.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Mr Rossi,
Is Peter Jansson testing a unit for you?
Dear Mr Fragolino:
First of all, I have quite clear ideas about the theory, right now. Even if in nuclear Physics theories are aslways “pro tempore”.
About your questions:
1- I do not give informations about catalyzers
1b- same as above
1c- ??????
2- nonsense
3- I do not give info about the reactors charge
4- same as above
5- no
6- LENR research is going on in all the world, mainly in the USA; I am working mainly in the USA and in Greece.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr Rossi,
I’m not a physician, nor I have PHD,
What’ I would recommend You is not to divulge too much of your industrial secret.
I agree that the most intriguing is discovering the “theory behind”, but you quite honestly seem to admit you do not know and are not so curious at the moment.
I first saw the video at the Bologna University and thought you knew much more than you said: now in this blog you said too much.
Before reading this blog I already thought it was not a chemical, nor a thermonuclear, nor a fission, NOR A FUSION precess.
My theory? For sure is a quantum issue that can not be revealed by classical physics, so when I saw you in Bologna surrounded by “classical physicians” I thought they wouldn’t understand a damn thing!
First I thought you were moving energy in the time with some kind of matrix on quark scale, but it was obviously a bad and complicated idea, and so discarded.
I was sure only ONE isotope was involved since I remembered something strange about nickel (bonds.. numbers..) (and now you are saying more than one are actually involved).
The second Idea was that the protons (h+) were “already inside” in the NI62 nucleus by statistical reasons, because actually each and every particle is in many places (some quantum physicians may would prefer to talk about quantum tunneling) so it MUST be even inside the nucleus: but at this point the p+ wound be captured by the nucleus and among all the possibilities, among all the solutions, this would become the DOMINANT ONE.
Thus the reality would be fitted to this last solution and the “process” as you know would be taking place.
No need to pass through anything.
+
I am also quite sure that the process could take place with “other materials” but NI62 and H are the low cost fuel you can afford.
I also thought that even H was an “enriched” or “a specific mixture o isotopes” or just deuterium called hydrogen for secrecy reason.
+
Of course using only one Ni isotope with any kind of H available in an experimental matrix like H1+Ni62, H2+Ni62, H3+Ni62; H1+Ni64, H2+Ni64, H3+Ni64… some scientist well funded could find something interesting (or nothing).
+
Now the questions (you can choose not to answer):
1) Did you tried with some boron, aluminum, gallium, germanium or bismuth isotopes as catalyzers?
1b) are you sure that the “real fuel” is not in the catalyzer?
1c) and that the Ni** is just the “garbage room” for the p+ once the process ends?
I have a quantum theory for the 1c question but is so fool… I was writing but suddenly erased it.
2) Did you tried to make the reaction happen in vacuum (and may be zero-gravity, or on a rotating platform)? (ok silly question)
3) At 350 degrees Nickel stops to be magnetic, isn’t it? Is that a problem? (ok, you can not answer)
4) Do you need rare earths for the catalyzer? (look, this can be answered since is quite general…)
5) Do you think your system could be used for artificially creating rare earths or other elements other than Cu?
6) why all “LENR” (I stated before I do not think is a “nuclear reaction”) is made by Italians????
Byes
DEAR MR BORIS: YOU SENT A COMMENT THAT FOR SOME REASON IS GONE IN THE SPAM AND I ERRONEOUSLY CANCELLED IT AS I DO WITH ALL THE SPAM. PLEASE SEND AGAIN YOUR COMMENT.
WARM REGARDS,
A.R.
Dear Mr Godbole:
I cannot answer.
Warm regards,
A.R,
to Zephir
if your explanation is correct then why does it work only for Nickel? Why not other heavy elements? Why not for deuterium instead of hydrogen?
IMO the cold fusion of hydrogen and nickel can work at room temperature, because the repulsive Coulomb barrier is relevant for naked nickel nuclei only, i.e. these completely ionized one. The atom nuclei stripped of all electrons can be prepared easily at the case of lightweight atoms, like the hydrogen or hellium – but heavier atoms are surprisingly reluctant against the complete lost of their electrons. The energy (density) required for complete ionization of nickel nuclei is comparable to the energy density required for its fission – which basically means, the electrons at the bottom of nickel orbitals are forming the nearly homogeneous energetic continuum with the underlying atom nuclei. So, when the nickel atom is full of electrons, these electrons are balancing/shielding the repulsive forces of atom nuclei for tiny proton, which could literally “swim” through nickel orbitals into its core.
http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/nuclear/fusion/cold/nickel_fusion.gif
Dear Ing. Phillip Newell:
OK, I will contact you privately. I am curious.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Dr. Rossi,
I have now obtained the Ni samples from our sputter chambers, if you want I will share the info but would prefer to do so in private. You have my e-mail send me yours and I will pass on the information after the ICPMS results are in.
Best Regards
Phil Newell
Hurrah for Nickel Hydrogen cold fusion!
Dear Mr Brad Dondale:
In November we will start to duffuse our E-Cats.
That will be the right moment to contact me, when we will unleash the commercial attack.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Mr. Rossi,
You stated a couple months ago that information would be posted informing interested individuals who want to help how they can support your efforts and the advancement of the technology.
Do you have any update on this issue?
You are probably not aware of how many people support the work you are doing, and would love to assist in any way possible. They recognize the significance of your technology, and would like to be actively contributing instead of sitting on their hands waiting for the 1 MW plant to open.
Dear Mr Simonsen:
Please find the answers in formers comments of this blog.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi. Found this site by accident – I’m not nuclear physisist (is now physisian) but wrote 40 pages about fission-reactors aged 14 (that is 1974 – and included in this also fusion-reactors (that time the Tokamak-type was what should be in operation about year 2000…;-) ). I have because of this interest followed developements – and so far your discovery seems to be the most important of all I’ve seen since that time. It’s right size, right powerproduction – seems to be relative easy to shield – but there is something in the design that I’ve problem to understand.
The Ni/H-reation-chamber seems to be sorrounded by a copper-tube – allowing flow of coolingagent (water). But outside on this copper-tube the heating-element is positioned. How can you then achive:
1. Heating to 500 deg. Celcius of the stainless-steel/nickel-chamber?? (unless you drain water on “starting up”)
2. When cooling-water is flowing to absorb the heat from the hydrogen/nickel-interactions – what is then the purpose of adding power to this heating element (in my opinion the heat from this will never reach the reaction-chamber, but will be carried away by the water)?
Hello Mr. Rossi.
Although as a brazilian I am not very fond of your last name (brings back 1982 memories!), all my best wishes to you and your experiment. You can change the world, and as you know, the world badly needs some changes.
I hope you got the calcio reference to Paolo Rossi. Obviously, its quite a generalization to assume all italians (and brazilians) like football.
Best regards!
Dear Mr Williams:
For now I have only to work. Once the 1 MW plant will be in operation, please contact me.
Warmest Regards,
A.R.
Dr. Rossi,
I strongly agree with William, my brain won’t shut down thinking about the possibilities and October seems a lifetime away. I have even started to look at the isotopic breakdown of the nickle residue from our molecular sputter chambers to see if either Ni 62 or Ni 64 show up in higher than normal concentrations in the material that escapes the magnetrons field.
Best Regards
Phil Newell
Eng.
Mr. Rossi,
You stated a couple months ago that information would be posted informing interested individuals who want to help how they can support your efforts and the advancement of the technology.
Do you have any update on this issue?
You are probably not aware of how many people support the work you are doing, and would love to assist in any way possible. They recognize the significance of your technology, and would like to be actively contributing instead of sitting on their hands waiting for the 1 MW plant to open.
Thanks.
Sincerely,
William
Dear Mr A. Garibotto:
The amount of hydrogen we consume is not relevant to the energetic balance.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Dear Jeff Sutton
I cannot give the info you are asking for.
Warmest Refards,
A.R.
Dear Jed:
Thank you,
Warm regards,
A.R.
You wrote:
“I am not going to give more information about this issue. Just can say we have invented a process of ours to enrich Ni without relevant costs. . . .”
Thank you, that is a good answer. I think all readers here understand why you cannot give more information.
Please do not feel obligated to answer questions that might put your intellectual property at risk, or upset your patent attorney.
Congratulations Dr. Rossi. I am on pins and needles awaiting the next demonstration and release of your system.
Could you comment on how the reaction rate is controlled. From what I have read, I understand that in the demonstrations, the Hydrogen pressure was set and closed off, the water was continuous flow and not altered for temperature control, the resistor was used to generate a threshold heat, but then the reaction seems to be hot enough, not to require the resistor heat or even notice resistor adjustments. Is control a static function of your powder (with catalyst) or is there some dynamic function.
Also, I understand the steam temperature is limited to less than 550 degrees. Is this due to the properties of the copper tubing or is there some other issue (permeability of hydrogen in stainless steal at temperature for example)?
Thank you for taking the time to make comments as you move forward in this very important work.
Dear Prof. Rossi,
maybe you have already published but i have a doubt regarding the calculation of the Global Efficency of your method. I do not find anywhere info about the hydrogen consumption of the device.
Starting from the fact that hydrogen has to be produced and we need 3,9kWh to produce 0,111Kg, how this value is considered in the power balance of your device?
Dear William:
1- I cannot give more information about this issue
2- I can say that the cost for enrichment is not substantial for the global economy of the process
3- I cannot gove this information
Warm regards,
A.R.
Dear Jed Rothwell:
I am not going to give more information about this issue. Just can say we have invented a process of ours to enrich Ni without relevant costs. To elaborate Ni powders along classic processes is the invention of the hot water. It is as invent and patent the sputtering in 2010…
Warm regards,
A.R.
Mattias Carlsson asked “Did you enrich for heavier nickel isotopes to make the nickel fuel?” and you replied:
“Yes, we do.”
Elsewhere you said that processing the Ni adds only about 10% to the cost. Yet monoisotopic elements are very expensive. To enrich the sample even 1% would make it cost far more than normal Ni.
How do you explain this? Perhaps there is some confusion.
(Incidentally, Piantelli says in his patent that his Ni is enriched. See patent WO 2010/058288)
Hello Mr. Rossi,
Thank you for revealing that your nickel fuel is enriched to include more Ni 62 and Ni 64. To many of us, your technology is like an addictive and exciting puzzle just waiting to be put together! It holds the potential to change the world and our entire civilization for the better!
Your revelation also brings a few questions to mind.
1) If the enrichment process removes some isotopes from a certain quantity of nickel powder, the final quantity of refined fuel would be less than the quantity of nickel powder you started with. Can you tell us what percentage of nickel powder remains (from lets say one kilogram of ordinary nickel powder) after the enrichment processing takes place?
2) You once stated that the nickel powder you utilize costs approximately $20 dollars per kilogram. If we add a 10% processing cost to this (probably to pay for the chemicals you use) the cost goes up to $22 dollars. However, if lets say only a small percentage of the original powder remains after processing, the cost per kilogram of enriched fuel would be higher than the cost of the raw nickel powder. Can you give us an idea of how much a kilogram of enriched fuel costs?
3) Are the catalysts added during the processing of the nickel powder?
Thanks for being willing to continue communicating with us! You have made the past few months very exciting for me and have personally given me a great deal of hope for the future.
Sincerely,
William
Dear Ing. Carlo Ombello:
I cannot add further information.
Warm regards,
A.R.