JANUARY 15th FOCARDI AND ROSSI PRESS CONFERENCE

Energy Catalyzer first test videos – January 14th 2011 – Bologna-Italy

Energy Catalyzer Bologna University Test 1/3

Energy Catalyzer Bologna University Test 2/3

Energy Catalyzer Bologna University Test 3/3

Today, Saturday january 15th, at 10:00 AM Sergio Focardi and Andrea Rossi will be on-line for the press conference with Journal’s readers.

The press conference will start at 10 a.m. Italian Time.
To put questions, you will have to send your inquiry as a comment of this post, you will receive the answer in real time online.

Warm Regards,

The Board Of Advisers of the Journal Of Nuclear Physics

1,236 comments to JANUARY 15th FOCARDI AND ROSSI PRESS CONFERENCE

  • Jukka Huttunen

    Dear Dr. Rossi,

    If we are interested in buying your E-Cat products after 1 MW pilot plant has started in Greece what is the right company or person to discuss about commercial and technical spesifications? While you are building your plant we will make some conseptual calculations about our turbine unit sizes (and give a second tought to auxilary devices and automation) but some steam related parameters should be confirmed before that.

    Best regards,
    Jukka Huttunen

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear “Random”:
    The only thing that counts now is to make the 1 MW plant. All the rest will arrive after.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • random

    Dear Eng. Rossi,

    I am personally convinced that in the rooms where meet “everybody who is anybody”, and where the the Decisions (with the capital letter) get made the interest in your invention is way bigger than perhaps anywhere else.
    Bigger than on the newspapers pages, or in the internet fora, or even in the tech blogs.
    Because there are enormous interests that meet there.
    And I am sure that related hectic (not “ethical” !) activities are in full progress.
    In spite of this nobody seems having the will of changing anything in the energy production plans. And this is understandable.
    But not agreeable by many people, who would instead urgent steps taken in favour of this new and better way.
    So, if you could express a wish about this, what would you like us “witnesses” of this situation, as citizens of our Countries, would do to help the transition ?

    Always with high regard,

    random

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Robert Ellefson’
    I already answered to these considerations in former comments.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Dr Hagel:
    I think it is better wait the start of our first 1 MW plant, to avoid polemics.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R/

  • Dr. Johannes Hagel

    Dear Dr. Rossi, Reading about independent successful attempts to reproduce your findings, I am getting increasingly enthusiastic about the E-Cat. Besides working in physics I am a college teacher of physics. From your personal view of progress made so far, would you say that it is time to spread your ideas in schools? Evidently this would help to distribute your achievments. So I would like to know your opinion on this.

    Johannes Hagel

  • Robert Ellefson

    Dear Dr. Rossi,

    First, let me congratulate you on the fantastic results your invention has achieved thus far. Clearly, it seems that the world is about to experience a major change for the better.

    However, I have become concerned that the existing legal processes for intellectual property protections may be unduly impeding the introduction of this technology. Rather than spend time and effort trying to convince skeptical patent examiners, and then carefully proceeding with commercialization one step at a time within a small number of licensed corporations, wouldn’t the world be better served if this technology were widely disseminated, to be developed into as many applications as possible, as rapidly as possible? As an engineer myself, I certainly respect the rights you have earned to profit from your invention, and I would not propose to reduce those in any way. To the contrary, I am wondering how you would react to some kind of new, legislative solution to this extraordinary situation we find ourselves in?

    What if something like the following was to happen: a consortium of countries agree to sponsor a contest of new energy technologies, perhaps in October 2011. Whomever can convincingly demonstrate energy production at the rate your device is already producing would win. The winner would then agree to full disclosure of the invention into the public domain of all participating countries. Then, a perpetual sales tax of 2% of all proceeds from related equipment and energy produced by this invention would be collected by the signatory nations. Some sort of binding international resolution would be required to prevent non-signatory nations from developing non-taxed implementations of the technology. I would propose that half of the tax monies collected go to the inventor/intellectual property rights holder as compensation, and the other half to an international fund dedicated to furthering both fundamental research and development of derivative technologies.

    Clearly, this would be an extraordinary legislative feat to accomplish. However, the urgency of so many major world problems that could be solved by rapid introduction of your invention presents a unique opportunity to rally international support for such a major undertaking. I personally would immediately, eagerly and passionately start advocating far and wide for a creative legislative solution, if you would be willing to participate in some sort of agreement along these lines. I know that you are working 16-hour days to get this work finished, but imagine what could happen if we had 100,000 engineers and scientists working 8-hour days on 1,000 different programs to get this technology understood and deployed? You deserve to profit handsomely from your invention, but surely we can do better for the world by abandoning the archaic and ill-suited constraints of existing patent laws in favor of a new approach. Do you agree?

    Sincerely and with my utmost respect,
    Robert Ellefson

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Denis
    1- yes
    2- a patent like this can request up to 6 years of processing
    Warm Regards,
    A.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr J Le Leivre:
    I cannot give this information,
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

  • J Le Leivre

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    Upon looking through your archived posts, it seems your 1MW design specification has changed/evolved…
    You mentioned intially that the plant would be constructed with 50 20kW modules, it then became 100 10kW modules and I now read it is to be 300 4kW modules.
    Is it due to unit efficiency/safety/size?
    Could you please offer the reasoning behind these changes?
    Best Regards from a very interested engineer.

  • Denis

    Dear Dr. Rossi and Focardi,
    I’m happy to listen that your studies are continuing to be confirmed day by day!
    In particular I’m happy to see that these researches has been done in Italy (I’m italian too).

    But these are my questions:

    -1- You told that in October will be ready the first 1MW Energy Catalyzer. Can you confirm this lead-time?
    -2- Same question about the Patent. What is the forecast for the Lead-Time of the acceptation of the Patent? At that point will be possible for the rest of the world “to see inside” the Catalyzer?

    Best regards,
    Denis

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Mats Heijkenskjold:
    Refueling is made changing the modules in turn when it is rotational time.
    The maintainance is always every 6 months.
    Changing the modules every 6 mo no decrease is observed.
    Thanks for your attention from Sweden!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Mats Heijkenskjold

    Dear Mr Rossi,

    In the reports there are mentioned two sizes of units, 10 KW and the small 2.5kW.

    The bigger one you load with 100g Ni and the smaller with 50g. What about “refueling”?
    The 10kW unit you said you have to load every 6 months.
    If you compare kW:s with Ni amount,there is relatively more Ni(2x) in the 2.5 kW unit.

    Does it mean that you load the small one only after 1 year?

    A second question: At the end of the “fuel” cycle how is the power behaviour. Is it slowly going down step by step or is it more or less an abrupt ending of power?

    With best regards from Sweden

    Mats Heijkenskjold

  • Dear Dr. Rossi,

    This week marks the 16th anniversary of the first, public “Cold Fusion” demo. On April 10, 11 & 12th in 1995 the Patterson Power Cell consistently produced 400% excess power at ICCF5 held at the Lowe’s Grand Hotel Conference Center in Monte Carlo. I attended ICCF5 and assisted with the demo and had worked with Dr. Patterson for many years prior to that time and after. It was my pleasure to meet both Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann at ICCF5.
    Jeb Rothwell wrote an excellent article about Dr. Patterson’s demo at ICCF5.
    http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue2/iccf5.html

    In 1996 Doc Patterson went down the route of experimenting with Nickel-Hydrogen-Light Water, and he talked about this work on Nightline on ABC TV.
    In August, 2003, Doc Patterson finally spoke about the history of his work at ICCF10. Doc said he had ran out of the special nickel coating for his beads as the European manufacturer had stopped making that material. And after that, he could not repeat the results with his original water-based Patterson Power Cell. Here’s a video about Doc and his work: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SarC91PDpLY&feature=youtube_gdata_player

    Doc knew that a powder-packed cell had the most power, but he could never control the high temperatures produced by deuterium/palladium. One cell of Doc’s gas-based, Vycor glass cells went up to 3000 degrees C before it vaporized. The resulting independent lab analysis of the remains of the cell showed clear transmutation of the metals in the cell which reinforced Dr. George Miley’s published observations and conclusions about LENR events.

    At ICCF5 we were fortunate to have Dr. Dennis Cravens to both package the cell for public presentation and to delver a paper on the Patterson Power Cell, “Flow Calorimetry and the Patterson Power Cell (TM) Design”.
    Although we had scientists at the conference read the input/output meters and then did compute the excess power themselves, it would have been nice if we had a large display board showing Watts IN, Watts OUT, and % Excess Power (Heat). I encourage you, Dr. Rossi, to have your staff build such a display for your October demo for the benefit of the Press.

    At ICCF5 the Italian experimenters produced impressive quantified results. When Douglas Morrison (CERN) said the Italians did not have valid results, the Italian researchers jumped out of their chairs and verbally contested Morrison’s remarks. I see the same spirit of truth coming from you, Dr. Rossi. Your great achievement and courage make this anniversary a happy one, indeed!

    Best Regards,

    Daniel G. Zavela

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Fausto Agnano:
    I have not experience with radioactive wastes. I am not able to answer.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Eng. Jukka Huttunen:
    We can set steam pressure anywhere below the limit you indicated.
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

  • Jukka Huttunen

    Dear Mr. Rossi,

    I’m a Technical Director in a small company that has developed small sized high-speed steamturbines (power 1-2 MW electricity) and steamturbine modules (with superheated steam pipes, condense and district heat pumping, grid connection etc.). I’m eager to know what are steam (produced by your E-Cat modules) pressure and temperature (if used in larger scale like 10 MW (thermal heat) steam production for turbines)? We have used 480 C and 60 bar(g) steam because of material costs (superheated steam pipes) and regulations of boiler unit and pipe weldings, but is there any physical obstacle to go higher steam temperatures 530-550 C (e.g. to avoid process chamber overheating etc.), or is temperature and pressure set to somewhere lower level for some purpose?

    I wish you the best of luck with your 1 MW E-Cat project! Feel free to ask if you have questions about turbine technology or its auxilary systems in powerplants.

    With kindly regards from Finland,
    Jukka Huttunen

  • Fausto Agnano

    Avete considerato la possibilità di trasmutare il Plutonio (per smaltire le scorie delle vecchie centrali) in Americio producendo comunque energia? si farebbe un favore all’umanità e sarebbe anche redditizio!
    Fausto da Napoli

  • Andrea Rossi

    Gent. Sig. Sandro,
    La prego di consultare questo blog per le risposta gia’ date alle Sue domande.
    Cordiali saluti,
    A.R.

  • sandro

    Gentile Sig. Rossi,

    mi scuso se scrivo in italiano, come lei ha detto al sig. Carlo, la reazione nell’e-cat è in grado di autosostenersi e sono già stati fatti esperimenti in condizioni di reazione a catena.

    Volevo sapere che problemi potrebbe creare un apparato in queste condizioni (di reazione a catena), potrebbe verificarsi un incontrollabilità del fenomeno con conseguente pericolo?

    Un’altra domanda che credo interessi e preoccupi molti, questa reazione a catena potrebbe eventualmente essere sfruttata per scopi bellici?

    cordiali saluti,

    Sandro

  • Andrea Rossi

    Gent. Sig. Carlo:
    Noi lo abbiamo gia’ fatto: La prego di leggere i Report di Levi ed i relativi comments su questo blog. Comunque la prova del nove sono gli impianti che funzionano. Tutto il resto e’ prodomico, non sostanziale nell’essenza.
    Cordiali saluti,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Paul Hunt:
    Thank you,
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

  • Dear Mr Rossi,
    I am happy every time I see you make a statement like this recent one… “All our Customers have chosen to make business with us because they want to develope this technology at the service of the Mankind.”

    That is the motivation why I started our “Resilient Living Research Campus”. I look forward to being able to play some useful part in helping develop applications for your technology. I hope we meet when you are ready.
    Thanks for your diligence,
    -Paul

  • Carlo

    Gentile Ing. Rossi,
    vorrei per prima cosa congratularmi con lei per il suo lavoro e scusarmi se scrivo in italiano. Lei ha dichiarato che la reazione può autosostenersi ma la temperatura viene tenuta volutamente bassa per motivi di sicurezza. È perfettamente comprensibile trattandosi di un prodotto commerciale. Ma se la sentirebbe, a scopo puramente accademico, di testare il suo catalizzatore in condizioni di reazione a catena? Non crede che sarebbe la prova del nove che fugherebbe ogni dubbio anche nei più scettici?
    Grazie per l’attenzione,
    Carlo.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Dr Johannes Hagel:
    You are asking complex projecting issues that can not be object of a comment.
    This is not a place to teach to manufacture or design a plant.
    Sorry,
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

  • Dr. Johannes hagel (physicist)

    Dear Dr. Rossi,

    In order to replace a common power plant coal burner of say 1Gigawatt by E-cats of your type, would the physical space taken by such a unit compare to the space actually taken? Your 12KW unit with shielding and electronics takes about 1m^3 according to the images? How would the nickel be provided and changed after exhaution? I suppose that the nickel will have to be exposed to 20bar H2 as well?
    How much space will take your 1MW plant in Greece? Who will perform the exchange of nickel? Can it be done by local people? Another question: Has the H2 to be ionized or ist it just normal molecular hydrogen? Or is it ionized by the secret catalyzer? Sorry asking so many questions but your units seem so extraordinary that we all should understand it as completly as possible.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Pietro F.
    All our Customers have chosen to make business with us because they want to develope this technology at the service of the Mankind.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Goran Crafte:
    1- no
    2- no
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Gent.ma Sig.ra Grigia Campione
    Senza la mia Fede in Dio non avrei mai superato le crisi devastanti e le difficolta’ tecnologiche alla base dell’evoluzione del mio lavoro.
    A.R.

  • Friends, thank you. Contributions to Japan http://www.japan.edu.ms/

  • Grigia Campione

    Signor Rossi,
    Marzo il 27, Lei ha condiviso la sua fede Cristiana Cattolica, e sua credenza in Gesù Cristo, per la cui Lei ringrazio. Subito affrontarà un uragano di oppozizione, perció spero che Lei e il suo team siete disposti a pregare il Signore Onnipotente tutti i giorni affinchè la sua meta che tutta l’uminità si approfitta dal suo talento sia realiziata.
    -Grigia Campione

  • Joe Robertson

    This is a link to a zip file that contains 14 mp3 files of a lecture detailing low spin and high spin states of transition elements, mostly the rare earths, however copper is also mentioned. as you listen to the files you will understand why certain people have been and will be obfuscating things. As you begin to listen to the mps several minutes into the 1st one, something explodes when dried in sunlight, this should grab some attention. (off topic, this in particular could very well lead to very high energy solar panels, just a thought.) and later on you will find out what happens when high voltage is applied and the rather high energy released within the circumstances of the experiment. there are other files but in the end he starts going on into history and theological studies. So there could be religous upsettings too. But it is his little journey that is really interesting. He even has patents on this stuff.
    http://www.fileden.com/files/2011/4/10/3112785//hudson.zip

    download it and forward it your physicist friend.

    I think I get it, you came up with this invention, and you know it works, YOU do not really care HOW it works, kind of like a good many people drive a car but they have absolutly no idea how the car works, all they know is, it works and they can drive. And it really doesn’t matter because you want to get it out there, you also want to make money and you are passionate about all this, I understand. and scrap what I said about neutron activation. It’s neutron deflection thats needed, sorry about that.
    all well have fun, oh by the way the guy giving the lecture is a farmer.
    joe

  • Göran Crafte

    Dear Mr Rossi,

    Do you think there might be a nuclear “evolution” going on in your reactors, in which heavier and heavier elements will form if they continue to be exposed to the special environment which you have created in your reactor?

    Couldn’t copper and other elements become heavier and more unstable the longer they have been in your reactor and then turn to the next, heavier element?

    Warm Regards,
    Göran Crafte

  • I.T.

    Egregio ing. Rossi
    Nel rinnovarle i complimenti e la gratitudine per il suo preziosissimo lavoro, le invio un link ad un post apparso sul forum “EnergeticAmbiente”, dove si ipotizza una possibile spiegazione delle reazioni che avvengono nel suo dispositivo.
    Un cordiale saluto.
    I.T.

  • Pietro F.

    Le rinnovo i miei auguri. Seguo la sua storia da una quindicina di giorni e la considero appassionante. Ho saputo che ha stipulato un contratto importante negli Stati Uniti. Spero non conceda in forma esclusiva il “brevetto/segreto industriale” a qualche società legata direttamente o indirettamente a multinazionali che operano nel settore dell’energia, il rischio é quello di veder rallentare al massimo la ricerca al fine di permettere a questi soggetti la dismissione graduale e senza grosse perdite dei settori energeti tradizionali. Mi piacerebbe condurre un veicolo alimentato con l’E-Cat tra dieci anni e non tra venti.

    Cordialmente
    Pietro F.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr “Random”:
    Good question.
    The E-Cat, when turned of, is just a piece of metal with Ni inside, plus some other substance which doesn’t start any kind of reaction. By the way: we are far from automotive applications, as well as from household applications, for which many barriers have to be resolved. We are ready to produce heat in industrial or centralized distribution, right now, or to integrate heat production in existing power plants.
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

  • random

    Dear Eng. Rossi,

    first I must apologize to you and to the other guests for having written my previous (and first) participation in italian language, but: “quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus”, and a little attack of laziness can occur to anyone..

    I wanted to ask:

    let’s assume “tomorrow morning” you own, in addition to your “traditional” car, an E-Cat powered car, where an electric engine is fueled by a properly chosen (I would say: among the ones already available) heat–>electric power converter instead of a battery charged from a socket in your house.
    You choose your E-Cat car instead of the traditional car to go work.
    While you are shutting the garage door the car (next time remember the handbrake !) starts downhill and at the end of the road crashes into a wall.
    Well… would it have been more dangerous (for the car !) if it had been the traditional one ?
    In other words: in case of an event car accident-like, a system “internal combustion engine//wiring/fuel injection/gas tank” would be, in a first approximation evaluation, more or less dangerous than an E-Cat powered system ?
    I know, there are many unknown variables, like what heat/power converter we are talking about; but what I ask myself is: what would be the real danger if an E-Cat system would be subject to a hard physical shock ? (also – we could say – an earthquake with the collapse of the building where the E.Cat is working).

    I don’t (and I could not nor I would ever do) ask for a scientifically perfect answer (again: the needed data for it cannot be all available in the question), but I would like very much to have your first approximation eveluation.
    So, please, anyway be kind to a question inaccurate like this one.

    And also notice that any situation in the car accident that could lead to an Eng. Rossi’s statue has been carefully avoided :-)

    With my warmest regards,

    random

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Goran Crafte:
    All the indipendent Researchers that have tested our reactors had the possibility to check thatinside the reactor there is no other gas but hydrogen.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Göran Crafte

    Dear Mr Rossi,
    Have you investigated if there is any changes in the gaseous contents of the e-cat? Did you give the Swedish researchers the complete contents of the reactor, including gases, or just the powder? Isn’t there a risk that significant results will get unnoticed if one just investigate the powder?

    By the way, is any of your catalyzers a gas?

    Warm Regards,
    Göran Crafte

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Joe Robertson:
    At the moment I am exclusively focused on the 1 MW plants we are manufacturing and I have not the time to take seriously your quite complicated proposal. I respect it, as I respect all the serious studies even if I do not agree, and publish it. Maybe some reader of our Journal is interested.
    Good Luck and
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Dr Johannes Hagel:
    Your question is absolutely right. It is possible, it is very easy and it is in this direction we are going as for one of our main target. Good question, Thank you.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Frank:
    I agree perfectly. The integration of our reactors with existing power plants is one of the easiest applications we have ready. We are working in this very promising direction.
    Good question, thank you,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Dear Mr. Rossi,

    Thank you very much for the continuing dialogue.

    I think one of the great attractions of your technology is that it seems to be mature enough to be able to fit in with the existing energy infrastructure without too much modification.

    We hear so much these days about the problems that coal fired power plants present. It would seem logical that your technology could be incorporated into an existing power plant — instead of burning coal for heat, just use the E-cats to provide the heat to drive the turbines.

    Do you see any problems with this approach?

    Sincerely,

    Frank

  • Dr. Johannes Hagel, physicist

    Dear Dr. Rossi and Focardi, Would it not be desirable to add to your experimental setup a possibility to produce electrical energy via a steam turbin / generator? The direct measurment of electrical energy produced in a ohmic load plus the energy stored in the condensed water on the exit of the turbine should give a very reliable conservative value for the obtained power without complicated measurments necessary concerning dryness of the produced steam. And I think such reliable values are needed in order to finally convince physicists.
    Apart from that, congratulations for the apparently obtained results and all my best wishes for a big success which we all would urgently need!

  • Joe Robertson

    ok, i was wrong, it’s $8.4 million (us) and 300 seconds. here is a partial transcript and note those mentioned are all transition elements like copper and nickle, again see if anything sounds similar, that is ‘rhymes’:

    I came across a lot of refiners in the Phoenix area who were working with precious metals. They informed me that there were people who we reproducing precious metals from natural sources. The technique involved using cyanide to recover gold from old mining sites where they had dumped the tailings from the mine.
    Since I was a successful farmer, I could easily go into mining of this nature because I had water trucks, road graders, earth movers and backhoes. The idea was to accumulate gold and silver without having to pay taxes. Later, I became aware of how to recover gold using the heap leach cyanide system.

    In any recovery operation, once you get down to hard pan, it just won’t go any further, that is when you are leaching soluble salts through the soil. The heap leach system moves gold and silver solutes down to a plastic membrane where they collect as a slurry. This is pumped up and recovered through your carbon and refining process.

    In this recovery process, I was actually recovering gold and silver from this sludge and fire assay when I found I was recovering something else which was causing losses in the recovered gold and silver.

    No one knew what this problem material was and since I was not a chemist or a physicist, I had no idea. It had a specific gravity, it would recover in the molten lead just as if it was gold or silver, it did not float out of the lead, but when I cupeld the lead down, there was had nothing.

    The people involved in mining and metallurgical work are familiar with this mystery substance, giving it the name of ‘ghost gold’, it is a non-assayable, non-identifiable form of gold. At this point, I became involved with a gentleman who does emission spectroscopy, we then became aware of work done by under the auspices of the Soviet Academy of Sciences.

    Emission spectroscopy involves taking a carbon electrode and placing your sample on that carbon electrode. You then run another carbon electrode down from above it and you strike an arc. As the current burns the carbon electrodes and the sample in the electric arc, the elements in the sample will ionize and give off specific light frequencies. This is the basis of spectroscopic Analysis or DC Arc Emission Spectroscopy.

    In this analysis, it is normally run for a period of about 10 to 15 seconds before the carbon electrode burns away. American spectroscopists will tell you that anything that is there will be ionized and will be read in this emission spectroscopy. Our material indicated it was iron, silica and aluminum.

    It took me three years to get rid of the iron, silica and aluminum, once that was done, I still had 98% of the material. This material on the DC arc did not indicate to be anything. The material was taken back to Cornell University, where I worked with a gentleman who helped me on analyze this mystery substance.

    We used X-ray analysis with 8 different X-ray heads, tunneling microscopy, diffraction, fluorescent microscopy, all these wonderful technologies, and the spectroscopist confirmed the presence of iron, silica and aluminum. Once again, we worked to remove these elements from the sample. When they no longer showed up on the spectroscopic analysis, the spectroscopist pronounced that there was now nothing, yet there was still material present.

    According to the Soviet Academy of Sciences, proper spectroscopic analysis requires a 300 second burn instead of the 15 seconds as done in the US. When you do this, you have to sheath the electrode with an inert gas to remove all oxygen and prevent the electrode from burning away too fast. The equipment was setup to use argon as the inert gas so they could achieve a 300 second burn.

    Using this process, within the first 15 seconds, we got the standard readings of iron, silica and aluminum and sometimes traces of calcium.

    After that, nothing else was read until 90 seconds into the burn, where palladium began to read, at 110 seconds, platinum began to read, at 130 seconds, ruthenium began to read, at 140-150 seconds rhodium began to read, at 190, iridium began to read, at 220 osmium begins to read. This is called fractional vaporization by the Russians.

    When you understand that the boiling temperature of iron is to these elements as the boiling temperature of water is to iron. You can’t get iron hotter than the boiling temperature of water until all the water is gone. This is the basis of the cooling system in your car, as long as there is water in the radiator, that motor never gets that hot, but once that water is gone, only then can the metal get hot enough to approach the boiling temperature of the iron.

    The same applies to the carbon arc, all of the iron, silica and aluminum are taking off the heat that the arc is putting into it, and so its not until all of that is gone, that you can reach the temperatures of the denser elements.

    The boiling temperature of these elements is about 5200 to 5300 degrees centigrade, the maximum temperature of a DC arc is theoretically about 5450 to 5500 degrees centigrade, measured at the center of the arc. The material sits on the electrode, so it can’t get to the maximum temperature of the arc. This material had to get rid of all its impurities and all the energy of the arc had to literally be concentrated on the sample, until the elements come off in the sequence of their boiling temperatures. The lowest is palladium, followed by platinum, ruthenium, rhodium, etc. They come off all by themselves at a time when nothing else can be in the sample.

    Getting 600,000 to 700,000 counts of iridium versus a 12,000 count of carbon arc background, we ran this material for 2 and 1/2 years, everyday, we prepared commercial standards. We ran the standards and found they read correctly in the first 15 seconds. As the electrode continues to burn, at 90 seconds, bang, here comes the palladium and the following elements.

    About 85% of the reading occurs way out there towards the end of the burn. In other words the people buying these precious metal standards are only reading about 15% to 20% of the sample and assuming it is everything.

    Short burn times are in error when used to determine standards, the Soviet Academy of Sciences has the most advanced method currently known. Basically, (David must still be referring to an analysis of off-the-shelf standards here) we find 6-8 oz per ton of palladium, 12-13 oz per ton of platinum, 150 oz per ton of osmium, 200 oz per ton of ruthenium, 600 oz. per ton of iridium, 1200 oz per ton of rhodium. (this was done using spectroscopic analysis)

    The best deposit in the world is in South Africa, they are mining 1/3 of one ounce per ton. That’s all the platinum group elements. They go a 1/2 mile down in the ground and follow an 18 inch seam to get this material. I say there are about 2400 oz per ton of these precious elements instead of the 1/3 of one ounce that is currently being recovered. No one else knows it is there and no one else can analyze for it.

    The gentleman spectroscopist who helped me with this analysis winded up getting starry-eyed and went off to Germany. There he studied at the Institute for Spectroscopy, where he claimed he had found precious elements in natural materials, all of which I paid for. I have since learned to protect my knowledge and willingness to share so openly with contracts.

    We ran these experiments for two and one half years and have now created commercially pure standards which were helping us to perfect this analytical technique. I later went to a chemist who I was told was one of the best analytical chemists that the state of Arizona had to offer. This was all explained to the chemist and he became so interested that he volunteered his own time to help research this phenomenon.

    This chemist worked with me for over three and one half years at no charge. Basically, we were running the procedures that the Soviet Academy recommended. When we were finished, we had separated, through analytical chemistry, 6-8 oz. per ton of palladium, 12-13 oz. per ton of platinum, 150 oz. per ton of osmium, 200 oz. per ton of ruthenium, 600 oz. per ton of iridium, 1200 oz. per ton of rhodium, the same values as found in spectroscopic analysis.

    From the analytical chemical tests, all the solution colors were correct, all the oxidation reduction potentials were basically correct, all the physical properties were correct, but when you finish as an analytic alchemist, you take the separated, purified elements and send them to a spectroscopic lab to confirm your findings.

    Using rhodium as an example, it produces a crimson blood-red-colored salt, when you precipitate rhodium out of solution, you add bromate as the oxidizer, you do a neutralization of the acid and the hydroxide precipitates out of the solution, you filter it, dry it, oxidize it, hydrogen reduce it and you should have metal. We did all this, heated it in a tube furnace under oxygen at 850 degrees centigrade for an hour to dehydrate it until we had this red brown oxide.

    We took 1/3 of the sample out and put it in a beaker and sealed it. We then placed the other 2/3 back into the tube furnace, hydrogen reduced it until we got a gray powder, just like rhodium is supposed to look.

    We take that out, take half the sample, place in another vial and seal it, returning the other half of this gray powder to the furnace where it is cooked at 1000 degrees under argon, and it turns snow white. We take that out, put it in another vial, seal it and send all the three sealed samples out for spectroscopic analysis.

    The analysis was done by a commercial firm called SpectraChem in Los Angeles, they do most of the work for the aerospace industry, the man who runs the instrument is the president of the Spectroscopic Association.

    The red brown dioxide analyzed to be iron, the reduced hydrogen material was aluminum and calcium, and the white material, annealed under argon was calcium and silicon

    The point being that there was no consistency in the analysis of the three materials even though they were all three the same element, that material is 99.9% pure rhodium.

    do i have your attention now?
    think about what it is that you are performing, and think about how no one can explain it, now think if someone is trying to point you in the needed direction, BUT if THAT is done in a public forum exactly how many undesirable type of people would suddenly have….well i hope you got the idea.

    I have mp3’s of a lecture, that you need to hear.
    where can i send them?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Joe Robertson:
    Thank you for your original opinion.
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

  • Joe Robertson

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    I suspect that your fusion is not fusion as most scientist would understand it. It is I beleive a product of a nuclear change caused by a ‘room temperature’ superconductor, either subnanoparticles or single atom transition elements, are you using the standard 15 second burn time on the spectroscopy machine, do like the russian Academy of sciences and burn it for 90 seconds. Think about this IF there is ANYTHING left after the burn, then obviously there is something still ‘there’ the elements you seek to see will appear as their boiling points are reached, you need to use neutron activation to verify your results. this has happened before, you see, get my mail from the blog (I presume you can get it.) send me an email with a subject heading: “ATTN: JOE FUSION”. I know where to send you to a long lecture by a man that spent about 20 years chasing this and about 6.5 million dollars (u.s.) researching exactly this, only twisted a little different, I belive this is history rhyming.

    JOE

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Goran Crafte:
    1- No
    2- No
    3- I have not enough knowledge to answer to this question.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

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=""> <s> <strike> <strong>