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
Egregio Ing. Rossi,
Le faccio i miei più sentiti auguri per la sua scoperta.
Credo che il mondo abbia bisogno di scoperte di questa portata e di persone come lei.
Le volevo porre una domanda, il brevetto pubblicato nel suo foglio di ricerca, non è quello definitivo?
Cordiali saluti.
Alessandro Rossi
Yes, we are working already on this.
Again,
Warm regards,
A.R.
Estimado Sr.Andrea Rossi:
Permitame por favor otra pregunta:¿Es aplicable su tecnologia de fusion fria a la propulsion de naves espaciales?
Gracias.
Dear Mr Brendan Roycroft:
Unfortunately your very throughly questions regard data that I am not allowed to undisclose until our patent, which is pending, will become regular.
During the patent pending period we will maintain the industrial secret.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr Vladimir:
I will study what you wrote, as I do with everything regarding this issue.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr Esteban:
We will start the serial production of our modules very soon. Combibing the modules in series and parallel arrays it is possible to reach every limit of power. The modules are designed to be connected in series and parallels.
Warm regards,
A.R.
What is the reason you have to keep supplying nickel? If running the reaction at such a high rate causes the nickel to restructure, which lowers its efficiency, is it possible to run the reaction at a lower rate where you would not have to feed the reaction at all? What is the minimum nickel temperature required to get a factor of two heat out?
This is an interesting blog.
A.R.
[…] […]
Estimado Sr.Adrea Rossi:
Mis felicitaciones por este importante avance cientifico.
Mi pregunta es: ¿Hay margen de mejora en su celula de 10kw?¿Podria escalar a 1Mw com mejoras de diseño(ej: micro-nanotecnologia),de ser asi¿podriamos ver centrales de fusion fria con varios Gigavatios en un futuro?
Gracias y un saludo.MADRID (ESPAÑA).
Caro signor Rossi.
Ammiro la vostra invenzione.
Il tuo lavoro apre la strada alla soluzione dei problemi globali della fisica fondamentale.
L’invenzione della moderna teoria non può spiegare.
Ciò significa che la moderna teoria della fusione nucleare dovrebbe essere riconsiderato.
Ho una nuova teoria della fusione fredda.
Lei è d’accordo con la vostra invenzione.
La sua traduzione in inglese cliccando qui.
http://stanislav-grinev.narod.ru/gri9.htm
La sua versione russa di questo link.
http://stanislav-grinev.narod.ru/gri99.htm
Sarei felice se la mia teoria è utile a voi.
Sinceramente vostro, Vladimir Grinyov
Rostov-na-Donu
Russia.
diplazmv56@mail.ru
Dear Mr. Rossi.
I admire your invention.
Your work opens the way to solving the global problems of fundamental physics.
Your invention of the modern theory can not explain.
This means that the modern theory of nuclear fusion should be reconsidered.
I have a new theory of cold fusion.
She agrees with your invention.
Its English translation by clicking here.
http://stanislav-grinev.narod.ru/gri9.htm
Its Russian version of this link.
http://stanislav-grinev.narod.ru/gri99.htm
I would be happy if my theory is useful to you.
Yours sincerely yours,Vladimir Grinyov
Rostov-na-Donu
Russia.
diplazmv56@mail.ru
@Collis William
“If isotopes close to maximum stability could not participate in nucleon capture, there would be no heavy isotopes in the universe at all! Or all our theories on stellar nucleosynthesis are completely wrong!”
Isotopes above nickel and up to bismuth are formed endothermically, in the ‘slow’ process [of adding neutron-by-endothermic-neutron to a nucleus] in red giants.
To make elements above bismuth, up to plutonium*, nucleons pile up in the ‘fast’ process in a super-nova, in which there is plenty of ‘spare energy’ to feed those endothermic reactions. There is as much energy release in a super-nova as there is in several billion years of that star’s ‘normal’ life…Plenty of energy!
So it is from fusion energies of the lighter isotopes that feed the accumulation of nucleons in heavier super-nova products.
In regards the experiment here, I cannot say if there are any initially endothermic reactions that somehow lead, ultimately, to a ‘catalysed’ proton/proton fusion [for example] leaving the nickel behind. Of course I do not know these things for sure. But it is not possible by any nuclear mechanism I understand for an excited 63Cu from a 62Ni+p reaction to generate any heat.
Some possibilities can be excluded, but many cannot. If we do not know precisely what nuclear mechanism can account for anomalous heat, then it seems probable that we also cannot exclude non-nuclear explanations.
Personally, I am skeptical on a nuclear explanation because there is nothing I presently understand that could account for this, and I think there are other more likely possibilities. So I would encourage looking for other, as yet unknown, mechanisms.
But I would not want my skepticism to stop anyone else proving the thermal anomaly is nuclear in origin, if they can do so…. let me be amazed!!….
best regards,
Chris MB.
*[PS; Plutonium is a primordial super-nova element – it’s just too short a half-life to find any naturally occurring on earth!]
TO OUR DEAR READERS: TODAY WE HAVE BEEN OFFLINE FOR ABOUT 10 HOURS, DUE TO TOO INTENSE TRAFFIC AND WE LOST MANY COMMENTS. WE APOLOGIZE FOR THE INCONVENIENT AND INVITE ALL OF YOU THAT HAVE NOT FOUND THE COMMENT ONLINE TO SEND IT AGAIN .
AGAIN, SORRY FOR THIS.
WARM REGARDS,
ANDREA ROSSI
As I said, a strong theoretical work has to be done to unify all these right considerations on the base of the empirical observation of really working reactors. I will put online all the data regarding the operation of our reactors, so we can help ourelves utilizing a galileian approach.
A.R.
Dear Mr Chris MB:
Thank you for your suggestions, which are important and merit to be taken in the due consideration.
I will contact you.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr Nick Palmer:
Welcome in our blog.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Prof. Alex Passi: Thank you very much for your words.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr Giorgio Roncolato:
You are right. The reason why now the K factor is lower is that we passed from experimental and extreme lab tests to an industrial product that has to be dealt with by normal operators, with total reliability. To make the reactors totally reliable and safe beyond any concern, we had to increase the margins of safety of an order of magnitude.
Good question, thank you.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr Gregory Osadetz:
Thank you for your precious encouragement.
A.R.
Dear Mr Vernesoni,
The data have been confirmed during the test made by Prof. Levi of the University of Bologna.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Buonasera Ing. Rossi,
Non sono un fisico ma un informatico appassionato di fisica e free energy Non sono in grado di comprendere i risultati dei vostri esperimenti e mi chiedevo se come riportato nei video i risultati sono stati poi confermati dal dipartimento di fisica di Bologna incaricato di analizzare il reattore.
Grazie e complimenti per l’idea originale.
Dott. Fabrizio Vernesoni
Congratulations Dr. Rossi on another successful demonstration of your very important technology.
While I wait to see the report on Monday, I would like to ask another question:
In your previous experiments, as reported in the Rossi-Focardi paper (http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Rossi-Focardi_paper.pdf) the energy out/inp COP was averaging 200. This is an order of magnitude more than today experiment where COP reached around 20 according your info.
Could you clarify the reasons of this huge difference in COP?
Beh, che dire, in bocca al lupo per il futuro!
The very best of luck for your future endeavours!
Alex Passi, Unibo.
Hi S Rossi and Focardi.
You might like to see my blogspot where I announce your findings. I was one of the (minor) original cold fusion advocates along with Eugene, Jed Rothwell and Chris Tinsley.
Sustainability and stuff according to Nick Palmer
Dear Mr Rossi,
Thank you for your consideration of my question.
Yes, I think I might have references that are worth you while to look in to, that may help your work. It may take me a few weeks to find them again. I presume you can get my email reference from the posting details, please drop me an email (or send me a message, hit ‘PM’ at the bottom of the post I referenced).
There have been a number of different ‘energy claims’ involving anomalous production of energy from Nickel and hydrogen. Most notable/notorious, perhaps, is the ‘Blacklight Power’ concept that a lower state hydrogen is produced (hydrinos) under certain reactions with Raney Nickel {http://www.blacklightpower.com/pdf/NY Times 102108.pdf}.
I have been monitoring some of these various attempts over the years (hence interested in yours) and other related experiments. My references might help form a broader picture of the possibilities of what is going on for you.
In summary, there would surely appear to be anomalies with Nickel and I have no reason to doubt your measurements of excess heat. This is something to explore, indeed, but I do not think the origin can be nuclear. There is more to Nickel and hydrogen chemistry, I think.
Therefore, anomalous energy reports from Ni+H are prolific, suggesting there is more to the current understanding that does need researching. But I feel compelled to conclude, on current evidence, it is more due to some poorly-understood phase-change entropy in the structure of the material, or very unusual chemistry, than nuclear processes.
Good luck working out what is going on, and feel free to contact me if you like.
Sincerely,
Chris MB.
Once again I reply to chrismb regarding how to calculate the energy chgange for a nuclear reaction which in the case of proton capture by Nickel 62 is:-
p + 62Ni –> 63Cu + 6.123 MeV
All proton/neutron captures by natural Nickel isotopes are strongly exothermic.
chrismb claims that the binding energy per nucleon for both 62Ni and 63Cu is about 8.7 MeV. Emphasis should be on the word “about”. 63Cu, not surprisingly, has a lower binding energy per nucleon. When you multiply the difference by the number of nucleons (63) you will get the same 6.123 MeV.
I suggest that binding energy per nucleon is not an appropriate framework for calculating reaction energies and this can lead to confusion.
If isotopes close to maximum stability could not participate in nucleon capture, there would be no heavy isotopes in the universe at all! Or all our theories on stellar nucleosynthesis are completely wrong!
Dear Mr Hergen:
the commercialization timeframe is at most 1 year.
We have contracts in the USA and in Europe.
Mass production should escalate in 2-3 years.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
TO ALL THE PARTICIPANTS TO THIS PRESS CONFERENCE: THE LIVE ANSWERS IN REAL TIME END NOW. FROM NOW ON YOU ALL CAN CONTINUE TO SEND YOUR COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS WITHOUT TIME LIMITS, AND I PROMISE YOU WILL RECEIVE THE ANSWERS WITHIN 24 HOURS.
THANK YOU ALL FOR ALL THE COMMENTS, WHICH WITHOUT EXCEPTIONS HAVE BEEN VERY INTERESTING.
WARM REGARDS,
ANDREA ROSSI
Dear Mr CHRIS:
I base my work on facts, than I work on theories.
The fact that we get 10 folds more energy at the output respect the input implies that something in contraddiction with what you are saying is going out.
As I said, we are working strongly upon the theoretical issues. I know that in this field there are still contradictions with the rules as they are known today.
Maybe you too can reflect on this and help us.
Warm Regards,
AR
Dear Mr Rossi,
please can you say something about your commercialization timeframe. Which markets do you address? When do you expect mass production?
Mr Rossi,
I would still like to understand why you think Ni62 could possibly have any exothermic reactions.
Collis Williams has attempted to reply, but it is naive to think that there can be an exothermic reaction from a resultant 6.15MeV excited 63Cu, as its total binding energy is 8.7MeV higher than 62Ni. Where does the extra 2.6MeV come from? Surely you have to balance the total binding energy, as well as the total mass, to analyse the energy flow?
The per-nucleon binding energy of 63Cu and 62Ni are around 8.7MeV. So it would be thermodynamically unfavourable for an additional nucleon to be added to 62Ni with only 6.15MeV available from mass-energy alone.
This would have to be endothermic if you have only 6.15MeV, yet the total binding energy goes up by more than 8MeV.
I have given a more detailed account on; http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?p=54883#54883 {which also covers each possible nuclear reaction (each of which cannot result in heat)}.
The question is; how can the 6.15MeV mass-energy increase of 62Ni+p->63Cu account for a total binding energy increase of 8.7MeV, and yet also be exothermic?
Sincerely,
Chris MB.
Dear Mr William Collis:
About the copper issue: I agree, in fact we never found, as I said, instable copper in the residual powders.
About the copper contaminations: could be, but there is no coherence with the mass balance: the amounts of copper we found in the residual powders are too big.
I will follow your suggestion about a comparision of the 2 methods, is a good idea: so far we didn’t make neutron activation analysis.
If you will organize a conference and will invite me, I will be there.
Warm Regards,
Andrea Rossi
Dear Mr Bair Ayushin:
Of course you are right, it was a typo. Sorry, now I go to correct
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
I suppose that is obviously a typo: “… and below 1 cent/4,000 J in case of thermal power production for heating purposes”
1 kWh = 3,6 MJ
Dear Ing. Rossi
Thank you for your kind words and prompt reply.
I don’t feel the atomic microscope provides good evidence for copper production (answer 1). This is because most of the expected copper isotopes are radioactive and would not survive the journey. 59Cu for example has a half life of 81 seconds.
So the question arises, where does the copper come from?
As most chemists know, commercial hydrogen is produced in enormous quantities from fossil fuels by variations on the water-gas process. Consequently it is usually contaminated by small quantities of carbon monoxide.
At temperatures of a few 100 degrees C, CO reacts reversibly with Nickel metal (and iron) to produce a volatile carbonyl Ni(CO)4. This is used in the Mond process for purifying Nickel on an industrial scale. In a system where there exists a temperature differential, as is the case of the demonstration device, metal will appear to evaporate from cooler surfaces and be deposited on hotter surfaces. The carbon monoxide is regenerated so even a tiny quantity can transport quite large quantities over a period of time. Quartz halogen lamps work on the same principle.
Obviously the CO cannot transport non nickel impurities which therefore are concentrated on the Nickel surface exactly where the atomic microscope finds them. The microscope will only detect quite large quantities of copper (mg) which would have produced considerable heat had they been produced by a nuclear reaction. I need hardly add that lethal gamma radiation would also be produced.
Are the SIMS data published? Unfortunately mass data alone is somewhat ambiguous. Have you considered neutron activation analysis which would identify specific isotopes? A comparison between the 2 methods might distinguish between a proton capture (Focardi)and picno-chemistry (Dufour) conjectures.
I wish you every good fortune in your development, and I hope you will publicly present your results at a future scientific conference.
DID I ANSWER TO EVERYBODY SO FAR?
IS THERE ANYBODY THAT HASN’T YET GOT AN ANSWER?
DID I MISS SOMETHING?
IF YES, PLEASE SEND AGAIN YOUR QUESTIONS, I AM HERE
ANDREA ROSSI
Dear Mr Damir Kovacic:
The longest period of time we already experienced for our reactors up to now is around 2 years.
The device, made combining modules equal to the one tested yesterday, will be in operation in few months.
Please, what do you mean, in this case when you say “power density”? If you mean which volume is necessary per kW of power, I can say about 5 liters per kW, just for the thermal power.
The gamma ray issue is a very interesting one. We have to work a lot to understand it. Sincerely, I have not a clue, so far.
Warm Regards,
Andrea
Dear Mr. Erwin Hergen:
I estimate that the cost of energy made with this system will be below 1 cent/kWh, in case of electric power made by means of a Carnot cycle, and below 1 cent/4,000 M J in case of thermal power production for heating purposes.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Dear Enrico,
No radiation escape has been detected, apart a slight deviation of gamma rays respect the ground values,
Warm regards,
A.R.
During the experiment of yesterday, what kind of radiation escape from the system?
Dear Mr Rossi,
congratulations to your invention. My question: when your fusion engine is in mass production, what will be the cost of electricity of 1 kw/h in Euo-Cents? What is your estimation? How do you intend to convert heat in electricity?
Dear Mr. Rossi
What is the longest period of time that the apparatus was in operation?
On the Internet I found that you have been working on the device that would produce MW of thermal energy. What is the progress with such a device?
Did you find or are aware of any limitations of power density that could be achieved?
In the demo there was a mention of the gamma radiation spike after the input power was switched off. How do you explain this?
Dear Enrico:
The maintainance can be done every 6 months.
With this pit stop also the spare parts issue is verified.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr Murray:
In the cell there are several grams of Ni
With 1 gram of Ni the average real production of energy is around 100 kWh
Dear Mr George Pappas:
We are not able to know which instable atoms are produced DURING the operation of the reactor, but we can analyze the composition of the powders left AFTER the operations: in such powders we do not find instable elements.
We use “catalyzers” to improve the reactions. Upon the nature of such catalyzers we will be unconfudential as soon as our patent will have finished its course.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
How much is the period for the maintenance? Is there a scheduled time when you need to stop the system to change some parts?
E.B.
Enrico: I lost your last comment: can you send it again?
Dear Enrico:
Conservatively, I would say 0,01 g/kWh of Ni is the actual demand of Ni is necessary, even if the mass that really reacts is in the order of picograms.
The ratio Output Energy/Input Energy , conservatively, is always over 6 .
Dear Mr Giorgio:
I remember that the flow propelled by the dosimeter was about 25 liters per hour ( prof. Levi regulated the instruments, I was a spectator, do not remember the numbers exactly). By next Monday the exact report with all the precise numerical data will be published on the Journal Of Nuclear Physics and on this blog. Prof. Levi is at the moment working on the analysis of the data and the day after tomorrow should be able to give us the report.
Warm regards,
A.R.