How can 30% of nickel in Rossi’s reactor be transmuted into copper?

by Dott. Giuliano Bettini
Retired. Earlier: Selenia SpA, Rome and IDS SpA, Pisa
Also Adjunct Professor at the University of Pisa
Adjunct Professor at Naval Academy, Leghorn (Italian Navy)

Abstract
In the present article I would like to answer a question posed by L. Kowalsky in a recent paper: how can 30% of nickel in Rossi’s reactor be transmuted into copper? “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler”, says a guy. I apologizes if I am too simplistic here.

Introduction
The interest on Andrea Rossi’s Nickel-Hydrogen Cold Fusion technology is accelerating [1]. However, Rossi says that about 30% of nickel was turned into copper, after 6 months of uninterrupted operation. Kowalski [2]. says that “this seems to be impossible because the produced copper isotopes rapidly decay into Ni”. But how it works?

How it works
Following Focardi Rossi [3]. a Ni58 nucleus produces a Copper nucleus according to the reaction

Ni58 + p → Cu59

Copper nucleus Cu59 decays with positron (e+) and neutrino (ν) emission in Ni59 nucleus according to

Cu59 → Ni59 + ν + e+

Then (e+) annichilates with (e-) in two gamma-rays

e- + e+ → γ + γ

Starting [3] from Ni58 which is the more abundant isotope, we can obtain as described in the two above processes Copper formation and its successive decay in Nickel, producing Ni59, Ni60, Ni61 and Ni62. Because Cu63, which can be formed starting by Ni62, is stable and does not decay in Ni63, the chain stops at Ni62 (i.e. Cu63). Each process means some MeV.

Of course how can a proton p gets captured by the Ni58 nucleus? (and subsequent Ni59, Ni60, Ni61 and Ni62). Following Stremmenos [4]. a neutron-like particle, an electron proton pair, a mini-atom, a proton masked as a neutron, gets captured by the Ni58.

If the masked proton becomes a neutron the result is Ni59.
In order to have Cu59 (increase of atomic number from 28 to 29) the electron (of the masked proton) gets ejected from the nucleus. The masked proton becomes a proton.

The same process holds for all the subsequent transformations, until Cu63.
It remains to be understood the issue of the gamma radiation in the MeV range.

Numbers
I am an electronic engineer, so I need easy numbers in order to understand.
However “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler”, says a guy. Maybe I am too simple here.
Let’s calculate.
 
MeV for each Ni transformation
I read that starting from Ni58 we can obtain Copper formation and its successive decay in Nickel, producing Ni59, Ni60, and Ni62. The chain stops at Cu63 stable.
For simplicity I assume all the Nickel in the reactor in the form Ni58.
For simplicity I suppose for each Ni58 the whole sequence of events from Ni58 to Cu63 and as a rough estimate I calculate the mass defect between (Ni58 plus 5 nucleons) and the final state Cu63.
Ni58 mass is calculated to be 57.95380± 15 amu
The actual mass of a copper-Cu63 nucleus is 62.91367 amu
Mass of Ni58 plus 5 nucleons is  57.95380+5=62.95380 amu
Mass defect is 62.95380-62.91367=0.04013 amu
1 amu = 931 MeV is used as a standard conversion
0.04013×931 MeV=37.36 MeV
So each transformation of Ni58 into Cu63 releases 37.36MeV of nuclear energy.
 
 
Nickel consumption
According to many blogs in the Internet “One hundred grams of nickel powder can power a 10 kW unit for a minimum of six months”.
How much of Ni58 should be transformed, in six months of continuous operation, in order to generate 10 kW?
I follow a procedure outlined in [2].
10 kW is thermal or electrical (?) power. The nuclear power must be larger. Assume a nuclear power twice:
20 kW = 20,000 J/s = 1.25 x 10**17 MeV/s.
Each transformation of Ni58 into Cu63 releases 37.36MeV of nuclear energy.
The number of Ni58 transformations should thus be equal to (1.25 x 10**17)/37.36 = 3.346 x 10**15 per second.
Multiplying by the number of seconds in six months (1.55 x 10**7) the total number of transformed Ni58 nuclei is 5.186 x 10**22.
This means 5 grams.
The order of magnitude is not exactly the same but seems to be plausible. This means also 5 grams of Nickel in Rossi’s reactor transmuted into (stable) Copper after six months of continuous operation at the rate of 10 kW.
 
Conclusions
Rossi says that about 30% of nickel was turned into copper, after 6 months of uninterrupted operation. At first glance this seems to agree with calculations based on simple assumptions.
 
References

 

894 comments to How can 30% of nickel in Rossi’s reactor be transmuted into copper?

  • Guy Ben-Zvi

    If anyone has a copy of the paper
    JANUARY 15th EVENT – Prof. Levi, Dr. Bianchini and Prof. Villa reports
    I would be very grateful to receive it by email to pixer06@netvision.net.il or provide a working link where it is posted.
    (I’m sorry Andrea Rossi but the download is still not fixed and I need it urgently)
    Thanks for any assistance
    Guy

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear David G:
    Very interesting. By the way, I know very well the thermoelectric issue, because I made a patent exactly for high temperature T.E.
    I worked for years, from 1996 through 2000 in this field, and applied them to engines, power generators, boilers, I worked for DOE and DOD in this field, through LTI. But there is an enormous problem of reliability when from high quality manufacturing of few grams you go to bulk quantities. I made with my hands thermocouples with a very particular directional fusion I had invented, obtaining a 100 watts set very, very good, tested in the University of New Hampshire in 1998, but to do it I worked 3 months full time: thermocouples are very refined metallurgy applied to electronics. If few atoms get a wrong position, a semiconductor becomes a resistance. When we tried to manufacture t.e. for Seebeck Effect in bulk quantities, to have acceptable costs, we got big problems and the figure of merit is fallen drom an efficiency of 20% to a 1-2%. Still interesting in power diesel generators, but not that much. Now: it appears the Caltech team has resolved the problems. I am delighted to know this, sure I will immediately test their application to the E-Cats as soon as the product will be in the market.
    Thank you for this very interesting information,
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

  • David G

    Something that might be useful in conjunction the E-Cat:

    Researchers develop high-performance bulk thermoelectrics
    http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-high-performance-bulk-thermoelectrics.html

    Scientists have concocted a recipe for a thermoelectric material that might be able to operate off nothing more than the heat of a car’s exhaust. In a paper published in Nature this month, G. Jeffrey Snyder, faculty associate in applied physics and materials science at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech), and his colleagues reported on a compound that shows high efficiency at less extreme temperatures.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Johan Gustafson:
    To be clear, due to the difference in writing between European and American system, we get from one module 2.5 kWh x 4,300 h = 10.75 MWh (ten-point-seventyfive MWh).
    We measure the energy with the systems described in the reports.
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

  • Johan Gustafson

    Dear Mr. Rossi
    Thank you for your prompt response.
    I asked a question on the measured energy away from your e-cat. On one charge According to you get out 4300 h x 2.5 kW = 10.750 MWh. Has this ever been measured in a heating system with an energy meter (calculator). Or has all the energy calculation made ​​using the decoction steam.

    Warm Greetings
    J Gustafson

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Pietro F.
    We do net need somebody else make a research of what happens in the reactors, because we know now exactly what happens.
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Rick Meisinger:
    Yes, it is so.
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

  • Rick Meisinger

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Is there plans to make the 1 MW plant (E-Tiger) self contained and modular such that it would fit into a typical shipping container and be shipped to end users rather than be constructed onsite?

    If so, is it possible end users could connect multiple E-Tigers in series to create larger facilities?

    With much support;

    Rick Meisinger – USA

  • Pietro F.

    Buongiorno ingegnere,
    una domanda secca secca,
    perché non incarica un organismo privato di fare ricerca su cio’ che effettivamente avviene nel ecat?
    penso sia un informazione essenziale per il suo bussiness.

  • Luke Mortensen

    AR,
    There are some critics of yours on some other blogs discussing your invention. Recently the dialogue has shifted to the companies you have ownership. Could you resolve a few of these. They are easy fact-based questions:
    1. 2 factories in the US were making the ecats?
    2. Does Leonardo own these factories?
    3. Critics said Leonardo assets were limited to that of a house or apartment in New Hampshire. So critics questioned if it could be the source of the 300 ecats.
    4. Does manufacturing the reactor require your secret recipe or is that done on assembly in Greece? If so, I would assume you contract manufactured the reactors.

    I’m a fan, but critics researching Leonardo did raise some legitimate questions. We can take these answers back to the other forums.
    -Luke

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Guy Ben-Zvi:
    I have forwarded your complaint to our informatic assistant, to fix the issue.
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

  • Guy Ben-Zvi

    Dear Enj Rossi
    The report from U of Bologna from Jan 26 by Levi Bianchini and Villa can not be downloaded. I tried with several computers. It gets stuck on the first page.
    Where can I find the report in full text PDF or word format?
    Kind regards
    Guy

  • Andrea Rossi

    Derar Mr Davis L.
    I think all the energy sources will have to be integrated.
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Christian Scholl:
    1- I cannot give info of the reactor’s operation
    2- automatised
    3- also
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

  • Christian SCHOLL

    Dear Mr Rossi,

    All my congratulation for your work.
    I have read all your blog and some technical questions arise.
    You estimate the energy ratio output/input 7 to 20.

    1 Is the input energy used to heat the powder and adjust the output power ?
    2 Is the power regulation automatised or manual?
    3 Is there any retroactive regulation to avoid short circuit, excess output energy and explosion?

    Best regards

  • David L

    We should call this a new era or age, beginning with the opening of your/our new one-megawatt power plant. A transition from the fossil fuel era into the fusion era. What do you think Mr. Rossi?

    Warm Regards,
    David Linebarger

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Craig, Editor of Free Energy Truth:
    Thank you for your sustain.
    Yes I mean four thousand-three hundred hours, of course, sorry for the typo.
    You compare, and add that we do not use or leave radioactive materials.
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

  • Dear Mr Rossi,

    Thank-you for your continued dialogue with the people. There are now many hundreds of thousands of people who we’ve made aware that your technology exists and who support your efforts to get this technology into the hands of the public. This is despite the fact that we have many different first-hand accounts of approaches being made to large media organizations and newspapers where the story of your E-Catalyzer has been written, then “spiked” higher up the chain of command.

    We also have a few accounts of emails and approaches that have gone “silent” and then there’s the continued “information vandalism” of the facts on the Energy Catalyzer taking place on the Wikipedia page (which as you may know is a haven for establishment defenders). I know this will not come of any surprise to you due to the protection mechanisms that the corporate run establishment has built in to safeguard it’s flimsy structure.

    You have many friends Mr Rossi and we will continue to support this revolutionary technology until the mainstream is forced to come to the party and acknowledge it’s existence.

    Anyway, on to a couple of questions:

    Can you please clarify a couple of things for me. You recently said:

    “One charge lasts 4.300 hours and produces 2.5 kWh/h of energy.” I am assuming you mean 4,300 (Four Thousand Three Hundred Hours) and not 4.3 hours. Can you also give us an idea of how many grams of Treated Nickel Powder are required for these figures?

    We know your amazing technology does not produce radiation, but do you have you any figures or estimates as to how the E-Catalyzer compares to nuclear power in terms of efficiency?

    Thank-you,

    Craig

    (Editor)
    Free Energy Truth
    http://freeenergytruth.blogspot.com

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Mikael Lundell:
    Exact your last statement.
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr David Linebarger:
    On October our 1 MW plant in operation will resolve the problem.
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

  • David Jonathan

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    A vicious cycle has been created. That must be broken if science and civilization is to advance fast enough.

    The vicious cycle.
    1. All peer reviewed journals will not publish a paper on LENR, because LENR volatiles the our current laws of physics.

    2. Our current law of physics will not change if universities can’t/won’t replicate LENR.

    3. All universities will not replicate any LENR experiments, because they were not published in a peer reviewed journal.

    4. In the end no LENR experiments can be taken seriously because,
    A. LENR was not published in peer review journals.
    B. LENR was not replicated by any university.
    C. LENR results were not confirmed.
    D. Therefore our physics stays the relatively same.
    E. Civilization does not advance fast enough.

    Then the cycle continues again.

    I hope that you will make a way for not only fixing this cycle but preventing similar cycles from happening again. So that the field of science can advance into higher levels.
    I hope that you take this seriously. Thank you.

    Warm Regards,
    David Linebarger

  • Mikael Lundell

    Many skeptics ask for independent proof that the E-cat works as you claims. Would it be wise to do that? It could cause disturbance on the energymarket if the whole world get proof at the same time. By the time, the product will sell itself and the proof would be satisfied customers.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Dr Roberson:
    We can reach the factor 20, but we guarantee the factor 6.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Sebastian

    Dear Mr. Vandewalle,

    I think that once the E-Cat is available on the market there will be other companies which will definitely try to assemble huge reactors following the Rossi-Fusion-Principle. It doesn’t have to be Rossi himself I guess.
    I agree with you that multi-gigawatt power plants would fit rather easily into the buildings of existing fission plants. It should be interesting to see how the paradigm of central energy generation, enforced by big fusion reactors, will stand up against the geographically highly distributed generation by renewable energy sources which is being discussed already now (at least here in Germany).
    Working in the energy sector I would like to see a good mixture of both types of energy generation. Renewable energy for residential households, fusion-based energy for industry/long-distance heating/base load/energy supply when recharging batteries for electric cars. No nuclear fission/coal/lignite/gas any more!

  • David Roberson

    Dear Mr. Rossi,

    I have been following your progress and wish to congratulate you for the fine work. I can see a day coming when your devices become quite common. It reminds me of the laser invention where a brilliant idea changed the world for the better.

    One question comes to mind that I wish you could answer for me and others interested. Is it true that you can adjust the system to exhibit the desired output to input power ratio in order to have the degree of stability that you need? I imagine that many of your fans are aware that heat pumps can increase the output heat power relative to the input power by a factor of 3 or 4 to one fairly commonly. I Assume that your current desire to set that ratio at around 7 to 1 is totally by plan and not a limitation of the technology. Would you be able to set the output to input ratio at say 20 if desired?

    Thanks again for a wonderful invention.

    Dave Roberson

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Koen Vandewalle:
    I stick on the modular concept. Probably we will have three types of modules (2,5-10-20 kW), but I will never adventure in titanics.
    There is no reason and they would be much more expensive, for many reasons.
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

  • Koen Vandewalle

    Dear Mr. Rossi,
    Dear Andrea,

    I apologize for my too long previous post.
    You built several 10kW modules and now you decided for reasons of stability to build 4kW-types. But in real practice some very compact and extreme high-power types as one gigawatt or more could be more practical and economic. For instance to replace existent uranium reactors with their electric-generation equipment ready in place, connected to the grid and fully operational.
    Is it possible, with a modified concept probably, to build such systems ? For instance with separators between reacting clusters inside and efficient cooling piping ?

    Best regards,
    Koen

  • Andrea Rossi

    Mr “Anonimous” ( why anonimous? )
    I never supposed fission inside the E-Cats. I never found evidence of fission.
    I cannot give information of what happens inside the reactor, also if at this point I have understood what happens. With 300 reactors in operation I am learning.
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

  • anonymous

    It has been suggested that Ni nuclei are also fissioning inside your reactor.
    Would protons be produced with high enough energy to overcome the
    Coulombic barrier and thus fuse with other Ni nuclei?
    Could your catalyst be stimulating these fission reactions?

  • LBG

    Dear Dr. Rossi,

    I look forward to the “steampunk” society: steam locomotives, steam cars, etc. Steam has life. Your discovery has secured the future for my children.

    Respect and Regards,
    LBG

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Johan Gustaffson:
    One charge lasts 4.300 hours and produces 2.5 kWh/h of energy.
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Bertil Nilsson:
    I cannot give this info.
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

  • Bertil Nilsson

    Dear Mr Andrea Rossi,

    Are you certain that nickel is involved (being fusioned) in the fusion process or are you open for that other LENR reactions in the E-cat may produce the heat?

    Once again, thank you for your dedicated work.

    Bertil Nilsson

  • Johan Gustafson

    Dear Mr.. Rossi!
    What I have read on this blog then you should have had 97 e-cat in koninuerlig operation. These machines have, I suspect, connected energy measurements?
    so my question is:
    1.How many MWh measured, in hot water, have you managed to take out from an e-cat. on one charge?

    Best regards
    J Gustafson

  • Anthony Kimball

    Interestingly, web sources indicate the annual global nickel production to be on the order of 1.4 MT. Given the nickel consumption rate reported (disregarding any potential recycling), and an annual global energy consumption rate of 140 petawatt-hours, it would appear that consuming the total world nickel production would produce approximately the global annual energy requirements of human culture. Nickel reserves are sufficient to supply this rate for 100 years. At which time, it would be reasonable to assume that harvesting nickel-iron asteroids would be economically feasible. Clearly this is not a practical plan or scenario, but it is encouraging to think that even in its initial embryonic stages of development, low-energy nuclear catalysis already holds the potential to supply the energy needs of human culture into the indefinite future. Future advances in efficiency and alternative fuel cycles can be expected to emerge as the physics becomes better understood. In my opinion the wide proliferation of the E-Cat technology (and its successors and competitors) is crucial to the conservation of hydrocarbon fuel resources, which will be of critical importance in preventing a global food supply crisis during the years following the decline of global crude oil production. Indeed Dr. Rossi may be the man more responsible than any other for the prevention of a global human die-off during this century. Billions of people, both those living now and their posterity, may owe their very lives to Dr. Rossi. I congratulate him, for, as Jesus Christ told us, one who would be great in the kingdom of heaven must be the servant of all.

  • David Linebarger

    Thanks for that Joseph Fine, I was not aware of that price difference.

    Warm Regards,
    David linebarger

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Smith,
    It depends fro many factors: if we want, can be very fast (minutes), or very long (hours).
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • eernie1

    Mr R.R.Thome;
    One reason that hydrogen works and not deuterium is that deuterium has twice the mass of hydrogen.A simple analogy to explain why one works and not the other is that using the same engine it is much easier to accelerate a compact car than an SUV,thereby making the compact car much more energetic.

  • Joseph Fine

    David Linebarger,

    The price of Nickel is about $11 per pound while copper is $4 per pound. So the Energy Catalyzer converts a MORE expensive metal (Nickel) into a LESS expensive metal (Copper). So, nothing is gained from converting Nickel to Copper.

    Someday, questions will be asked why these effects were not discovered earlier or were discovered but concealed. Among the positive results will be a rejuvenation of Chemistry, Physics, Metallurgy and related Engineering Sciences. And lots of Math to explain the physical results.

    Joseph Fine

    Joseph Fine

  • David Linebarger

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    1. Do you think in the future you will be using other elements that might convert into more expensive elements that can be sold at a higher price than what it was originally brought for?

    Someone might be able to do that with Ni to Cu, and make some money.

    2. I was wondering if at least one of your partners at Ampenergo knows the secret undisclosed catalyst?

    3. Also does Ampenergo have any e-cats yet?

    I would think if you want to go thermal first. The best way to help the population would be to ingrate your LENR technology into water heaters and radiator furnaces.

    4. Any comments on that?

    I know that when you answer our questions you are answering to everyone. Thank you.

    Warm Regards,
    David Linebarger
    USA, Chicago

  • Billy Smith

    Dear Mr. Rossi,

    Congratulations on your discovery! I look forward to the October demonstration, and a changed world shortly thereafter. I was wondering if you could comment on how long after you apply power does the reaction reach it’s steady state, and how long after removing power does the reaction stop producing heat?

    Thank you and best wishes,

    Billy Smith

  • […] 2011. The one-megawatt plant will be using the catalyzers for profit and not for demonstration. (http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physi…). On his website, Rossi said that a U.S. plant in October is not impossible. […]

  • Herald Patterson

    Hello Mr. Rossi,

    After pondering the idea of the most efficient way to convert the heat produced by your system to electricity, I came to the conclusion that that most efficient method would also probably be quite complex and cost prohibitive. Ultra high efficiency loses importance, if the hardware required to achieve such efficiencies is very expensive or overly complex. I expect that you are trying to find the “sweet spot” that provides the best combination of efficiency and hardware cost/complexity. I’m sure it is a challenge!

    I’m thinking that one way to partially overcome such efficiency issues in *home* based systems (verses industrial ones) is to utilize the heat in as many possible ways as possible. Basically, instead of adding an E-Cat to a home, build the home around the E-Cat!

    For example, a new home could be built that converts heat from the E-Cat into electricity. The remaining heat (due to a lack of efficiency in the conversion process), is then used in a variety of ways…

    1) Hot water for bathing, cooking, cleaning, or even year long heating of swimming pools.

    2) Hot air for home heating, clothes drying, dish drying, hair drying, etc.

    3) Heat for purification of rain water into drinkable water.

    4) Home cooling, ice making, and refrigeration. As you are probably quite aware, heat can be used to make very cold temperatures (even ice). Check out this old fashioned way of making ice and keeping a refrigerator cool!

    The Icy Ball

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icy_Ball

    5) Mechanical power/torque by conversion of heat into mechanical energy via Sterling Engines. For example, to power a water pump, power a fan, etc.

    By the time the heat has been used in all these ways, I’m thinking little would be wasted. The efficiency issue would be at least partially solved.

    A home build around one or more E-Cats in this manner could be almost totally “off the grid” so to speak.

    Have a great day!

    Sincerely,
    Herald

  • Thon Brocket

    Just for a little fun, Dr Rossi, would it be possible to cook something – boil an egg or cook some pasta, perhaps – and video it? That would be a nice little historical moment: “The first ever food cooked using the E-Cat.” Good luck.

  • Russell Robles-Thome

    Mr.Rossi,

    Thank you for your response that Deuterium instead of Hydrogen does not work.

    To be a little pedantic, is it correct to assume from your response that you have tried this experiment?

    If so was the heat output using deuterium effectively nil, or was it too low to be interesting?

    regards,

  • Koen Vandewalle

    Dear Mr Rossi,
    Dear Andrea,

    First of all, I have very much respect for you, for your work and for the way you are managing this revolutionary and complicated game-changing invention to the global level. Inventing and managing a fully working anti-aging medicine would have the same level of complication. Probably you would want some.
    Respect is after all one of the real values.

    As you said the market will be the judge, and in your conversations you do not hide your gratitude for the great country of the US, so I assume you have a good understanding whith mayor steerers of the market.
    So worldwide patent or not, the E-Cat (with capitals on the right place) or its principles will be energizing the world. Have you considered that “the market” has left us with a wrecked nature, overconsumption and poverty besides the wealth that it brought, a material wealth that never has been seen before in history ? The negative impact on the long term of any potent invention – as there was with the internal combustion engine – is also present in the E-Cat. You mentioned a boat beïng 6 months out of a harbor. Well, the boat that is goïng to catch the very last fish in the ocean will probably take some time and much cheap fuel to accomplish its mission. We already have a count on the last tigers and we already know where they live. Just waiting for that anti-aging medicine based upon tiger-resources. So honestly, I am more afraid of the market than you are. Perhaps you have better insights ?

    The last thing is, and then i’ll stop annoying you, that I understand by reading the patent-papers over and over again, that in fact everything, also the secrets, must be somewhere written down before you can obtain a patent and if you are willing that the patent is really protecting your rights on the invention. As far as I can understand your invention, everyting necesary is already written in the document, so the worldwide patent should be granted, but some little explanation will be needed before some people will experience the AHA-i-could-have-done-this effect. I will not start experimenting, I do not have enough money and experience nor knowledge or a competent advisor. But I believe there must be some guys in US or elsewhere, who understand at first sight and if not, certainly at second sight. After all, it works, so it is worth searching for reproduction. When the first aliens hit the planet, the US must have started an unlimited funding to do research for a propulsion system with equal capabilities. If not, shame on the leaders. So the people who are responsible for national security must have understood how your invention really works before they let you work on it. Not so long ago, infrared cameras were to be registered and are limited in image-frequencies and resolution for reasons of national security. Your invention has the level of importance where patents and industrial secret are no longer valid. In fact nobody will ever deny you invented the practical application of cold fusion, and if someone else uses or abuses your technology, every judge on earth will give you what you need if it is possible. I cannot believe that real investors in this technology will rely on a patent. So I think you really made the right choice in starting a production facility with your own money, and ask just a fair price for an honest product.

    If I were the owner of an existing nuclear plant, i’d like to convert it into you E-cat or something upscaled. When looking at your plans, it must be feasible (thoug not easy) to build stable multi-gigawatt reactors in the inside of an existing nuclear reactor building. In fact all the other necessary protections and safety related procedures are already there and the people are confident with very powerfull stuff. That is wat nuclear research-centre should be focussing on the next couple of years. I believe the German Chancellor, Mme Merkel is a chemist and scientist herself, and they have just decided to shut down their nuclear plants. So it must not be too difficult to find some powerfull support. Without support it will take too long I believe. Also coal-fired generation should be converted, but probably with an assembly of intrinsic safe E-cats. The largest part of the people do not see the difference between energy coming from a litre of gas beïng burnt of from a teaspoon of Nickel that is converted into Copper. Most just will never understand. Some even still have a problem igniting a BBQ after fire was used since … ? Your New Fire should not be in the hands of ignorant and experimenting or playing individuals. Someone could drill holes in the protection, just to modify the genes of his/her mother in law for instance.
    Do you have any idea that the quicker shutdown of nuclear plants in some countries have to do with your invention ?

    Will Defkalion allow visitors at the startup of your first MW plant? I’d like to see it.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Markku Poysti:
    If Ni melts the E-Cat stops. It works only with powders. This makes it intrinsecally safe. And do not forget that we do not leave radioactive material, we do not use radioactive material .
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Dr Joseph Fine,
    Yes, we are studying this issue.
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Bertil Nilsson:
    This info is confidential.
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

  • Bertil Nilsson

    Dear Mr.Andrea Rossi,

    Thank you for your work, what you are trying to achieve can hardly be put in proper words and I wish you all luck possible in this quest of yours.

    I have a question concerning the enrichment of the nickel powder to raise the level of the isotopes 62Ni28 and 64Ni28, which I assume is important to do to get the E-cat to work in a good way. This is normally a most timeconsuming and expensive task done by centrifugal separation, but your cost to do this is just adding 10% to the cost of the powder. May I ask, is part of your invention also a new method to separate certain isotopes in the nickel powder?

    Once again, thank you.

    Bertil Nilsson

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>