Peer Review

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

A detailed Qualitative Approach to the Cold Fusion Nuclear Reactions of H/Ni

By prof. Christos Stremmenos

After several years of apparent inaction, the theme of cold fusion has been recently revitalized thanks to, among others, the work and the scientific publications of Focardi and Rossi, which has been conducted in silence, amidst ironical disinterest, without any funding or support.  In fact, recently, practical and reliable results have been achieved based on a very promising apparatus invented by Andrea Rossi.  Therefore I want to examine the possibility of further development of this technology, which I deem really important for our planet.

I will start with patent no./2009/125444, registered by Dr. Ing. Andrea Rossi. This invention and its performance have been tested and verified in collaboration with Prof. Sergio Focardi, as reported in their paper, published in February 2010 in the Journal of Nuclear Physics [1]. In that scientific paper they have reported on the performance of an apparatus, which has produced for two years substantial amounts of energy in a reliable and repeatable mode and they have also offered a theoretical analysis for the interpretation of the underlying physical mechanism.

In the history of Science, it is not the first time that a practical and reliable apparatus is working before its theoretical foundation has been completely understood! The photoelectric effect is the classic example in which the application has anticipated its full theoretical interpretation, developed by Einstein. Afterwards Einstein, Plank, Heisenberg, De Broglie, Schrödinger and others formulated the principles of Quantum Mechanics.  For the interactive Nickel/Hydrogen system it would be now opportune to compile, in a way easily understood by the non expert the relevant principles and concepts for the qualitative understanding of the phenomenon. Starting with the behavior of electrically charged particles in vacuum, it is known that particles with opposite electric charge attract themselves and “fuse” producing an electrically neutral particle, even though this does not always happen, as for instance in the case of a hydrogen atom, where a proton and a electron although attract each other they do not “fuse”, for reasons that will be explained later.   On the contrary, particles charged with electric charge of the same sign always repel each other, and their repulsion tends to infinity when their distance tends to zero, which implies that in this case fusion is not possible (classical physics).

On the contrary, according to Quantum mechanics, for a system with a great number of  particles of the same electric charge (polarity) it is possible that a few of them will fuse, as for instance, according to Focardi-Rossi, in the case of  Nickel nuclei in crystal structure and hydrogen nuclei (protons) diffused within it, Although of the same polarity,  a very small percentage of these nuclei manage to come so close to each other, at a distance of 10-14 m, where strong nuclear forces emerge and take over the Coulomb forces  and thus form the nucleus of a new element, either stable or unstable.

This mechanism, which is possible only in the atomic microcosm, is predictable by a quantum-mechanics model of a particle put in a closed box.  According to classical physics no one would expect to find a particle out of the box, but in quantum mechanics the probability of a particle to be found out of the box is not zero! This is the so called “tunneling effect”, which for systems with a very large number of particles, predicts that a small percentage of them lie outside the box, having penetrated the “impenetrable” walls and any other present barrier through the “tunnel”! In our case, the barrier is nothing else but the electrostatic repulsion, to which the couples of hydrogen and nickel nuclei (of the same polarity) are subjected and is called Coulomb barrier.

Diffusion mechanism of hydrogen in nickel: Nickel as a catalyst first decomposes the biatomic molecules of hydrogen to hydrogen atoms in contact with the nickel surface. Then these hydrogen atoms deposit their electrons to the conductivity band of the metal (Fermi band) and due to their greatly reduced volume, compared to that of their atom, the hydrogen nuclei readily diffuse into the crystalline structure of the nickel, including its defects. At this point, in order to understand the phenomenon it is necessary to briefly describe the structure both of the nickel atom and the nickel crystal lattice.

It is well known that the nickel atom is not so simple as the hydrogen atom, as its nucleus consists of dozens of protons and neutrons, thus it is much heavier and exerts a proportionally higher electrostatic repulsion than the nucleus of hydrogen, which consists of only one proton. In this case, the electrons, numerically equal to the protons, are ordered in various energy levels and cannot be easily removed from the atom to which they belong. Exception to this rule is the case of electrons of the chemical bonds, which along with the electrons of the hydrogen atoms form the metal conductivity band (electronic cloud), which moves quasi freely throughout the metal mass.

As in all transition metals, the nickel atoms in the solid state, and more specifically their nuclei, are located at the vertices and at the centre of the six faces of the cubic cell of the metal, leaving a free internal octahedral space within the cell, which, on account of the quasi negligible volume of the nuclei, is practically filled with electrons of the nickel atoms, as well as with conductivity electrons.

It would be really interesting to know the electrons’ specific density (number of electrons per unit volume) and its spatial distribution inside this octahedral space of the crystal lattice as a function of temperature.

Dynamics of the lattice vibration states
Another important aspect to take into consideration in this system is the dynamics of the lattice vibration states, in other words, the periodic three dimensional normal oscillations of the crystal lattice (phonons) of the nickel, which hosts hydrogen nuclei or nuclei of hydrogen isotopes (deuterium or tritium) that have entered into the above mentioned free space of the crystal cell.

It could be argued that the electrons’ specific density and its spatial distribution in the internal space of the crystal structure should be coherent with the natural frequencies of the lattice oscillations. This means that the periodicity of the electronic cloud within the octahedral space of the elementary crystal cell of Nickel generates an oscillating strengthening of shielding of the diffused nuclei of hydrogen or deuterium which also populate this space.

I believe that these considerations can form the basis for a qualitative analysis of this “NEW SOURCE OF ENERGY” and the phenomenology related to cold fusion, including energy production in much smaller quantities and various reaction products.

Shielding of protons by electrons
In the Focardi-Rossi paper the shielding of protons provided by electrons is suspected to be one of the main reasons of the effect, helping the capture of protons by the Ni nucleus, therefore  generating energy by fusion of protons in Nickel and a series of exothermic nuclear reactions, leaving as by-product isotopes different from the original Ni (transmutations). Such shielding is one of the elements contributing to the energetic efficiency of the system.  From this derives the opportunity, I think, to focus upon this shielding, both to increase its efficiency and to verify the hypothesis contained in the paper of Focardi-Rossi.  Of course, what we are talking of here is a theoretical verification, because the practical verification is made by monitoring the performance of the apparatus invented and patented by Andrea Rossi, presently under rigorous verification by many independent university researchers.

In my opinion, the characteristics of the shielding of the proton from the electrons should be defined, as well as the “radiometric” behavior of the system.

In other words, the following two questions should be answered:

  1. Which is the supposed mechanism that overcomes the powerful electrostatic repulse (Coulomb barrier) between the “shielded proton” and the Nickel nucleus?
  2. For what reason there is almost no radiation of any kind (experimental observation), while according to the Focardi and Rossi’s hypothesis there should have been some γ radiation (511 KeV) produced by the predicted annihilation of the β+ and β- particles that are being created during the Fusion?

I believe that some thoughts based on general and elementary structures, data and principles of universal scientific acceptance, might shed some light to this exciting phenomenon.  More specific, I refer to Bohr’s hydrogen atom, the speed of nuclear reactions (10-20 sec) and the Uncertainty Principle of Heisenberg.

I will take Bohr’s hydrogen atom as a starting point (figure 1a), which stays at its fundamental state forever in the absence of external perturbations, due to De Broglie’s wave, accompanying the sole electron.

As stated before, in contact with the metal, these atoms lose their fundamental state, as their electrons are being transmitted to the conductivity band.  These electrons, together with the “naked nuclei” of hydrogen (protons), form a freely moving cloud of charges (plasma at a degenerate state) inside the crystalline lattice. That cloud is being defused through the surface to the polycrystallic mass of the metal, covering empty spaces of the non-canonical structure of the crystalline lattice, as well as the tetrahedral and octahedral spaces between the molecules. As a consequence, the crystalline structure is covered by “delocalized plasma” (degenerate state), which is consisted by protons, electrons produced by the “absorbed atoms” of hydrogen, as well as by the electrons of the chemical valence of Nickel of the lattice, at different energy states (Fermi’s band). (Fig. 2)


In this system, if one considers the probability of the creation inside the crystalline lattice of temporary (not at the fundamental state) “pseudo-atoms” of hydrogen with neutral charge, for example at a time of the order of 10ˆ-17 sec, then that possibility is not completely ill-founded. (Fig 1b)


According to the Uncertainty Principle of Heisenberg, the temporary atoms of hydrogen will cover during that small time interval Δt, a wide range of energies ΔΕ, which means also a wide range of atomic diameters of temporary atoms, satisfying the De Broglie’s condition.  A percentage of them (at fist a very small one) might have diameters smaller than 10ˆ-14 m, which is the maximum active radius of nuclear reactions. In that case, the chargeless temporary atoms, or mini-atoms, of hydrogen together with high energy but short lived electrons, are being statistically trapped by the Nickel nuclei at a time of 10ˆ-20 sec. In other words, the high speed of nuclear reactions permits the fusion of short lived but neutral mini-atoms of hydrogen with the Nickel nuclei of the crystalline lattice, as during that short time interval the Coulomb barrier (of the specific hydrogen mini-atom) does not exist.

Afterwards, it follows a procedure similar to the one described by Focardi and Rossi, but instead of considering the capture of a shielded proton by the Ni58 nucleus, we adopt the hypothesis of trapping a neutral temporary atom, or a mini atom, of hydrogen (with a diameter less than 10ˆ-14 m) which transforms the Ni58 nucleus into Cu59 (copper/59, short lived isotope*).

It follows the predicted “β decay” of the nuclei of the short lived isotope of copper, accompanied by the emission of β+ (positrons) and β- (perhaps the electrons of the mini atoms trapped inside that nucleus during the fusion). These particles are being annihilated with an emission of γ radiation (two photons of γ of energy 511 KeV each, for every couple of β+ and β-).

In other words, whoever has experimented with this system should have suffered the not-so-harmless influence of those radiations, but that never happened.  The radioactivity measured at the experiments is almost zero and easily shielded.

In any case, a rigorous, in my opinion, theoretical approach for the interpretation of that phenomenon with quantum mechanical terms, would give clear quantitative answers to the above stated models. With my Colleges of theoretical chemistry, we are already planning to face the problem using the time-depended quantum mechanical perturbation theory, bearing in mind the following:

  1. The total wave function (of the nucleus and the electrons) of temporarily, non-stable states.
  2. The total time-depended Hamiltonian, for temporarily states.
  3. Searching for the resonance conditions at that system.

Such an approach had a successful outcome at a similar problem of theoretical chemistry and we hope that it will be valid in this case as well.

Let’s go back to the intuitive, with ideal models, approach, in order to give a qualitative explanation for the (almost) absent radiations of the system, by using:

  • First of all the Boltzmann’s distribution (especially at the asymptotic area of high energies).
  • The photoelectric effect
  • The Compton effect
  • The Mössbauer effect

We have already mentioned that from the temporary mini atoms of hydrogen, the ones with diameter less than 10ˆ-14 m, have a larger probability of fusion. But, in order for them to be created, high energy bond electrons should exist at the “delocalized plasma” of the crystalline lattice.

1. Boltzmann’s statistics:
There are reasons to believe that the H/Ni system, at first at temperatures of about 400-500oC, contains a very small percentage of electrons in the “delocalized plasma” with enough energy to create (together with the diffused protons), according to the wave-particle duality principle, the first temporary mini atoms of hydrogen, that will trigger the fusion with the nickel nuclei and the production of high energy γ photons (511 KeV).

2. Photoelectric Effect:
It is not possible, the HUGE amount of energy (in kW/h), that the Rossi/Focardi reactor produces, as measured by unrelated scientists in repeated demonstrations (at one of them by the writer and his colleagues, Fig 3), to be created due to the thermalization of the insignificant number of  γ photons at the beginning of the reaction.


I believe that, as stated above, these photons are the trigger of fusion at a multiplicative series, based on the photoelectric effect inside the crystalline structure.

The two γ photons can export symmetrically (180°) two electrons from the nearest Nickel atoms. The stimulation, due to the high energy of γ, concerns electrons of internal bands of two different atoms of the lattice and has as a prerequisite the absorption of all the energy of the photon.  A small part of that energy is being consumed for the export of the electron from the atom and the rest is being transformed into kinetic energy of the electron (thermal energy).

The result of that procedure is to enrich the “delocalized plasma” with high energy electrons that will contribute multiplicatively (by a factor of two) at the progress of the cold fusion nuclear reactions of hydrogen and nickel and at the same time transform the hazardous γ radiation into useful thermal energy.

3. The Compton Scattering:
It gives the additional possibility of multiplication, this time due to secondary photons γ, in a wide range of frequencies, as a function of the angular deviation from the direction of the initial photon of 511 keV. That has as a result the increase of the export of electrons, due to the photoelectric phenomenon at the crystalline mass, in many energy/kinetic levels, which gives an additional possibility of converting the γ radiation into useful thermal energy.

4. The Mössbauer effect:
It gives another possible way of absorbing the γ radiation and transforming it into thermal energy. It is based on the principle of conservation of momentum at the regression of the new Cu59 nucleus/ from the emission of a γ photon. Relative calculations (Dufour) showed that this mechanism has an insignificant (1%) contribution.

It follows that, according to given data, the Photoelectric phenomenon and the Compton Effect, could explain the absence of radiations in the Focardi-Rossi system, which, from the amount of producing energy versus the consumption of Ni and H2, as well as from the experimental observation of element transformations,  lead undoubtedly to the acceptance of hydrogen cold fusion.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: The author wishes to acknowledge Aris Chatzichristos for the contribution in formulating this paper in English

(1)www. /Focardi Rossi/  (A new energy source from nuclear fusion)

* I believe that the phasmatometric tracing of copper is the most definitive sign of nuclear fusion: From the relative bibliography (HANDBOOK OF CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS, 66TH edition), it follows that the stable non radioactive isotopes of nickel are the following five:

58, 60, 61, 62 and 64. These, when fused with a hydrogen nucleus, are being transmuted relatively to Cu-59, Cu-61, Cu-62, Cu-63 and Cu-65. From these isotopes of copper only the last two (Cu-63 and Cu-65) are not radioactive, i.e. they are stable. The other three Cu-59, Cu-61, Cu-62, are being transmuted again to Nickel, with an average life expectancy of some hours and the most unstable Cu-59 in 18 seconds.

By prof. Christos Stremmenos

836 comments to A detailed Qualitative Approach to the Cold Fusion Nuclear Reactions of H/Ni

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Dr Michel M:
    I want to thank you for your kind visit to this blog, carrying “white flag” in the “Enemy’s territory” !
    Just joking.
    Thank you again for writing us; my idea is that all the energy sources will integrate. Your work is very important, I always read what is published. Of course you play with more high energies, your battlefield is much more difficult, but, nevertheless, I think that your research merits to be carried on, as well as I think that oil, gas, wind, biomasses, solar based R&D must be carried on. The different energy sources must be a team.
    Warmest Regards,

  • Paul Esteban

    Dear Mr. Rossi,

    1) Have you ever met Dennis Bushnell chief scientist of NASA Langley?
    2) What do you think about Bushnell opinion on LENR?

    Warm Regards,
    Paul Esteban

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Paul Esteban,
    I never comment the work of my competitors.
    When they will produce kWh?h we will compete on the market. Before or later it will happen.
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Paul Esteban:
    1-I know exactly, within the limits of a theory: in Physics theories are always “pro tempore”.
    2- It will be published on the Journal Of Nuclear Physics, which is a peer reviewed journal, and all the journals that want will be allowed to public it again and to peer review all they want. In the meantime our plants will be operating…
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Amedeo:
    We cannot publish photos of our manufacturing sites.
    The E-Cats are not aligned like soldiers, the testing area is more complex.
    You must be patient and wait for october.
    Thank you for your enthusiasm,
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Janos:
    The energy for the preparation is irrilevant respect the rgy produced.
    Warm Regards,

  • Janos

    Dear Mr Rossi.

    You wrote that “We buy regular Ni powder, then we make a treatment of it wich changes the isotopical composition”.

    I have a question:
    - How much energy is required to make this treatment? I mean compared to the possible net energy of the treated raw material (until it must be retreated).

    Best regards,

  • Amedeo

    Buongiorno Rossi,

    la sua intenzione più volte espressa è quella di costruire oltre 300 apparecchi per l’impianto da 1 MW, cosa che presumo starà facendo in questo momento. Sarebbe molto bello da parte sua e un grande regalo per noi che ci crediamo, pubblicare sul suo blog una foto (anche a bassa risoluzione, non importa) in cui si vedano, allineati come soldatini, qualche decina di apparecchi pronti per l’implementazione nell’impianto.

    Cordiali saluti e grazie


  • Paul Esteban

    Dear Mr. Rossi,

    1) Do you “know now exactly” or you are “confident” on what happens inside your e-cat?

    2) Do you will publish your theory on a peer review journal in October?

    Warm Regards,
    Paul Esteban

  • Paul Esteban

    Dear Mr. Rossi, what do you think about this e-mail (

    From: Brian Ahern, Boxborough MA
    Re: Zr-Ni-Cu alloy performance

    Ames National Laboratory processed metal alloy foils via arc melting
    followed by melt spinning. This is the Yamaura process employed by Arata
    and others. The foils were baked in ordinary air at 445C for 28 hours.

    The brittle, oxidized foils were placed in a tumble mill for 24 hours.

    This resulted in 30 grams of black powder with a median grain size of about
    40 microns.Presumably, each grain has about one million nanoscale islands of
    NiCu inside.

    The 30 grams occupies about 7 ml inside the 50 ml dewar. The system was
    vacuum baked at 220C for 24 hours and cooled to room temperature.

    H2 gas was added at 200psi. The pressure dropped only to about 185 psi over
    twenty minutes. In these replication experiments the exothermic reactions
    have had peak temperatures above 220C with substantial loading above 3.0 H/M
    ratios. This time the temperature only rose by 2 degrees C.

    The system was heated with a band heater to high temperature. There was no
    controller. A rheostat was set at an arbitrary position and the system comes
    to a an arbitrary temperature.The average power input was 90 watts.

    After several hours the hydrated system was evacuated overnight at a
    constant high temperature at 530C. The next day H2 gas was again added at
    100psi and the temperature rose by 40C to 570C and came back down to 530C
    after two hours. At the end of the day the dewar was again evacuated while
    still at 530C overnight.

    The third day repeated the same procedure. H2 gas was added at 100psi and
    the temperature rose by 44C to 574C. However, this time it did not come back
    to the initial temperature. It remained at the elevated temperature

    On the fourth day H2 gas was again added at 100psi and the system rose by
    50C to 580C and again stayed at the elevated temperature indefinitely.

    A rough calibration suggests that the 30 grams of hydrated nanopowder is
    putting out 5 watts of excess power.

    Yesterday Peter Gluck suggested that the relationship between loading and
    excess power may be a myth. This seemed to be true for electrolysis with Pd
    and heavy water where loading levels exceeding 0.9 D/M were a prerequisite
    for observing excess power.

    My loading level with this nanopowder sample as less than 0.1 H/M.

    This 5 watt excess is very much less than Rossi, but it is a real and
    repeatable experiment There was no radiation above the background level.

    Other alloys from Ames NL are expected within ten days

    Warm Regards,
    Paul Esteban

  • Michel M

    Dear Dr Rossi,

    Congratulations for continuing to study LENR reactions all these years, despite the skepticism in the scientist community!

    I am currently working on a tokamak, so my question is: Do you think your low cost device, with the power gain it provides, could one day undermine the expensive search for electricity production by hot fusion?



  • Joseph Fine

    Dr. Rossi,

    When you or your team analyze the Nickel powder during various phases of operation, a useful analytical tool (if you are not already using it) would be the Zeiss Helium Ion Microscope.

    In addition to excellent resolution, you can also do lithography, for example, carve various logos or your initials ( or my initials ) on Nickel particles.$File/Sub-10nm_nanolithography_with_a_scanning_helium_beam.pdf$File/Photonics_Spectra_ORION.pdf$File/2006_microscopytoday.pdf

    Best regards,

    Joseph Fine

  • Ivan Antipov

    Hello Andrea Rossi,

    What is the maximum power density of a single cell of your product? I’m wondering if in the future we can use an E-Cat to power a motor vehicle.


  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Prof. Daniel Wiener,
    Thank you for your skeptic-with-equilibrium-comment, I appreciate constructive skepticism, the Hegelian antithesis to make synthesis.
    So far I do not foresee delays, the work is going on well.
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Roger Barker:
    From November we will start our commercial operation.
    Warm Regards,

  • Roger Barker

    Dear Sir,

    You have said your 1MW reactor, to be released in October, will only be available to your Greek customers. When do you envisage your reactor will be available to the general public for purchase?

    Roger Barker PhD

  • Daniel Wiener

    Hello Dr. Rossi,

    First let me say that I very much appreciate your engaging in discussion on this forum, and I fully understand that your replies to many questions have to be limited. As an engineer, I try to maintain a balance between healthy skepticism and hopeful optimism. I’m not ready to accept the validity of your device without further evidence, but there do seem to be some credible observers who have testified that it works. I certainly hope that it does, since it would obviously transform the world enormously for the better if it turns out to be true.

    I don’t require a rigorous theory at this time as to how it works, since I expect that to follow in short order once it is proven in practice. It appears that your primary effort right now is directed towards completing the 1 MW plant in Greece. That is clearly a crucial event: If the plant works as advertised, it will remove any doubts about your accomplishment, and the beneficial consequences will flow swiftly after that. If it fails to work, then charges that this is all a scam will proliferate.

    So my question is this: How confident are you that the plant will begin operation in October on schedule? I know that unforeseen problems and delays can always arise, but any significant delay will greatly feed the skepticism. So realistically, will the world know for sure, one way or the other, in five months?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Marcos G:
    Thanks to you!
    Warm regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Abelard Lindsey:
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Rick Meisinger:
    Yes, we are working also on the plants to be put in operation in the USA.
    Warm regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Argon:
    Thank you for your kind considerations. I’ll see about the open source, when we will explain the theory.
    Warm Regards,

  • Argon

    Dear Andrea,
    I have been following your site almost daily basis since Jan 15 (yes a day after THE demo). For me it become quickly quite clear that this time news are not scam but we are in the brink of something new (I saw it from mostly non scientific indicators).

    At the same time I started to follow around scientific discussions about the news. I have to say I’m concerned to witness how narrow sighted todays scientific community is. How on earth anyone think judging value of Your (before catalyst/theory even revealed) innovation sticking on theories that have failed to explain gravity, need of dark matter etc.

    Please keep up important work you are doing, and remember to have regular breaks so that you are energized when media hell breaks loose after September. Nothing will stop this after successful demo. You have much, much more supporters than you see writing to your site. Just waiting to help developing your innovation further having integrated heat-to-electric converter, automotive applications, space travelling etc.
    Finally just one question: Have you considered this next phase to include some Open source/Community type activities? Like what made Linux so good, so big in rather short period of time (Linus would have never succeed alone).

  • Rick Meisinger

    I believe God wants you to live!

    Could you give us a progress report on the 1MW USA plant? Any E-Cats produced for this facility yet? I am hopeful that this technology could be part of the solution for the debt crisis in Greece and USA. No pressure… Looking forward to October!

    With much support

    Rick Meisinger

  • Abelard Lindsey

    Can this write-up on the theory be put into pdf format for download?

  • marcos g

    people like you is what the world needs and what
    truly can produce radical changes to improve the lives of us all
    I hope you succeed for the sake of us all
    I do not speak English well (used the translator)

    thank you very much

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Tomasz Rojewski,
    yes, I receive blackmails and threats on regular scale. But I want to tell you this: during a battle Napoleon had been closely hit by a whistling bomb, and his attendant told him to get away from the danger. He answered: “if God wants me to die, nothing can stop it, if God wants me to live, nobody can stop it”.
    Warm Regards,

  • Tomasz Rojewski

    Dear mr Andrea Rossi
    Are there many people who try to play down the importance of your ideas ?
    If your invention is true (hope so) interests of many countries (like Russia) would be endangered.
    have you receive some direct or indirect threats?
    Be careful.
    hope my english is understandable. I’m not good at it:)
    Warm Regards and I wish you lot of luck

  • Andrea Rossi

    Mr “Godbole” :
    I know perfectly who you are and with whom you are working and trying to copy my process. Your is just an attempt of espionage.
    Safety issues have been treated by us with the proper experts of the field and institutions, which have certified that we have no emissions. If you want to obtain a working apparatus, instead of the ridiculous scrap you made up to now, work more and talk less.
    In two and a half years of tests we made every day with our E-Cats, no radiations above the law limits have beed detected outside the E-Cats, no radioactive wastes have been left, no radioactive materials have been used. We have huge certification about this issue, made not by assholes, who speak of safety without knowledge of the matter, but by experts who every day go where are radioactive emissions ( for example hospitals) to check that the law is respected. This is the people we are working with. You are just trying to blackmail us, but, sincerely, you are a paper tiger. And, by the way: your “group” has said repeatedly that my process is not good, that there are no nuclear reactions: now you sustain that my process is dangerous for the radiations…don’t you think here is a slight contradiction? Again: go to work and talk less, mr “Godbole”, or whatever you are really.
    Andrea Rossi

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Raul Heining:
    As I said, at the start up of the 1 MW plant I will release the topics of the theory behind my process.
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Roger Barker:
    We have produced at least 6 times the input energy, and this fulfills what our Customers want. What you believe is your problem, not ours.
    I repeatedly explained why we have to maintain a drive in this blog.
    Warm regards,

  • raul heining

    Roger, it is not necessary to do what you say. A device supplying that amount of power would not be
    supported by a normal wiring. You would need a cable of at least some 6 mm2 supporting a current of more than 50 A, working with 230 V.


  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Andrea:
    Yes, but we will start with industrial application.
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr daniel De Francia:
    Warm Regards,

  • Daniel de França MTd2

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Is the Chubb & Chubb theory for LENR a good approximation for what happens inside the reactor?



  • Aldo Soleri

    Dear Prof. Stremmenos, the hypothesys of very small mini H atoms seems to me interesting, but hardly supported by the so far known quantum mechanics. Have you additional (physical-chemical) effects supporting their proposability? Is the same hypothesis usable also to justify Ni-H systems hydrogenation capability?
    Best regards
    Aldo Soleri

  • V. Godbole

    Safe is to reveal what catalyst and how the catalyst works and how the device works.
    You already have the patent.
    Nothing is 100% secure or garanteed in life on the earth.

    Science and theory need to know, free information is a must. Only then there is progress. You will need governments and govt. agencies to prevent the device from being misused.

  • Andrea

    Good morning,

    i would like to know if you will ever produce a low-end product of the e-cat.
    I mean an e-cat useful to produce energy in houses and not in industrial huge plants.
    It will be ever possible?

    Thank you very much for the attention.

  • Roger Barker

    Dear Sir,

    Please forgive me for being frank here but I feel your demos have not been able to conclusively demonstrate that you have discovered a new source of energy here. The mere fact your device was plugged in to the mains power is testament to that.

    My question is as part of your demonstrations why did you not do a closed loop test or at least use batteries if a closed loop test was not possible? If we know the power density of a battery then we would know how long it would run your device for. In this way we would know for sure your device was producing excess energy and not somehow drawing power from the mains.

    Roger Barker PHD

  • raul heining

    This device is not useless, it is very important as it is its future development.
    About the theory behind it, nothing is proved although the one using weak interaction
    be, for me, interesting . We should not forget that mostly things were discovered through experience and only later explained theoretically. I am remembering the black body radiation
    and later the explanation by Max Planck, the photoelectric effect and Einstein, the hidrogen energy levels and the Bohr theory. All explanations which originated later new predictions. This time will probably be the same and I do not think new science is needed as some want us to believe. Some models
    poorly fundamented in good reasoning and theoretical knowledge have, until now, thrown some degree of
    suspiction in all this field.
    I believe that many professional scientists are, at this moment, working on this in a quiet way.

  • Henk

    Smeagol’s remarks unwantingly describe nicely the problem of our present-day scientific community: it is based on an inert and inward looking way of working.
    If someone does not comply to the mainstream theory and the self imposed rigid rules, he/she and his/her work will not be taken seriously, will not pass peer review, will be cut off from funding and simply declared “useless for mankind.”

    A prime example of this tunnel vision can be found in climate science where “the debate is over” and output from computermodels is presented as real data and proof that the theory build into the models it true. Anybody who dares to merely question this is a denier and expelled as an outcast.

    But if scientists are no longer allowed to challenge the mainstream consensus by doing some wild guessing upfront, and, by trial and error hone their thoughts into a new theory, it means that effectively scientific progress will come to a grinding halt.

    Progress and breakthrough then will come from (financially) independent engineers like Mr Rossi, who dare to follow the old fashioned Gallileo way and are not ashamed to admit that they do not yet know exactly how it works. But hack, it seems to be working so let’s take it from here and see if it is any use for mankind. The exact theory will follow later.

    If the E-Cat is proven to work (not by peer reviewed papers but by real customers),the most important side-effect will hopefully be a revitalization of science where people dare to go where nobody has been before.

    kind regards

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Jason:
    It is true that Leonardo Corp has given the commercial License to Ampenergo to sell his products in America.
    Warm Regards,

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    smeagol wrote:
    If the details about the workings of this device is not been made public, it is useless for mankind

    Let’s analyse a useless device for mankind:

    1- The E-Cat suplies 4,7Kw with a consomption of 300W
    2- It suplies clean energy
    3- Its energy will be much cheaper than fossil oils and from electric plants
    4- It does not produce nuclear waste
    5- Its working is totally safety

    Yes, E-Cat is useless for mankind… because the men love this other sort of very useful device:

    1- Nuclear plants produce nuclear waste, which are polluting our planet
    2- Its energy is not cheap
    3- It’s dangerous (a tsunami or a earthquake can cause a catastrophe (as happened recently in Japan)

    Some people have no idea of what they claim

  • Jason

    Is it true you signed a deal with a U.S. company AmpEnergo Inc. to sell e-cat units.

  • smeagol

    Dear Authors,

    Yes this would be very nice, however, I have seen only 7 articles dating from 1997 claimed by the name Andrea Rossi on arXiv.
    arXiv is the only and renowned physics archive where scientists peer review their work in order to make science sound and valid.
    If the details about the workings of this device is not been made public, it is useless for mankind. It will remain in the realm of ‘magic’, and is cloaked by the fogg of mistery and farytales.
    Guessing is not science.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Paul Snyder:
    October will be the date in which our first industrial plant will go in operation. We will not reveal any industrial secret, obviously. I do not think we have reason to reveal our industrial secret, sincerely.
    Warm regards,

  • Paul Snyder

    Good day Mr Rossi,

    I believe many are looking at the October 1MW roll-out as ‘the date we will know everything about the e-Cat’. My understanding is the October date is in no way tied with revealing the inner-workings of the device.

    Based on how you see things progressing thus far, at what approximate date would you envision revealing to the world the internal workings of the e-Cat?

    Wishing you continued good fortune in your commercial roll-out,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Drear Mr John M.:
    I cannot give information about what happens inside the reactor.
    Warm Regards,

  • John M

    Hello Mr Rossi,

    Like many people following your eCat R&D, I am very much looking forward to the day you launch your first commercial plant.

    I do have some questions…
    - Does your eCat generate hydrinos from the added hydrogen, courtesy of your special catalyst ?
    - If yes, is this adding to the energy being released and perhaps assisting the LENR process ?

    Good luck with your continued development.

    kind regards

  • Andrea Rossi

    I confirm what stated in the Defkalion comment, and underline that the tests we will make in Greece starting presumably around July will be confidential tests of the first clusters of modules of the 1 MW plant which will go in operation in October.
    Andrea Rossi, Leonardo Corporation

  • DEFKALION Green Technologies S.A.

    As a response to info released in media during the last days, Defkalion GT S.A. states that there are not any plans or schedules for e-cat lab prototypes tests or public demos till October, when the 1MW plant will be operational in our first factory in Greece. On the contrary there are schedules for several non public Defkalion’s product tests within the next months.

    Defkalion Green Technologies S.A.

Leave a Reply




You can use these HTML tags

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