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. journal-of-nuclear-physics.com /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

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

  • Koen Vandewalle

    Dear Mr. Julian Brown,
    As I try to understand comprehensibility and attractiveness of certain theory, there is much to invest in 3D-dynamic modeling as there was done in gaming-industry.
    Mathematics is more for “some elite” with a typical structure and training of their brains, which, unfortunately, inhibits some other use of that single brain and is not so attractive to most of the people. But as was proved here, it is the practical, global, multi-disciplinar insight that makes the difference.
    I believe the ancient Greek also used more graphical ways and no formulas to explain mathematics.

    Do you know how the proportions of the great pyramid of Egypt were defined ? What tools they needed therefore ? One single rope ! A small sketch will make every child building a scaled replica of the piramid, with correct proportions, but the formulas and angles… no way!
    Any system, how refined it may be, has the limits of not taking into account everything, which makes it useless beyond the cases it was developed for.

    After all it is a bit frustrating that leisure and luxury are more attractive and often have more funding and better tools than science, except for the military.

    Kind regards,
    Koen Vandewalle

  • Alessandro Arcaro

    Dear Dr Ing Andrea Rossi,
    I link to a previous question posted by Mr Mario Rossi about the imminent referendum regarding the nuclear energy here in Italy. Do you know about the Carlo Rubbia’s proposal based on thorium nuclear fission? it seems to offer several more advantages than an uranium one(the safety of the plants; lower thorium cost and better efficiency than uranium;shorter waste disposal’s time).I read China and India intend to develop this technology. What do you think about that?
    Affection, esteem and best regards.

    Alessandro Arcaro

  • artiolicesarino

    Buon Giorno Signor Rossi e Signor Focardi

    Innanzi tutto sono felice di avere l’occasione di poterVi fare i miei più sentiti complimenti per quella che si preannuncia come la più grande scoperta e invenzione dell’umanità dopo il fuoco, tale per cui, in effetti, avrei preferito che l’ invezione del Signoe Rossi prendesse il nome di “E-Promethéus II” ( anche se capisco che la sorte del Titano non sia delle più auspicabili ).
    Inutile dire che nel momento in cui il mondo si risveglierà dal torpore in cui è assopito e riconoscerà stupito il Vostro valore i Vostri nomi saranno consacrati nella storia insieme a quelli dei più grandi fisici e inventori.
    Chiaramente la curiosità e tanta ma le esigenze di riservatezza lo sono altrettanto per proteggere un cosi grande “ Fuoco di Speranza”, così mi accontenterò di seguire lo svolgersi di questa grande avventura dal Vostro sito e da quei pochi e coraggiosi organi di informazione che hanno preso a cuore il Vostro procedere.
    Ma la Curiosità è tanta anche in altri ambiti e così, considerandomi non più di un ingenuo fruitore di scienza e fisica divulgativa, mi piacerebbe sapere quali siano i Fisici e gli inventori che più Voi stimate e soprattutto vorrei conoscere qual è la Vostra interpretazione della meccanica quantistica e se date più credito ad un approccio indeterministico , deterministico, a variabili nascoste locali o non.

    Non posso comunque esimermi dall’ elencare quali siano i fisici e inventori che più stimo , rigorosamente in ordine sparso : Einstein, Todeschini, Godel, Bohm, Feynman, Tesla, Maldacena, Maxwell, Smolin, Witten,Verlinde .

    Vi porgo i più cordiali saluti

    Cesarino Artioli

  • Julian Brown

    I should have mentioned that the Widom-Larsen share my view that there is no fundamentally new physics involved.

    Widom’s very clever idea, originally developed to explain cold fusion in Pd, is that electrons can borrow a quanta about 1 MeV from the e-m field at the metal surface (such a field has never actually observed, but it is mathematically possible). The “heavy” electron then uses this transitory extra energy to convert a proton to a neutron. The neutron then falls into a Ni nucleus, to form an isotope that might subsequently emit an electron to form a Cu isotope.

    The evidence for this will be unmistakeable: a isotope N,Z of Nickel will be gradually replaced by either isotope N+1,Z of Nickel or N+1,Z+1 of Copper. Analysis of the catalyst powder should be able to confirm this.

    A problem with the Widom’s idea is that it seems to predict that the energy is released as gamma rays, and not heat. But only negligible amounts of radioation have been detected from Rossi’s devices. I understand that lead shielding of the thickness used would not absorb so completely, but I am not an expert in this field (Francesco Celani will know).

    Anyway, here you have two completely different but reasonable theories of the Rossi reaction (Widom’s and mine) that are completely consistent with quantum mechanics. Peter Hagelstein also some interesting ideas, so make that three theories. It is reasonable to expect that further (not yet envisaged) explanations will get published as interest explodes across the world.

    To summarize: There is no need to give up on quantum mechanics just yet ! There is absolutely no reason to give up on mathematics either !

  • John

    Dear Dr. Rossi

    Thank you for answering so kindly to all our messages,
    but why don’t you show us some photos of the E-Cat systems ?

    Of course you don’t have to show the patented parts. I would like to see how the E-Cat appears, a set of E-Cat connected together etc…

    Just some photos or videos of the devices and the factory.



  • Julian Brown

    Wladimir Guglinski, Prof Stremmenos

    You wrote:

    1) Some experiments are already contradicting the fundamentals of quantum mechanics. So, as some experiments contradict it, why a new theory cannot contradict it?

    I am not aware of any experiment that must necessarily contradict quantum mechanics
    Rossi and Fleischmann’s findings contradict models of the solid-state. I agree. This means there is an error in these models, but it does NOT necessarily mean that the fundamentals of quantum mechanics need to be changed in any way. This would be a huge revolution. QM theory is incredibly accurate in all other atomic systems, so why should it fail completely in just Ni-H and PdH ????

    You wrote:

    2) If the physics of the interaction between protons and the Fermi Gas in metals is extremely well-developed, then why Popovic’s theory (and the others you mention) cannot explain the Rossi-Focardi experiment?

    May I suggest that Popovic’s theory cannot explain Rossi-Focardi because it only considers interactions between the protons and the Fermi Gas. It does not, for example consider interactions between the protons. I have checked the nonlinear model of screening quite carefully and I don’t think it contains a major error. So, when looking for an explanation of Rossi-Focardi, we must look at other aspects of the system, (that Popovic is not concerned with) such as the proton-proton interactions and the proton-phonon-lattice interactions. This is the approach of Peter Hagelstein.

    To summarize, you and Stremmenos believe that it is impossible to explain Rossi-Focardi using the Standard Model of physics, whilst I believe that the conventional models merely overlook something that they thought was unimportant.

    These are both valid points of view.


    A term that conventional models of proton in metals DO overlook is the fact that transitions between vibrational states of the interstitial proton have THz frequencies that are not screened in the same way that the static proton charge is screened according to Popovic. Popovic is not wrong, he jsut never considers the proton to be anything other than a classical point.

    If you take account of the frequency dependence of the Coulomb interaction, and the fact that proton states have a large gaussian width (0.02nm), you find that there is a strong coupling between protons in neighbouring sites that changes the vibrational spectrum very significantly, especially at high loading. In fact a new ground state can arise wherein the protons behave as coherently oscillating electric dipoles. The only requirement is high saturation and a flat enough well potential for the protons. These conditions are met in bulk Pd and on the Ni 111 surface – but no other systems of which I am aware.

    You can read about a detailed calculation in http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.1878.

    Unfortunately, I have made the discovery that there are very few people in the LENR field who actually understand quantum mechanics, so however many times I try to explain this, it falls on deaf ears !

    Luckily Rossi has solved the problems anyway by brilliant empirical methods, so theory is not actually needed at this point.

    Once Rossi’s tremendous invention becomes common knowledge, every theoretical physicist in the world is going to try to explain it.
    I predict quite a few of these people will soon make the same discovery that I did and publish papers like mine. We may all be wrong of course !

  • Brian Kean

    Why don’t you sell franchises and build in NDA into the franchise agreements? Let the little guys start up the business and install in farms and businesses around the U.S.? They would service the equipment and be able to disarm the self destruct mechanism for fixing. I would buy a franchise for sure (for Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, etc).

  • LBG

    Dear Dr Rossi,

    Please search “Doble steam cars”. Listed sites discuss the Doble steam cars from 1909 to 1931. These cars had impressive performance: 100+ mph, 0-60 mph in 10 sec (for 2000 kg vehicle weight), 30 sec start time, even from freezing conditions. Your E-Cat could power a steam car, especially a hybrid one. Their Model E used steam at 52 bar/400 deg. C.

    Respect and Regards,


  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Roger Barker:
    1- It will not be a test, but a R&D program, to implement our technology, financed by us. It will not be public and most of the data will be confidential
    2- The particulars of the R&D program are not supposed to be disclosed to the public
    Warm regards,

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear Julian Brown,

    1) Some experiments are already contradicting the fundamentals of quantum mechanics. So, as some experiments contradict it, why a new theory cannot contradict it?
    Quantum Mechanics is incomplete.
    It works in the range of its application, but it fails in a deeper level (as for instance in the level of cold fusion nuclear reactions).

    2) If the physics of the interaction between protons and the Fermi Gas in metals is extremely well-developed, then why Popovic’s theory (and the others you mention) cannot explain the Rossi-Focardi experiment?

    3) Do you want to know why Prof. Stremmenos did not use the verifiable mathematical terms?
    It’s because the current theoretical physics is not able so supply an answer for cold fusion. There is need a New Physics, new models, new deeper foundations.
    Unfortunatelly we dont have the empirical parameters that will rule such New Physics.
    As you know, the empirical parameters of current Nuclear Physics were obtained along several decades in the 20th century.
    In the same way, the new empirical parameters for the New Physics will be obtained along the upcoming decades of investigation. When we get them, we will be able to put the New Physics in verifiable mathematical terms.

    However, before of everything, we need to get a qualitative understanding of what happens in cold fusion occurrence, otherwise a new satisfactory theory will never be developed.

    A qualitative theory can be verified by using verifiable mathematical terms. Unfortunatelly the mathematical terms which we dispose nowadays cannot be applied to cold fusion.

  • Roger Barker

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Loris Ferrari (University of Bologna) stated in an article that you will be giving his team an opportunity to test the E-Cat. I have some questions about this:

    1) When will testing on the E-Cat begin at the University of Bologna begin?
    2) What type of tests are you allowing Loris Ferrari and his team to conduct?


  • Ch. Stremmenos

    Dear Julian Brown:
    I agree with A.R. “We will disclose the theory after the start up of our 1 MW plant” and add that this debate can not be discussed in a blog..
    Warm regards,
    Ch. Stremmenos

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mario Rossi:
    My position is against the nuclear power plants based upon uranium fission. These plants are too dangerous, they are not economically profitable for the mankind, if the nuclear waste disposal costs are really taken in due consideration.
    They have to be substituted with all the other sources of energy.
    This is my opinion.
    Warm Regards,

  • Mario Rossi

    Dear Ing. Rossi,
    this week italy is going towards a referendum regarding nuclear energy. Can you please provide your position on that? Do you think your system will be able to produce as much energy as nuclear plants do?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Julian Brown:
    We will disclose the theory afgter the start up of our 1 MW plant.
    Warm regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Ing. Luca Neri:
    I already answered to this question, please read through the blog. The issue is: SAFETY! Safety is based on experience, and we have great experience on small modules. Besides, I do not see any advantage in big modiles respect small modules: biuldingd are made by brinks, not by mountains.
    Warm regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Luca M.:
    Yes, we did.
    Warm regards,

  • lucaM

    Dear Mr. Rossi, just a curiosity: in the used nickel powder it is reported to be present a significant percentage of iron. As you said in several occasions, you are certain that the iron comes from the steel container, produced by a sputtering effect or similar. Have you ever operated an e-cat built using a container that is not made of iron, just to double check your assumption ?

    Best wishes

  • Julian Brown

    Prof. Stremmenos

    As you must know, the physics of the interaction between protons and the Fermi Gas in metals such as Nickel is extremely well-developed, and numerous articles have been published on this topic.

    For example, Nonlinear, Self-Consistent Theory of Proton Screening in Metals Applied to Hydrogen in Al and Mg.,

    Z. D. Popovic Phys. Rev. Lett. 33, 1164–1167 (1974)

    – is an early attempt to refine the basic Fermi screening law. This and other works established long ago set out quite exact mathematical models that agree with perfectly with a large body of experimental data (eg phonon dispersion curves and density-of-states measurements).

    Needless to say, according to these models, close approaches of a proton to a metal core have an incredibly small quantum probability and could not account for fusion as observed in the Rossi device.

    Please explain to us exactly what mistake has been made in the established work that allows fusion after all. I do not dispute that there may be a serious error in Popovic et al, but since they has provided a rigorous mathematical model with detailed quantum mechanics calculations, all you need to do is point out the Eqn. where he starts to go wrong, and we will be able to understand what you mean by “quasi-hydrogen atoms”.

    Until you can do this, I see nothing but words and hand-waving in your long exposition.

    Sorry, but Rossi’s discovery is much too important for you or others to obscure the issue with pseudo-arguments that theoretical physicists will immediately reject, because they are:

    i) not expressed in verifiable mathematical terms

    ii) appear to contradict the fundamentals of quantum mechanics.

    There is a huge prejudice against Cold Fusion / LENR in academic circles, and the use ill-defined concepts simply increases the wall of prejudice.

  • Ing. Luca Neri

    Dear mr. Rossi,
    can you please clarify why you consider safer to put many modules in series/parallel rather than building bigger, hi power modules?
    Is there any problem in controlling the power output, with potentially dangerous power peaks?
    Are you analysing the problem, can we expect in the future an increment in the dimensions and power of your e-cats?
    Regards from Italy, homeland of Leonardo Da Vinci, Galileo Galilei, Alessandro Volta, Guglielmo Marconi, Enrico Fermi and, last but not least, Andrea Rossi! And please reconsider your position about Italy, the interest in your discovery here is growing more and more together with the number of your fans!

  • Julian Brown

    Dear Mr Rossi,

    My admiration for your technical achievements is beyond words. I also think the manner in which you are releasing this epochal new technology to the world is extremely astute. It could have been very dangerous for you and your associates, but I think you have successfully navigated the rapids and avoided the crocodiles.

    I have one question.

    Why are you so sure that the reaction is Ni + p –> Cu ?

    Do you have confirming evidence ? If so, you have certainly discovered physics that goes beyond the Standard Model (ie a new species of quantum field). You should get (another) Nobel Prize for that as well !

    You seem to have excluded the possibility of the solar process:

    p + p -> D + e+ + v + 0.43 MeV

    A priori, this would seem to be much easier to reconcile with solid-state quantum physics. However, you clearly have good reasons for discounting this possibility. You do not have any duty to divulge what you know, but as a theoretical physicist I am extremely interested in the possibility of an extension of the standard model. After all, they do not seem to have discovered anything new at CERN so far, and your reactors are millions of times cheaper to build than the LHC !!!

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Henk:
    1- I never said I am not confident to get the patents granted
    2- Until the patent is not granted our area of industrial secrets will be wider than with the patents granted
    3- The times of delivery of our production will not be affected by the patens-processing-times, nor will be affected our marketing plans.
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Nicola P.:
    We always and everywhere in our publications have made this statement: we do not use radioactive materials and we do not produce radioactive wastes.
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Charlie Zimmerman:
    I already answered to this issue.
    Warm regards,

  • Charlie Zimmerman

    Dear Mr. Rossi,

    I was very interested in Mr. Don Meares post. I think it gave a good perspective on the potential scope of this discovery and the demand for it.

    I understand that commercial settings may be less likely to be targets of espionage and reverse engineering, but with the potential of many millions of modules being placed into many tens of thousands of these settings, I don’t see how it can be stopped. If I am correct, then I don’t see the merit in adding self-destruct capabilities to home units. After all, it only takes reverse engineering a single module to steal your secrets – whether it be a commercial one or a home unit.

    Warmest wishes,
    Charlie Zimmerman

  • Nicola P.

    Tutte le evidenze sperimentali (avvalorate da scienziati esperti) portano alla conclusione che il dispositivo sia veramente rivoluzionario. L’unico punto oscuro secondo me è il catalizzatore segreto. Io non sono un fisico ma mi viene un dubbio: non potrebbe trattarsi di una qualche sostanza radioattiva (ad es. Uranio) che induce le reazione nucleari sul Nichel atte a giusitificare le alte potenze generate?

  • Henk

    Dear Mr. Rossi,
    It seems you are no longer confident you will get the international patents in time and are forced (by the investors ?) to protect your IP with a technical solution. This comes at a time when you must be very busy building, testing, debugging and fine-tuning the 1 MW installation.
    My guess is it will cause a substantial delay in the market introduction of E-Cats by Defkalion.
    Will this shift the marketing plans away from selling individual E-Cats towards selling more 1MW units ?
    kind regards

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear J.Hagel:
    The connection of small modules makes totally safe the higher power plants.
    Warm regards,

  • Dr. Johannes Hagel

    Concerning the good question of Don Meares relating to the required number of E-cats for “changing the world”:

    Is there any principal problem in manufacturing larger E-Cat devices say of 1MW per E-cat? Is this not to adchieve by providing more Ni-surface or higher H-pressure? Or is there a basic obsatcle from the physics point of view? 12KW is a huge progress already but seems not enough for really big applications?

    Best regards, J. Hagel

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Anonymous:
    I never comment the competition.
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Dr Joseph Fine:
    1- Minutes
    2- It is possible to refuel onsite. When the market will need this, we will turn to this solution. It is very difficult to know, now, what exactly will be the options in the specific situations. If somebody would have asked to Henry Ford how the hell could circulate the millions of cars that unavoidably People was going to buy in the streets of the twenties, he probably couldn’t answer that easy. Solutions are also born by problems. We start as I said, then we will decide depending on the evolution,analysing the problems when they will be real and well defined.
    Good point, though.
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Don Meares:
    We will develope our structures in due times and will license where it will be opportune.
    Warm regards,

  • DonM

    Dear Mr. Rossi,

    Congratulations Sir, I along with millions are awaiting the successful completion and start up of the 1 MW plant in Greece. The successful operation of that plant will no doubt signal the start of events in the world that will be, as others have said “worldwide game changing”. It would take days to list everything in our lives that will be changed, no doubt for the better of all mankind, by large scale distribution and use of your E-Cat device, although I am sure you and your colleges have at least started such a list.

    Sir, I do want to express my doubts of such events occurring with the number of E-Cats planned to be manufactured on a yearly basis by your partners in Greece. Frankly, 300,000 2.5KW E-Cat units is a “drop in the bucket” when compared to what the world needs. If one can assume 30% efficiency for electrical generation, i.e. 750 watts electrical per E-Cat, it would take almost 6 years of the announced annual Greece manufacturing total ( approx, 1,700,000 E-Cats) to replace just 1 large nuclear power plant like the 1 just north of where I live (1,250 MW electrical).

    I know you have other partners around the world who will be manufacturing your device. So I hope the number of E-Cats to be manufactured annually will by closer to 300,000,000 (750 Gigawatts) instead of 300,000 (750 Megawatts).

    750GW of new power source annually will start to “change the world”, 750MW, even 10 times that 7,500MW will not!

    You and your and your associates know far better than I the enormous amounts of energy consumed in the world on a daily basis, with a vast majority being generated with fuel sources (coal, oil, cattle dung, nuclear fission, etc.) that most energy consumers would gladly replace with a reliable, cost effective, non polluting source, i.e. your E-Cat. To start to make difference in the world will require not 100’s of millions of E-Cats but billions of E-Cats.

    I wish you all the luck and best wishes in becoming probably the richest man in the world. Because when that happens the whole world will be that much richer also.

    Warm Regards,

    Don Meares

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    To: Raul Heining

    Dear Raul,
    in 4th May you wrote a comment in the article of mine <introduction to quantum ring theory, but I saw it only today.

    So, today I posted a reply to you there
    Sorry for the delay
    Wladimir Guglinski

  • Per


    With so much invested in the E-cat, howcome the home pages you are affiliated with like http://ampenergo.com/ and http://www.defkalion-energy.com/ hold so low quality? To me it seems odd that with all your resources, technological knowledge etc you haven’t spend more time on offering high quality home pages.

    Kind regards,

    /Per (I also develop home pages 🙂 )

  • Joseph Fine

    Andrea Rossi,

    How much time does the ‘factory’ need to refuel/reprocess a 4 KW or 10 KW module? (If you can discuss this.) Since the E-Cat will face an exponential demand, in a few years time there will be tens of thousands – or hundreds of thousands of modules – to be refueled every 6 months. They won’t all be refueled on the same day! But, after several years, you may need 100% of the capacity of FEDEX and/or UPS to transport modules between the E-cat plant and the various refueling/reprocessing stations. And this is when the modules are most vulnerable to theft. (i.e. disconnected from the main generating plant.) As an example, a 4 MW plant (yet to be developed) would contain 400 – 10 KW modules. And if there were 100 of these 4 MW plants distributed in the country (or around the world), then 40,000 modules would need to be de-installed, transported (and kept track of), refueled, returned to the generating plant and reinstalled. To avoid this back and forth activity, is there any conceivable way of refueling a module while it is installed? That is, it is shut down, but still interconnected. Is it physically possible to refuel on-site or undesirable from a proprietary point of view. Or, if you owned the generating plant yourself, would you be able to refuel on site?


  • anonymous

    Hello Andrea Rossi,

    You seem to understand how to make nickel + hydrogen fusion work efficiently and repeatably. A lot of scientists seem to have occasional success with palladium + hydrogen/deuterium fusion but results are unreliable and no one seems to know why. Does your knowledge give you any insight into why Pd+H/D fusion may be so erratic?

    Thanks and good luck in October! I hope the world is ready 🙂

    – Anonymous

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Helene:
    Develope a new energy source sustainable, not polluting, very cheap.
    Warm regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Khashayar Shatti:
    1 MW weightd about 1.5 tonns.
    No minimum distance from the op. is necessary.
    The plant cannot be mobile.
    Warm regards,

  • S. Bergquist

    Dear Mr. Rossi,
    I have followed your work since January with great interest. I have developed a design for an opposed-piston, crankless, two-cylinder steam engine with valves actuated by micro-controllers, thus incorporating the features of triple-expansion engines in a two-cylinder design. Your source of heat coupled to this engine has potential. No need to proffer to you my ideas: as you have said, you have enough problems at present, why take on more, or solve problems that do not exist? I await, impatiently, October 2011, and the milestone Defkalion Green Technologies operation. But I do wait!

    People have suggested problems with the Chinese and theft of the process idea. I believe the slow maturation of news, culminating in October 2011, helps to create a proper bastion against any future intellectual property issues.

    best regards to all involved,
    Mr. S Bergquist

  • Khashayar Shatti

    Dear Andrea Rossi
    First of all thank you for your kind attention.
    1- How much would be the shipping weight of a 100kw system as an example?
    2- How much is the minimum distance for an operator when your system is on?
    3- could your system be mobile while working?
    Best regards
    Khashayar Shatti

  • Helene

    Dear Mr. Rossi,

    every good company and invetor has a “vision” or “mission statement” about what they intend to achieve.

    Could you please share us yours about what you intend to accomplish with the E-Cat device?

    Thank you.

    Kind regards,


  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Daniel Roberts:
    We have not time in this moment to make research in that field: we accept offers for mature products, ready to be coupled .As soon as your invention is ready for use, please send an offer.
    Thank you for your attention,
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mick:
    As I said, we are pretty sure to fix this problem with proper technology.
    Warm Regards,

  • […] of Nuclear Physics новыми версиями работы реактора. Последняя появилась 25 мая нынешнего […]

  • Mick

    Dear Mr Rossi

    about device protection: i understand that the core of your invention is the special nickel powder that reaction chamber is filled with. If i got it right, then what do you mean by “a system that will destroy automatically the confidential parts”? Destroying nickel, without leaving a single trace that could be analyzed, seems to be very impossible task.
    Besides, you can’t protect device that you hand over to consumers – especially when the stake is so high. History shows that every protection will be broken – the higher stake, the more effort will be put into breaking it. And we are talking about dirt cheap energy that everyone on this planet needs.

    Best wishes

  • Andrea Rossi. My name is Daniel Roberts, I am a engineer and machinist from NZ. I have seen you are very gracious in answering queries on this website.

    In my spare time I designed a Stirling based generator based on the data that you have made available. It was initially just a thought experiment but it was so effective I have taken it further into a fully fledged design with very good characteristics.

    I am simply interested in sharing this technology with you, not in making a profit ect. If you are interested please contact me at daniel.r.roberts@gmail.com

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Paul Cunningham:
    Tell to the investors.
    Warm regards,

  • Paul Cunningham

    Mr. Rossi, with all due respect, as I attempt to remain open-minded:

    All this talk of self destruction, and patent protection makes me more skeptical of the device. It now seems as if you are preparing a way to earn your retirement and have an escape clause.

    If the device really works, you will be an intsant billionaire, and the world will herald you. What motive do you have for taking these extreme measures to hide something so important to mankind?

    Is this selfishness? Concern for ending up poor and have to deal with courts?

    I am searching for motivation for keeping the secret now that the cat is out of the bag.

    If you can turn 300 watts of electrical power into 600 watts of heat, repeatably, controllably, with no dangerous waste and common materials, you will be remembered above Galileo.

    Let the manufacturers of the world have your secret, and you will honor your soul and be rewarded with immortality in human history.

  • H. Hansson

    Dear Mr. Rossi,
    Mr Greg and Daniel De Francia point the finger at a weak point in your approach. The Chinese will start to try to clone your invention before you can say “patent pending”. Meanwhile the Chinese have absolutely no respect for patents… but they are very, very “brand conscious”. Therefore, floating a business plan in November is far to late.

    If you spend months of your precious time to technically protect your invention, you would still only delay the Chinese with weeks.

    So far the questions and issues in this plog have been tech-related. But it seems that business minded viewers is starting to offer their opinion, that’s is good. The coin have two sides.

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>