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.
Introduction
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:
- Which is the supposed mechanism that overcomes the powerful electrostatic repulse (Coulomb barrier) between the “shielded proton” and the Nickel nucleus?
- 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)
Fig.1b
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)
Fig.2
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:
- The total wave function (of the nucleus and the electrons) of temporarily, non-stable states.
- The total time-depended Hamiltonian, for temporarily states.
- 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.
Fig.3
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
References:
(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
Dear Mr Rossi
What do you think about this:
“a thin, moldable sheet of small antennas called nantenna — is designed to harvest industrial waste heat and convert it into usable electricity.”
Dear Gnatho:
We have released all the pictures we could release. No more, tests, interviews, press releases will be done from me until November.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Fahad:
I have already given about this issue all the information I could give.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Would you please tell that which isotopes of Ni and H are used in this apparatus and what happens when we use something different.
Thanks
Dear Andrea Rossi
Is there a chance that we can see some new pictures of the E-Cat ? Only few have been released, and I’m sure many readers of the Journal of Nuclear Physics are curious about how it looks like in the current stage of development.
Best regards and good luck,
gnatho
Dear John Sergovich:
I think so, but initially we will suply only thermal energy.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Ivan Antipov:
We are on schedule.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
It is now a few short months till the end of October. Can you please advise how you are tracking for release on that date? Are you behind or ahead of schedule?
Thanks
Ivan
Dear Mr. Rossi,
Thank you for responding to the questions posted on this blog. There is much imagination posted here 🙂
I hope to ask you one more question concerning the feasibility of your device.
Investment in wind and solar pv farms has increased in the past few years and seems likely to continue to increase. The risk is that the fluctuating nature of these energy sources might cause some instability in electricity prices. There is therefore a need for an energy source that can be easily modulated. Fission reactors are unsuitable for this purpose. Natural gas fired generators can do the job but I believe that they lose some efficiency when they have to modulate the output.
Please entertain this last question from me. Do you believe that the power output of an E-Cat, working alone, or in parallel with others,can be efficiently modulated for this purpose?
Grazie, e Cari saluti !
J.S.
Gent.ma Fulvia:
Grazie infinite per le Sue deliziose considerazioni.
Risposte:
1- No, a Ottobre installiamo il nostro primo impianto industriale da 1 MW e da quel momento saremo sul mercato. Continueremo la ricerca e sviluppo con l’Università di Bologna e probabilmente Uppsala, ma non ci saranno, credo, altre dimostrazioni pubbliche, almeno fino a Novembre.
2-No, è una leggenda metropolitana. Rimando a risposta 1.
3- Su questo blog. Comunque fino ad Ottobre non succederà niente di importante, solo lavoro, lavoro, lavoro (lavolale, lavolale, lavolale, come dice il mio amico Enrico Dr Billi, fisico Italiano da Bologna che lavora in Cina)
4- Per un brevetto di questo genere possono occorrere fino a 6 anni, quindi occerre avere pazienza.
Grazie infinite, davvero.
Cari saluti,
A.R.
Dear Fahad:
1- E-Cat: is a trade mark, means “E-nergy Cat-alyzer”
2- Cold Fusion: means a nuclear fusion obtained at low temperatures compared to the temperatures of hundred millions °C necessary in natural occurring processes of nuclear fusion.
Warm regards,
A.R.
@andrea Rossi. Can you please give me the bookish definition of “e-cat” and “cold fusion”.
I will be grateful.
Egregio ing. ROSSI,
sono una sua estimatrice sin da quando Lei proponeva di ricavare petrolio dai rifiuti (a proposito che fine ha fatto quel progetto che, leggo in Internet, è stato ripreso dai Japponesi?)
Poi non ho più sentito parlare di Lei sino a quest’anno.
Ora però sembra Lei abbia messo a punto una sorta di fusione fredda che rivoluzionerà il mondo.
Questo dimostrerebbe alcune cose:
1. perseverare non è sempre diabolico, delle volte è Divino se porta a questi risultati
2. Lei avrà la sua bella rivincita in chi dubitava di Lei e lo vedeva come un millantatore
3. finalmente potremo staccare l’ago, che tiene in vita l’economia mondiale, dalla “flebo” del petrolio (e questo aspetto mi rende oltremodo felice perché ritengo sia la vera causa di questo persistente stato di crisi internazionale)!
Che dire di più, mi sembra una cosa GRANDE e semplice allo stesso tempo se, anche io che non sono del settore, penso di aver capito in che cosa consiste la sua invenzione (tranne l’additivo che ancora non ha spiegato di che si tratta ed è l’incognita che ancora insinua alcuni dubbi anche in chi ha assistito alle sue prove pubbliche !?).
Prima di chiudere vorrei farle un paio di domande:
1) ha previsto altre dimostrazioni pubbliche?
2) davvero l’università di Bologna ed altri 100 istituti nel mondo stanno testando il suo apparecchio per dare anche una spiegazione teorica a quello che accade all’interno del suo e-Cat?
3) dove è possibile seguire l’evoluzione della sua scoperta (prove scientifiche, prima installazione, piano distribuzione e vendita, ecc…) ?
4) quanto tempo necessita ancora affinché il suo brevetto venga accettato dalle autorità competenti, consentendoLe di rivelare in che cosa consiste “l’additivo/catalizzatore” che permette all’energia di moltiplicarsi?
Affettuosi saluti e sappia che siamo in molti a fare il tifo per Lei !!!
Ciao
Fulvia
Dear John Sergovich:
I think yes, but we are working on the electric power production.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Henk:
No.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Dear Paul Segers:
1- No
2- The E-Cat will be intrinsecally safe, therefore cannot reach production above the safety level
3- Contact us in November for this issue
4- What counts is results and working applications, not chatterings.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Predrag Raos:
As you know, I do not give information regarding the reactor operation.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Well, maybe the issue is not how to bringing two nuclei together, but how to make them stick. If you fuse two nuclei, the energy of that fusion, if there is not some mechanism of relaxation, will disintegrate the short-lived new element. The collision will be, to put it differently, elastic. That’s difference between collision of two billiard balls and two wet clay balls – former can’t dissipate the energy of collision, the latter turn it into heat.
Why not suppose that (aborted) fusion between the nuclei is a process that goes on all the time, but is invisible because of subsequent and immediate dissociation of the product? That the problem is not how to put together two nuclei, but how to make them stay put?
If you have the free particles, the only possible mechanism of relaxation is emission of some particle (including photon). But in a crystal lattice, energy could be possibly dumped not only in a single big package, but simply drained off instead by electrostatic interaction with the lattice. That’s exactly what happens in collision of two clay balls – energy of a single big ball is divided among its atoms, i.e. turned into heat.
This mechanism would explain lack of radiation (one big quantum is cut into pieces, and turned into zillions of small quanta, i.e. into heat), as well as the catalysed fusion itself. If the crystal lattice cushions the newborn nucleus and dampens its oscillations by some subtle resonance, then even small modifications of the properties of the lattice could have dramatic effect.
How all this fits into quantum theory? I see no problem here, as the quantum of energy is emitted not in the form of a single particle, but as a change in the electric field which brings whole lattice to oscillate.
By the way, this relaxation of reacting molecules is a well-known mechanism in chemical heterogeneous catalysis, so the parallel possibly deserves some note.
Predrag Raos
Croatia
16.6.2011
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Congratulations on the accomplishment! I hope that the 1MW plant launch goes as scheduled, and that you are able to sell the home-sized E-cat as soon as possible. I have been reading most of the news about this development, so I apologize in advance if some of these questions have already been addressed. I know they are quite a few, but thank you very much in advance for all your effort that you put into this blog:
1. Does it appear that the delay of an international patent, and the fact you are being forced to build some sort of self-destruct device (even if it’s only to make the investors “feel better”) delay the commercial/non-industrial E-cat launch past 2012?
2. At this point in time, how many kWh will the non-industrial/residential E-cat be? How many kWh will it produce in self-sustaining mode? What is the max SAFE limit that will be imposed (the point at which it is not recommended to run above, at risk of device malfunction/product degradation)?
3. I want to be able to support/help spread this technology when it becomes available for the public. Do you plan to have a training program for the technicians who will install/support/”recharge” the E-cats? I would imagine replacing would eventually be as simple as a battery, but the demand for supporting these devices would be (I imagine) enormous.
4. What amends (if any) do you think should be made for those who have been discredited by the scientific “community”, and who have devoted their careers and lives to LENR/COLD FUSION (I understand why you shy away from the branding). The case of the Fleischmann–Pons claims come to mind, and I sincerely hope you can put all of these “scientists” to shame within a year.
Thank you, and God bless!
-P.S.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
A while ago you mentioned that E-Cats might be used in larger mobile applications like ships and trucks etc.
In these applications the position of the reactor will not always be horizontal, and it will be subjected to G-forces as wel.
This raises the following question: Is the E-Cat “position” sensitive, e.g. can it be operated upside down and in a vertical position ?
kind regards
Henk
Dear Mr. Rossi,
I understand that the e-cat device can turn a joule of electric energy into several joules of thermal energy. I have a geothermal heating and cooling unit in my basement that can turn a joule of electric energy into five joules of thermal energy. The problem is that electricity is expensive. I can heat my home just as cheaply with natural gas and a high efficiency gas furnace costs very little to install.
I am wondering if it would make economic sense to use the e-cat device to preheat water for use in a natural gas or coal fired steam turbine. In other words, do you believe that e-cat modules can be priced low enough that they could compete with natural gas in a fair energy market?
Dear Enzo De Angelis:
Thank you for your kind comment.
Please contact us in November for the commercial issues.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Per:
Your comment is the evidence that reading my patent application is possible to replicate the effect.
Our 1 MW reactor in in advanced manufacturing phase, well in schedule for the october start up.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Dear Geoff Start:
1- Yes, we are in schedule
2- yes
3- I do not know
Warm Regards,
A.R.
You said, now “e-cat” is like the Ford-T and e-cat has 6 times the input energy…what will happen when the e-cat will become a Ferrari ? 🙂
I hope that day will come soon!
Ciao.
Gigi
Dear Mr Rossi,
1. Are you still on schedule for the opening of the 1MW plant in October 2011?
2. When this 1MW plant opens. how do you intend to keep the process secret with such a large number of working E-cats “out there”? Will they be guarded night and day? It seems a little impractical.
3. Is there, in your view, a significant risk that your work will be copied in, say, China, where there is an enormous need for energy?
Regards
Geoff Start
Dear Mr. J. Brown,
thank you for the reference you gave me. Unfortunately one line is missing and the reference on proton states in Pd lattice has not been received.
Moreover I followed the dots of yr last phrase.. but I arrived only at the cohoperative in phase vibration of all the protons in the lattice; no flavour of LENR for my weak nostrils; in spite someone see in this a lowering ’cause’ of the Coulomb barrier (?). However some far echo of this can be heard if we attribute to this collective coherent vibration the power to cause some 2nd type crystalline transition.
The strange nuclear reaction with very little gamma emission could not be unterstood thanks to the overlapping probability of presence of a proton of state A and a nucleus of state B (2 different crystalline states coexisting). In this case the p energy is very small and the excitation of the Ni Nucleus very small so to limit the emission.
Aldo Soleri
Andrea,
Found this potential replication attempt with 8 W of output power on the net, http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/06/brian-ahern-getting-8-watts-in-low.html.
Would be interesting if you could share how far you have come with the 1 MW reactor. The previous data suggest all modules are produced, how is it going with putting them all together?
Keep up the good work,
Per
Egr. Dott. Rossi Andrea
Mi mi sono diplomato all’I.T.I.S. Enrico Fermi di Frascati con la specializzazione in Energia Nucleare nell’ormai lontano 1975.
Sono venuto a conoscenza tramite il blog 22 passi… che un certo Paul Esteban il 3 giugno le ha sottoposto nel blog del Journal of Nuclear Physics una mia ipotesi di funzionamento dell’E-Cat.
Tengo a precisarle che tale ipotesi è stata formulata, solo per un puro esercizio speculativo, basandomi sulla lettura dei numerosi report scientifici pubblicati dopo la sua dimostrazione di gennaio a Bologna, nonché dopo aver ascoltato attentamente le dichiarazioni del Prof. Focardi.
Solo dopo sono venuto a conoscenza della teoria formulata in precedenza da Widom e Larsen.
La sua risposta è stata:
We are far from it, and I cannot five these kind of information, so far.
Warm regards,
Ossia che tale spiegazione è lontana da quella reale.
Se non fossi stato certo che la sua risposta sarebbe stata questa gliela avrei sottoposta io stesso, poiché dovendo proteggere il segreto industriale lei risponderebbe così anche se qualcuno le sottoporrebbe quella giusta, oppure non risponderebbe affatto.
Mi scuso perciò se qualcun altro lo ha fatto al posto mio prevaricando le mie intenzioni.
A me non interessa sapere adesso qual’é la teoria alla base del funzionamento dell’E-Cat, a me interessa che funzioni davvero e che porti una svolta epocale nella produzione di energia pulita, a basso costo e soprattutto distribuita.
Spero però che lei, dopo tutto quello che ha a torto o a ragione ha subito dallo Stato Italiano, sappia tenere in considerazione tutti quei cittadini che in maggioranza assoluta hanno votato contro le centrali nucleari a fissione e, se richiesto, sappia rispondere positivamente alle eventuali proposte del governo italiano qualunque esso sia.
Oltre ai legittimi interessi brevettuali ed economici, suoi e degli investitori che la sostengono, spero inoltre che lei sappia considerare anche la ricerca scientifica, come l’acqua e l’energia, un bene comune di tutta l’umanità che, ne sono certo, saprà infine esserle imperituramente riconoscente, come già accaduto per i grandi scienziati che hanno fatto la storia del progresso scientifico.
Ho un bambino di quattro anni è spero vivamente che possa vedere l’alba di un mondo migliore.
P.S. Essendo in possesso del diploma su esposto le chiedo cortesemente se posso in futuro propormi per la diffusione e la commercializzazione dell’E-Cat nel territorio dei Castelli Romani.
Grazie.
Dear Andrea Rossi
Just after Colombo, almost everyone (Phoenicians, Chinese, Egyptians, Vikings…) all of them discovered America before Cristoforo Colombo……..
Why now, after Rossi, it seems that almost everyone in the planet have made experiments on Ni H in his garage?
Non ragioniam di lor, ma guarda e passa…
A lot of compliments and best wishes to you, Andrea.
Giuliano Bettini
Dear Dr Enrico Billi:
Specifically for us, it makes no difference at all. For the alternative energies, here will be a boost, I suppose.
Warm Regards,
lavolale, lavolale,
A.R.
A silly question, after the referendum about traditional fission nuclear energy, how this result will affect your business in Italy?
Enrico Billi
Dear Andrea Rossi:
Thank you for clarifying the often forgotten difference between your E Cat and Pons-Fleishman electrolysis. I have reluctantly concluded that since it has been some 23 years since Pons-Fleishman first was revealed, with little progress and zero repeatability, the system is at a dead end. Quite probably something anomalous is happening yet we have no working model after nearly a quarter century. Thankfully we can all look forward to October for the E Cat.
Kind Regards,
Bob Dingman
To: Julian Brown
Dear Julian
One principle of Quantum Mechanics is the following:
– a quantum particle can behave either as a particle or as a wave, but it cannot behave as wave and as particle at the same time
A new experiment, made by Aephraim Steinberg and published in june-2011 (Science online), has shown that such principle is wrong.
You can find the link for the paper published by Science here:
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3295&mode=&order=0&thold=0
Let’s see the meaning of the Steinberg experiment.
De Broglie proposed that there is a duality wave-particle of the elementary particles. He proposed that duality is a property of the matter.
However, instead of considering the duality as a property of matter (after all, it’s very strange to suppose that matter can have a duality), he could have proposed that duality is actually a property of the helical trajectory (zitterbewegung) of the elementary particles.
So, why did not de Broglie propose the duality as a property of the zitterbewegung?
The answer is: it’s because to consider the duality as a property of the zitterbewegung would be a speculation not allowed by the scientific criterion (there was no way to test that hypothesis directly by experiments in that time).
So, he proposed a postulate (according to which duality is a property of the matter) because that proposal could be tested directly by experiments.
Nevertheless, in spite of de Broglie idea is able to be tested directly by experiments, it does not mean that his postulate is correct.
What Davisson-Germer experiment has showed is the following:
The particles exibit a duality wave-particle
But their experiment does not imply that de Broglie hypothesis is correct.
In other words:
Davisson-Germer experiment does not imply that duality is a property of matter. Perhaps duality is a property caused by the zitterbewegung of elementary particles.
So, what is the meaning of the experiment published in june-2011 by Science?
Well, the Steinberg experiment showed that a quantum particle can behave, at the same time, as a wave and as a particle.
Such result does not fit to the de Broglie concept of duality. Because the matter cannot behave as a particle and a wave at the same time.
So, the conclusion of Steinberg experiment is the following: de Broglie interpretation of duality is wrong.
Steinberg experiment shows that duality cannot be a property of the matter, as de Broglie wrongly supposed.
But as the duality cannot be a property of the matter (as shows the Steinberg experiment), then how could we explain the duality?
Well, we can consider that duality is a property caused by the helical trajectory of particles.
– Davisson-Germer experiment showed that there is a dualty. And duality should be either a property of matter or a property of zitterbewegung.
– But now Steinberg experiment is showing that duality cannot be a property of matter. Then it must be considered a property of zitterbewegung.
The hypothesis that duality should be caused by helical trajectory could not be taking in consideration by de Broglie because that hypothesis could not be tested directly, at that time.
But now the hypothesis is being tested by other more accurate experiments.
Of course there is need more new experiments, so that to get a definitive answer for the question: what is the true cause of the duality wave-particle ?
In upcoming years other new experimets will bring us the definitive response for such fundamental question.
Suppose that the definitive answer, given by new experiments, will be:
The duality is a property caused by the zitterbewegung of elementary particles
Then a New Physics will be required.
And a new hydrogen atom will be required too (in which the electron moves with helical trajectory about the proton).
Such new hydrogen atom model will incorporate, at the same time, the wave feature (of Quantum Mechanics) and the corpuscular feature (of Bohr and Mills theory).
Such new hydrogen model is proposed in Quantum Ring Theory.
Dear Tomasz Rojewski:
I think that invest in nuclear power plants is wrong. The reasons are already well known and I share totally the opinion expressed by Italian People in the referendum of today.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr Rossi
Polish government is going to invest 30 bilion $ in nuclear power plants.
Do you considered to send a sample of your e-cat to polish administration and other countries in same situation?
I understand that it’s not your largest problem at this moment but maby it could change their plans.
Best wishes
T.R.
Dear Tayeb B.:
The efficiency of the Carnot cycle or Others’ is always the same, it does not depend on the kind of heat sources.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Ivan Antipov:
Absolutely not. My effect has nothing to do with all the ones already published.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Susan:
Vice versa.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Enrico M.
Please contact us in November for commercial issues.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Egr. Ing. Rossi
sto cercando da settimane di contattarla. Se ho ben capito il sistema E-Cat richiederà l’intervento dei tecnici per essere ricaricare il sistema. Ho le conoscenze e le competenze necessarie per creare e organizzare tali squadre, proprio per questo le consiglio di non trascurare questo aspetto per essere pronti dopo la presentazione dell’impianto in Grecia. La prego cortesemente di contattarmi alla mail (indicata nel form del commento) per discuterne insieme.
Cordiali saluti e grazie.
Enrico M.
Dear ing. Rossi and dear visitors of JoNP,
there is a comics where two “stickmen” (who hate a lot the E-Cat) show us what will happen in the next future! 🙂
Dear Dr. Rossi,
are you considering the release of your e-cat primarily as a business opportunity and secondary a moral responsibility for humanity or vica versa.
Thanks,
Susan
Hello Andrea Rossi,
Does the E-Cat work in the same way as Blacklight Power’s using CQM and Hydrinos.
Regards
Ivan
Dear Pr. Andrea Rossi.
My question is: Is it easy to transform this heat generated by the reaction to electricity, and if so, what could be the efficiency of this transformation.
Warm Regards,
Tayeb.
Dear Dave P.:
We will produce thermal energy, that will be used by the Customer for heating purposes.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Dear Bob Dingman:
My effect has nothing to do with the electrolysis of Fleischman-Pons.
Warm regards,
A.R.
A new branch of science, a monumental paradigm shift is taking place. Today, nickel and hydrogen produce copper and excess heat. This is just an ice cube on the tip of the iceberg. As Andrea Rossi has said, it is a new type of “Fire”. Today, Only a few people really understand the process involved. The enigmatic catalyst is at the heart of the mystery.
Once a rudimentary understanding is available, the list of possible elemental combinations will be infinite. what about Chromium to Manganese, Iron to Cobalt, or even Phosphorus to Calcium?
My guess is that the Nickel+Hydrogen >> Copper reaction is not the easiest nor the best reaction to utilize to achieve the goal of low cost energy. Once the prima donna scientific community gets on board, the scientific advances will turn exponential. Patience is either a virtue or a curse depending on your point of view.
I find it odd and somewhat frustrating at our Guru’s reluctance to offer insight into the work of Pons-Fleischman. Surely their disputed modest success and failure to replicate the results with consistency eliminate them from the category of “competitor”.
With profound admiration and respect,
Bob Dingman
My apologies if this has already been answered.
Will the 1MW Plant be producing 1MW of electricity or 1MW of thermal energy?
If the answer is thermal energy, is the heat being used for an industrial process or vented to the atmosphere?
Dear Georgehants:
Our scheduled roadmap is respected, so far. I face problems when they exist.
Warm regards,
A.R.