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.

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:

  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)

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:

  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.

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


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

  • maryyugo

    Dear Mr. Rossi,

    You wrote: >>We made many tests just heating water, they are published on the Journal Of Nuclear Physics.<<

    I would love to read the report of those tests but the Journal of Nuclear Physics is now very long. Is it possible for you or an assistant (I know you're very busy) to reprint those reports in a single place and provide a link? Or maybe you can tell me where to look exactly or provide a method to search for them. I don't know how to locate that information and it would be extremely good to read it. I am sure many other people have the same question.

    Thank you.

    M. Y.

  • Bob Dingman

    Dear Senor Rossi:

    I guess what I am trying to say is it easy to get caught up in all the patent legal mumbo jumbo. You do the best you can with it without worrying whether everything is covered or not. No doubt people will try to use your invention without just compensation but as long as most people play by the rules the royalties should be more than sufficient for your efforts. And it appears to me your time and effort is far better served in the Technical and Scientific field.

    Take the example of Microsoft. When Vista was released it was a disaster from the start because of the oppressive concern for security and all the anti-bootlegging features. Microsoft got smart and decided to not be so worried about piracy with version 7. Sure there are unlicensed copies of Windows in use. Fortunately it is easier and cheaper for the general public to take the legal route and we don’t see Mr. Gates headed for the poor house any time soon.

    Best Regards,

    Bob Dingman

  • Randy

    Dear Mr Rossi

    I saw this post and thought it might interest you. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg48058.html

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Koen Vandewalle:
    Because they are preparing their manufacturing lines, which are not ready yet; the 1 MW plant is for a Customer of them and must be delivered by October.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Koen Vandewalle

    Dear Mr. Rossi,
    Dear Andrea,
    Why would a factory that is going to produce thousands of e-cats “buy” a 1MW device ?
    They can make it themselves, don’t they ?
    Kind regards,
    Koen Vandewalle

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear John M.
    There is not debate with persons who know the matter: our measurements have been made in mass, not in volume, as always published.
    Our 1 MW plant will be put in operation by a Customer,in his factory, not for public tests, but for private use. He needs 1 MW and he will have 1 MW in the form he will want.
    We made many tests just heating water, they are published on the Journal Of Nuclear Physics.
    Thank you for your kind attention,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • stefano.cicchiello

    mi piacerebbe proporvi la mia interpretazione del fenomeno LENR .(il fenomeno va visto assumendo come chiave concettuale la frattalità dell’universo) . il fenomeno Nickel idrogeno è una reazione simile a quelle che chiamiamo reazioni chimiche , con interessamento di elettroni e protoni ; nel caso specifico nickel idrogeno l’interazione avviene in maniera più intima della materia (sarebbe il caso di chiamarla energia condensata , piuttosto che materia). nelle combustioni chimiche i protoni ed elettroni si muovono in configurazioni meno energetiche e distanti dai nuclei catalizzanti , mentre utilizzando gradienti energetici molto elevati , utilizzando protoni liberi e flussi energetici in forma di radiazone elettromagnetica , si innescano fenomeni di “combustione nucleare” , con picchi energetici , fluttuazioni , e tutti quei fenomeni osservabile in reazioni chimiche .
    in conclusione è prevedibile che ogno elemento in antura si comporti alla stessa maniera , con range energetici e comportamenti simili ma peculiari per ciascun elemento

  • John M

    Dear Mr Rossi

    There seems to be some debate on the steam content in your tests in terms of volume, weight, wet/dry, etc. This had lead to some questions regarding the accuracy of the measurements.

    In your public tests, why did you not simply increase the water flow rate to keep output temperature below boiling point and then allow easy measurement of water volume and temperature delta from input to output?. This would seem to be the easiest and safest way to test the e-cat, and it would likely silence many critics. I understand one such test has been completed but the results not published ?

    Also,
    – Is it possible to do another public test at lower temperatures where no steam is produced?
    – Will the 1MW plant in Greece heat water below boiling so easy measurements can be determined?

    Of course, perhaps there is a reason to maintain higher temperatures, such as to avoid the water acting as a heat sink on the core and impacting the Ni-H reaction ?

    Please accept my questions in the good faith they are intended !

    Kind Regards
    John M

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Charles M.:
    When the steam is dry you can’t see it. To measure the residual water in the steam we are using an instrument which gives directly the grams of water per cubic meter of steam, and now we are measuring absence od water. During the test with prof. Kullander (University of Uppsala) and Prof. Hanno (University of Stockolm) we measured about 1.7% in weight, today we are measuring 0% in weight ( 0 g/mc). About your calculations, dear Friend, remake them: you will arrive to the result of 0.8 lps. of steam flow (remember that you have a delta T of 75-80 Celsius and that the vaporization heat is 615 Wht/kg of water.
    Thank you for your kind attention,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Staffan:
    When Galileo and Copernicus published their works, their papers were considered pseudoscience.
    Just let our plants go regularly in operation. It is not matter of creating new Physics, it is just matter to understand better the existing ones.
    Warmest Regards,
    A.R.

  • CharlesM

    Dear Mr Rossi,

    I think the questions about whether the steam is wet or dry is completely missing the point. The fact you are producing steam at all, is the miracle and an unambiguous demonstration that your device works and produces heat enough to boil water. No one has ever achieved that reliably with any previous Cold Fusion experiment.

    But there is a question about the amount of steam doesn’t seem to add up.

    Most people have a 2kW kettle in their Kitchen, and knows how much steam it produces. A lot. Attach a small diameter pipe to your kettle and you get forceful expulsion of steam, far greater than we can see in the videos. So the everyday observation in the kitchen with a 2kW kettle do not seem consistent with what we see on the video. Is this because the long pipe changes what we see coming out of the end?

    This is everyday experiment anyone can do in the kitchen.

    If you do the maths, a 2KW heater should be producing about 2 litres of steam per second, which if you calculate the flow through the pipe should be coming out at 20m/s. This is a very high rate.

    So common sense every-day experience with a kitchen kettle says you should be seeing a lot, lot more steam, and the maths seems to support this.

    I am not doubting you have what you claim – producing any steam is a great demonstration that you have achieved a breakthrough. But could you explain why a kitchen kettle seems to produce a lot more steam than we see in the videos.

    Best Regards,
    Charles

  • Staffan

    Dear Mr Rossi
    My question to you should have been more clear. What I mean is that a lot of the established science community looks at LENR and your work as pseudoscience. Do you think that e-cat, not only will change the world in regards of energy, but also that the science community will change to be more open minded and not just discredit something that seems to violate fundamental laws of physics?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Bob Dingman:
    Your comment looks cut incomplete, probably it lost a piece during the transmission: can you kindly finish it?
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Enrico Marcolongo:
    I think all the energy sources have to be integrated,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear R. Leguillon:
    1-I cannot give information regarding the catalyzers
    2- My patent application has been made by my patent Attorney: I am not an expert in the matter.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Bob Dingman

    Dear Andreas and JMP:

    Someone wise once said a patent is merely a license to sue. An honest, educated man looking at a system producing excess heat resulting from a reaction combining nickel with hydrogen to produce copper should immediately recognize that such a system is based upon the technology developed and created by Andrea Rossi. To my knowledge know one else has claimed to be able to achieve such a result. This is in the broadest sense what the E-Cat is.

    Lawyers and patent examiners may not see things quite so simple. Patent Examiners are encouraged to minimize the scope of an invention whenever possible. The resulting patent may not be a truly accurate representation of the real invention. The Examiner has the authority to decide what claims are permitted and what are rejected. This is the root of the problem with patents.

    This is the world we live in and I pray that Senor Rossi is truly successful in his endeavors, for the sake of the world.

    Respectfully,

    Bob Dingman

    In practical terms this is

  • R. Leguillon

    Firstly, congratulations on your apparent success. I have a couple of questions that I hope are not too pedantic. I have a great deal of respect for your team, and wish you only the best.

    1) Have you settled on a single catalyst, or are you centering on a specific family?
    I know that Mills investigated a wide range of possible catalysts, whereas great progress in Hydrogen disassociation has been observed with Pt-black.

    2) Your patent applications have struck me as an odd method of protecting intellectual property; Centering on the method or catalyst seems more logical than the E-Cat configuration (your device-oriented approach).
    Example: In lieu of a pipe with flowing water, one can easily imagine a hydrogen-loaded nickel cell strapped to one side of a TEG. This would eliminate water hookups and make the device more portable.
    More robust and industrial designs are necessarily expected. The smaller cells may prove unnecessary in larger applications if the technology is embraced and expanded.

    Best,

    R. Leguillon (USA)

  • Dear Mr. Rossi
    Thank you for your huge contribute to preserve the Enviroment. I am sure you have an idea regarding what kind of changes your e-cat will bring to the world.
    Economic/Social/Politics … every will be “touched” by your creature. What do you think about this? What do you expect after november 1Mw test & presentation?
    I am working in photovoltaic area since it was a “pioneeristic technology” … do you think that photovoltaic could be still usefull (for hydrolisis idrogen production maybe) or you think -as I think- it will be no longer useful cause e-cat could also produce energy for self-hydrolize water?
    My warm compliments for all your work! I could not came at Defkalion press conference in Greece, but I know (hope) we will meet sooner or later.

    This is the last youtube video regarding your miracle discussed at Radio24: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NGpyK8uCRc
    I am a blogger and I clearly see that almost all the web is supporting you! Make our dream become true in October please!

  • raul heining

    Dear Andrea:
    About your replay to Staffan, you should not worry much about S.K. Remember that like you are a
    menace to energy companies, you are also for him because his website lives from umbiguity in the
    field. Once your system or similar works he will be out of his job.
    Regards
    raul

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Joseph Fine:
    Exactly!
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

  • Joseph Fine

    A.R.

    CV is apparently “Centrale Verwarming”.

    J.F.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Martin:
    Yes, the case you are describing is exactly a typical application of the E-Cats.
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

  • Martin

    Dear mr Rossi,

    I try to explain my question. In my country (holland) almost every house is heated with natural gas. This gas is burned by what we called a CV (central heating system).
    In this way we’re heating water and via a radiator we’re heating the houses.
    Is it possible to replace a CV for an E-cat? or do we have to make a lot of changes in this kind of heating systems?

    Best regards,

    Martin

  • Andrea Rossi

    To our Readers:
    Please read the comment of Andrea Rossi 2011/06/19 at 9:17 AM
    Thank you,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mattias Andersson:
    I did not analyze, yet, this particular niche. Maybe interesting.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Martin:
    I am sorry, I do nor understand your question. Can you kindly remake it in other words?
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Staffan:
    Your comment opens the space to an intriguing consideration. Many Scientists have taken the correct approach: wait for the 1 MW plant in operation, then make due considerations. This is what smart People did.
    About pseudo-Scientists and their reaction to my Effect: probably you have read of the “Snake” report after an interview he made in Bologna. Now, as probably most of you have understood, we have very good , (VERY GOOD), intelligence working with us; after the “snake” (disguised as a journalist) who has this week penetrated our organization and made a report based on a fake steam diagram, we asked to our intellicence organization to probe what was behind, and we discovered that:
    1- The fake diagram of steam has been given to the “snake” from an Italian competitor that is afraid to lose the funds due to the fact that the taxpayers are tired to give him money while we have reached results without any funding
    2- this Italian clown has been given the fake diagram fro an American Laboratory, competing with us, which gave it to him for the same reason
    3- the snake has been sent to us to try to dwarf us to allow them to get funding
    All this is very funny. The names and the particulars of this paper tigers will be explained from me as an anecdote after the start up of the 1 MW plant in Greece: after the start up, after the explication of the theory, this will be the dessert. Something to laugh with.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Staffan

    Dear Mr Rossi
    How do you think the established scientist who have doubted LENR will react when they finally understand your invention?
    Will the view on what is psuedoscience and what is not in the science community, change because of e-cat?
    Thanks!
    Staffan

  • Martin

    Dear mr Rossi,

    is it possible to fit 9or make it fit)an e-cat to a normal cv heating system?

    best regards,

    Martin

  • Mattias Andersson

    Dear Mr. Rossi,

    Have you considered the prospect of using the E-Cat for reducing the production costs of hydrogen through high temperature electrolysis (HTE)?

    Here’s an excerpt from the Wikipedia article about HTE:

    High temperature electrolysis is more efficient economically than traditional room-temperature electrolysis because some of the energy is supplied as heat, which is cheaper than electricity, and because the electrolysis reaction is more efficient at higher temperatures. In fact, at 2500°C, electrical input is unnecessary because water breaks down to hydrogen and oxygen through thermolysis. Such temperatures are impractical; proposed HTE systems operate between 100°C and 850°C.[1][2]

    The efficiency improvement of high-temperature electrolysis is best appreciated by assuming the electricity used comes from a heat engine, and then considering the amount of heat energy necessary to produce one kg hydrogen (141.86 megajoules), both in the HTE process itself and also in producing the electricity used. At 100°C, 350 megajoules of thermal energy are required (41% efficient). At 850°C, 225 megajoules are required (64% efficient).

    […]

    At current hydrocarbon prices, HTE can not compete with pyrolysis of hydrocarbons as an economical source of hydrogen.
    HTE is of interest as a more efficient route to the production of hydrogen by electrolysis. It may become economical if cheap high temperature sources of heat can be used in conjunction with non-fossil fuel sources of electricity (such as solar, wind, ocean).

    Kind regards,
    Mattias

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Tobias:
    1- We are not making reseasrch for application to cars, and, sincerely, I do not think that our technology is fit for cars: we cannot produce, so far, energy with the elasticity necessary for a car of nowadays.
    2- Consequently, we did not finance research on the field of cars. Now we are focused on heat and electric power production: for heat we are ready, for e.power we are close.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Tobias

    Dear Mr. Rossi,
    Are you thinking about using this in automobiles? Would it fit in size and weight, probably in combination with a medium sized battery? This would really bring clean energy forward and could be the breakthrough for zero emission vehicles.
    Are you partnering with other universities for bringing your invention to other applications? Stuttgart would be a great address for this as it has a strong focus on automobiles, having the headquarters of Daimler, Porsche and Bosch in the city and is also moving to renewable and clean energy.
    Kind Regards,
    Tobias

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Georgehants:
    I am not the organizer of the press conference, I have been invited, but I am not allowed to extend the invitation.
    You should ask an invitation from Defkalion.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • georgehants

    Mr. Rossi, please invite Hank Mills of Pure Energy Systems, web site, to the press conference of Defkalion he has covered your endeavors with the most outstanding open-mindedness.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear J. Michael P.:
    I passed your suggestions on to my patent Attorney.
    Thank you for your attention,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • J Michael P

    reposting, as my first try has not appeared, sorry if this is a duplicate post.

    Dear Dr. Rossi – I have read your recent statements that you must, for reasons related to patent law, engineer a self-destruct function in the E-cat. I have a few observations, which I hope may be helpful. I regret that I cannot write in Italian.

    – First, with respect, I believe you cannot design a self-destruct function effective against reverse engineering. The analytic techniques available to laboratories with national resources are extraordinary and will be used on your technology.

    Furthermore, patents will not protect you from reverse engineering. There are nations that have no regard for intellectual property protection under laws originating outside their borders, and patent protection is ineffective against them.

    However, under patent law in the USA, most of Europe, and Japan, it is perfectly practical for you to discuss your technology with potential production partners under enforceable nondisclosure agreements. This is common industrial practice. It does not in any way preclude getting patents on your technology. I believe this offers a road to bringing your technology to the world market quite rapidly and profitably.

    – Second, I have reviewed your published US patent application (US 2011/0005506 A1, Jan 13, 2011). I am concerned that the application won’t provide the protection you wish.

    A USA patent application must contain what is termed an “enabling disclosure”. As a matter of law, it must tell someone “skilled in the art” how to practice the invention. If it does not, the examiner will not grant a patent. If the examiner does grant a patent for an application that has a flawed enabling disclosure, it is very easy to attack and invalidate that patent.

    Your application does not name the catalysts you use. From what I have read, the catalysts make the difference between an interesting academic effect and something that is commercially useful. In other words, your application does not contain an enabling disclosure for the technology’s commercially valuable mode of use.

    If the US Patent Office were to grant a patent for this application, I believe there would be one of two results: at best, the patent would be limited to Ni/H systems that do not use catalysts (because the catalysts were not disclosed); at worst, the entire patent would easily be invalidated. In either case, you would not have the protection you seek.

    In my opinion, your patent counsel should have advised you to disclose your catalysts. There are other aspects of the application that I find weak. I would *strongly* recommend you seek a second opinion from independent patent counsel. This application could have been much, much better.

    I write as someone who has 39 US patents and fewer overseas patents in the field of advanced materials. I have been through the tension between full disclosure and the need for secrecy many times, and as well the inevitable complications that investors bring to that process. I also write as someone who is hopeful of your success, and as one of the many who await independent replication of your work.

    Best wishes,

    JMP

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Staffan:
    Thank you!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Staffan

    Epic answer Mr Rossi
    Thanks!
    Staffan

  • Andrea Rossi

    I will always stand by my Friends of Greece.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Staffan

    Dear Mr Rossi
    Will you be attending the Defkalion press conference next week.
    Best Regards
    Staffan

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Tim Golden:
    Thank you,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Tim Golden

    Dear M. Rossi,

    You are an inspiration, sir. Please steam ahead in the creation of a new world.

    Do you find it unusual that the main-stream media is not following your discovery?

    I am awaiting October with much excitement and optimism. I find it very appropriate that I discovered your progress through a curiosity of M. Tesla.

    With hope,

    Tim

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Philip Newell:
    True: very interesting, let’s hope it will become a product, after this important research.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Luke Mortensen:
    I am totally not interested to military applications and we are not making ant research on this issue.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Luke Mortensen

    AR,

    Can you elaborate on Henk’s question?

    You recently drew a distinction in the press release between military applications in your license agreements. I suspect that the ecat performance under non horizontal applications, vibration, and under G forces would influence demand from that sector. It’s also possible you haven’t tested ecats in motion. Youve been very focused. One application at a time.

    In short, Henk has a good question.

    Luke

  • Dear Ing. Rossi,

    I will send you an article about what Lars is writing about on Professor Pinhero’s development on nantenna.

    Best Regards

    Phil

  • Lars

    This is the link where I found the information about nantenna that can convert heat to electricity:
    http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4648&sid=d92ed2dd3854cfa6b54938a7bb8ee8dc

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Lars:
    I have not understood what this means.
    Can you kindly explain better? Said so is a nonsense.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Daniele Passerini:
    yes, this video has been made with high professionality, also because it has been made by persons with knowledge of the foundamentals of Physics. For a journalist to write about this issue properly the knowledge of foundamentals is necessary.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Dear eng. Rossi,
    I imagine you’ve allready saw this video: it’s a very good sumary of the recent history of your E-Catalyzer.
    My compliments
    Low Energy Nuclear Revolution

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>