Generalized Theory of Bose-Einstein Condensation Nuclear Fusion for Hydrogen-Metal System

by Yeong E. Kim Department of Physics, Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana 47907, USA

Direct download

Generalized theory of Bose-Einstein condensation nuclear fusion (BECNF) is used to carry out theoretical analyses of recent experimental results of Rossi et al. for hydrogen-nickel system.  Based on incomplete experimental information currently available, preliminary theoretical explanations of the experimental results are presented in terms of the generalized BECNF theory. Additional accurate experimental data are needed for obtaining more complete theoretical descriptions and predictions, which can be tested by further experiments.

I.  Introduction
Over the last two decades, there have been many publications reporting experimental observations of excess heat generation and anomalous nuclear reactions occurring in metals at ultra-low energies, now known as „low-energy nuclear reactions‟ (LENR).  Theoretical explanations of the LENR phenomena have been described based on the theory of Bose-Einstein condensation nuclear fusion (BECNF) in micro/nano-scale metal particles [1-3].  The BECNF theory is based on a single basic assumption capable of explaining the observed LENR phenomena; deuterons in metals undergo Bose-Einstein condensation.  While the BECNF theory is able to make general qualitative predictions concerning LENR phenomena it is also a quantitative predictive physical theory.  Some of the theoretical predictions have been confirmed by experiments reported recently.  The BECNF theory was generalized for the case of two species of Bosons [4].

Recently, there were two positive demonstrations (January and March, 2011) of a heat generating device called “Energy Catalyzer” [5]. The Energy Catalyzer is an apparatus built by inventor Andrea Rossi, Italy. The patent application [5] states that the device transforms energy stored in its fuel (hydrogen and nickel) into heat by means of nuclear reaction of the two fuel components, with a consequent observed production of copper [5,6]. According to Rossi‟s patent application [5], heating of the sample is accomplished by an electric resistance heater.  Details of March 2011 demonstration were reported by Essen and Kullander [7]. The report [7] also contains references to January 2011 demonstration. In the following, we describe hydrogen-nickel reactions in section II. Other possible reactions are discussed in section III.  Conclusions are given in section IV.

II.  Hydrogen-Nickel Reactions
The generalized BECNF theory [4] can be applied to the case of hydrogen-nickel fusion reactions observed in Rossi‟s device (the energy catalyzer) [5] under the following two conditions: (1) additives used (not disclosed in the patent application) form Ni alloy and/or Ni metal/alloy oxide in the surface regions of nickel nano-scale particles, so that Ni atoms/nuclei become mobile with a sufficiently large diffusion coefficient and (2) local magnetic field is very weak in the surface regions, providing a suitable environment in which two neighboring protons can couple their spins anti-parallel to form spin-zero singlet state (S=0).  Relatively low Curie temperature (nickel has the Curie temperature of 631 oK (~358 oC)) is expected to help to maintain the weak magnetic field in the surface regions. If Rossi‟s device is operated at temperatures greater than the Curie temperature ~358 oC and with hydrogen pressures of up to ~22 bars, the conditions (1) and (2) may have been achieved in Rossi‟s device. The mobility of Ni atoms/nuclei (condition (1)) is enhanced by the use of an electric resistance heater to maintain higher temperatures. This may provide a suitable environment in which more of both Ni atoms/nuclei and protons become mobile, thus creating a favorable environment for the case of two species of Bosons (Ni nuclei and composite Bosons of paired two protons). If the velocities of mobile Ni atoms/nuclei under the condition (1) are sufficiently slow, their de-Broglie wavelengths become sufficiently large and may overlap with neighboring two-proton composite Bosons which are also mobile, thus creating Bose-Einstein condensation of two species of Bosons. The generalized BECNF theory can now be applied to these two-species of Bosons and provides a mechanism for the suppression/cancellation of the Coulomb barrier, as shown in [4]. Once the Coulomb barrier is overcome in the entrance reaction channel, many possible allowed exit reaction channels may become open such as reactions (i) ANi(2p(S=0), p)ˆA+1 Cu, with even A=58, 60, 62 and 64. These reactions will produce radioactive isotopes 59Cu and 61Cu with A = 58 and 60, respectively. 59Cu has a half-life of 81.5 seconds and decays by the electron capture to the 59Ni ground state (58.1%) which has a half-life of 7.6 x 10ˆ4 years and to the 59Ni excited states (41.9%) which in turn decay to the 59Ni ground state by emitting gamma-rays with energies ranging from 310.9 keV to 2682.0 keV [8]. 61Cu has a half-life of 3.333 hours and decays by the electron capture to the stable 61Ni ground state (67%) and to the 61Ni excited states (33%) which in turn decay to the 61Ni ground state by emitting gamma-rays with energies ranging from 67.412 keV to 2123.93 keV [8]. Gamma-rays (and neutrons) have not been observed outside the reactor chamber during the experiment [6]. These gamma-rays may have been present inside the reaction chamber. If no radiations are observed, reactions (i) are ruled out. Focardi and Rossi [6] reported that the experimental results of Rossi et al. indicate the production of  stable isotopes 63Cu and 65Cu with an isotopic ratio of 63Cu /65Cu ~ 1.6 (natural abundance is 63Cu/ 65Cu = 2.24). This production of Cu may be due to reactions (i). The production of 63Cu and 65Cu with isotopic ratio of 63Cu /65Cu different from the natural isotopic ratio is expected and can be explained by estimating the reaction rates for 62Ni(2p(S=0), p)63Cu and 64Ni(2p(S=0), p)65Cu.  Reaction rates estimates based on transmission probability calculated from a barrier tunneling model similar to the alpha-decay theory indicate that the reaction rates for stable Cu productions, 62Ni(2p(S=0), p)63Cu and 64Ni(2p(S=0), p)65Cu, are expected to be much larger than the reaction rates for production of radioactive Cu, 58Ni(2p(S=0), p)59Cu and 60Ni(2p(S=0), p)61Cu. This leads to the prediction that intensities of the gamma-rays from the decays of 59Cu and 61Cu are expected to be weak and do not commensurate with the observed heat production, which is mostly from stable Cu production  reactions 62Ni(2p(S=0), p)63Cu and 64Ni(2p(S=0), p)65Cu. There are other exit reaction channels which are (nearly) radiation-less, such as reactions (ii) ANi(2p(S=0), α)ˆA-2Ni, (even A=58, 60, 62, and 64) [9]. For this case, we expect that the natural isotopic ratio of Ni isotopes will be changed in a particular way, which can be checked from the  sample after each experiment.  Even though reactions (ii) produce radioactive isotope 56Ni, it can be shown using the alpha-decay theory that its reaction rate is much slower (by many order of magnitudes) than those of other reactions. Other exit reaction channels, ANi(2p(S=0), d)ACu, ANi(2p(S=0), 3HeA-1Ni, and ANi(2p(S=0), t)ˆA-1Cu (all with even A=58, 60, 62, and 64) are ruled out since these reactions all have negative Q-values.  There are possibilities of neutron-emission exit reaction channels, such as reactions (iii) ANi(2p(S=0), n)ˆA+1Zn, (even A= 62, and 64; Q is negative for A = 58 and 60).  However, reaction rates for reactions (iii) are expected be substantially smaller than those for reaction (i).  Reactions (iii) involve emission of a tightly bound neutron (62Ni -> 61Ni + n, Q = -10.597MeV or  64Ni -> 63Ni + n, Q = -9.657MeV) while reactions (i) involve emission of a loosely bound proton from an excited compound nuclear state consisting of ANi (even A) and 2p(S=0). Therefore, the transmission probability of a neutron tunneling through the centrifugal barrier in reactions (iii) is expected to be substantially smaller than that of a proton tunneling through the centrifugal barrier in reactions (i). The branching ratios of reactions (i) and (ii) need to be determined by measurements of gamma-ray energies and changes in isotopic ratios from future Ross-type experiments.  Theoretically, the branching ratios can be estimated by calculating transmission probability of an emitted charged particle tunneling through both Coulomb and centrifugal barriers in the exit reaction channel, as done in the alpha-decay theory.

III.  Other Possible Reactions
In addition to the above reactions described in II, there are possibilities of reactions involving additives used (not disclosed so far). For an example, if lithium is added as an additive, reaction (iv) 6Li(2p(S=0), p 3He)4He may be possible. As in cases of reactions (i) and (ii), Ni nano-particles would be still playing an important role of providing two-proton singlet composite Bosons for reaction (iv). Reaction (iv) would not change the isotopic ratios of Ni.

VI.  Conclusions
In order to explore validity and to test predictions of the generalized BECNF theory for the hydrogen-metal system, it is very important to carry out Rossi-type experiments independently in order to establish what are exact inputs and outputs of each experiment.  If the entrance and exit reaction channels are established experimentally, we can investigate selection rules as well as estimates of the reaction rates for different exit reaction channels, based on the generalized BECNF theory [1-4]. Once these experimental results are established, further application of the generalized BECNF theory can be made for the purpose of confirming the theoretical mechanism and making theoretical predictions, which can then be tested experimentally. Basic description of the above theoretical concepts for BECNF in the hydrogen-metal system will be included in an invited talk at a forthcoming nuclear physics conference [10], and will be published in the conference proceedings [10].


  1. Y. E. Kim, “Theory of Bose-Einstein Condensation Mechanism for Deuteron-Induced Nuclear Reactions in Micro/Nano-Scale Metal Grains and Particles”, Naturwissenschaften 96, 803 (2009) and references therein.
  2. Y. E. Kim, “Bose-Einstein Condensate Theory of Deuteron Fusion in Metal”, J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 4, 188 (2010), Proceedings of Symposium on New Energy Technologies, the 239th National Meeting of American Chemical Society, San Francisco, March 21-26, 2010.
  3. Y. E. Kim, “Theoretical interpretation of anomalous tritium and neutron productions during  Pd/D co-deposition experiments”, Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys.  52, 31101 (2010).
  4. Y. E. Kim and A. L. Zubarev, “Mixtures of Charged Bosons Confined in Harmonic Traps and Bose-Einstein Condensation Mechanism for Low Energy Nuclear Reactions and Transmutation Processes in Condensed Matter”, Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, Proceedings of the 11th International conference on Cold Fusion, Marseilles, France, 31 October – 5 November, 2006, World Scientific Publishing Co., pp. 711-717.
  5. Andrea Rossi, “METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CARRYING OUT NICKEL AND HYDROGEN EXOTHERMAL REACTION”, United States Patent Application Publication (Pub. No.: US 2011/0005506 A1, Pub. Date: Jan. 13, 2011);
  6. S. Focardi and A. Rossi, “A new energy source from nuclear fusion”, March 22, 2010. ,  February 2010
  7. H. Essen and S. Kullander, “Experimental test of a mini-Rossi device at the Leonardocorp, Bologna, 29 March 2011”, a travel report, April 3, 2011;
  8. Table of Isotopes, 8th Edition, Volume I: A = 1-150, edited by R. B. Firestone et al., published by John Wiley and Sons, Inc. (1999), pages 270 and 284.
  9. Reactions (ii) were suggested by T.  E. Ward, private communication, May 11, 2011.
  10. Y. E. Kim, “Deuteron Fusion in Micro/Nano-Scale Metal Particles”, an invited talk to be presented at the Fifth Asia Pacific Conference on Few-Body Problems in Physics 2011(APFB2011), August 22-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea. (

Direct download

857 comments to Generalized Theory of Bose-Einstein Condensation Nuclear Fusion for Hydrogen-Metal System

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Roger Hill,
    Thank you for your suggestion: the Scientists nominated by our Customer , plus Brian Josephson (Nobel Prize), Sven Kullander (Sweden Royal Academy of Sweden and Uppsala University), Hanno Essen ( University of Uppsala), Giuseppe Levi (University of Bologna) and the very, very top level world-class Scientists of the USA already chosen by our Customer will guarantee all the necessary knowledge.
    I want not to teach to the cats how to “miew”.
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Groitswitch:
    We did not yet find a way to make efficient a Stirling engine with our apparatus, even if we are thinking about this.
    We will offer jobs, for sure, after November, it depends on who you are, what you do, what do you want to accomplish.
    We will make a specific request of help in due time.
    Warm Regards, and Good Luck!

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Marcia Pires:
    The efficiency of our apparatus must be calculated between its energy output and energy input. It is indipendent from the efficiency of the apparatuses that are coupled to it, as well as the efficiency of such apparatuses is indipendent from the efficiency of our apparatus. These are two totally distinguished issues.
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Fabrizio,
    The big plants and the small units will coexist for a longtime.
    Warm regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Ruhadiri Tynan:
    Thank you for your suggetion.
    Warm regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear A.Goumy,
    Warm regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Enzo Amato,
    Please wait November for the commercial issues, which are not yet decided. In any case, for the first year it is very difficult that the small cats will be ready for sales, while surely will go for sale the 1 MW plants.
    Warm Regards,

  • Enzo Amato

    Caro Ing. Rossi,

    I see some problems with the price of the eCats. I heard of a price of 2k€/Kw. At the moment I use in my house an heating-system (oil-fired) of 20 Kw. If I replace it with eCats, i would spend about 40k€ + installation costs (say 2k€), in total 42.000 €. This is a big amount of money, I would need a bank credit to pay it, some people would probably don’t change their systems at all.
    Yearly I spend about 2,5k€ for the oil. At today prices I would amortize the costs for the eCats in 42000/2500= about 17 years, with bank interests, inflation, fuel, maintenance about 20 years. This seems to me to be a very very very long time because after 20 years my eCat-system will be very old and maybe already obsolete due new developments and I had to buy a new one. Until this point I would have no savings in comparison with my traditional system. If I want to use the eCats for electricity too, the things look even worse.
    I think the amortization limit should not exceed about 4-5 years (<500€/Kw eCat in my case).
    If the price will be an obstacle for the diffusion of the eCats, the “revolution” in the energy sector will fail. This can’t be in your interest.
    How do you see that?

    Sorry for my bad English und

    Un saluto da un italiano in Baviera

    Enzo Amato

  • A. Goumy

    Dear Mr Rossi,

    In the answer you made yesterday to Prof. Josephson, you stated that “the 1 MW plant that we will start up in October will be tested […] by very, very high level world class scientists”. I guess that most of them, if not all, asked you for a detailed description of the experimental protocol you are planning to use for these tests, in order to give you feedback and get to a scientific consensus before the tests.

    If my guess is correct, would it be possible for your Readers to have at least a rough idea of this protocol, when it is agreed by all scientists ?

    Best regards.


  • Rhuaidhri Tynan

    Dear Mr Rossi.

    One further thought I forgot to include in my original post is make technology as widely available as is possible. My understanding is that you have granted rights to certain companies exclusively which I think is a bad choice. I would think that instead licensing the technology openly and having multiple competing manufactures in each territory would allow the creation of more units quickly and the wider adoption of the technology and a quicker return for you. That way any competing process that might be invented which circumvents your patents will have a harder time gaining market share. It would also lessen the turmoil that is likely to result from energy revolution that will occur.

  • Rhuaidhri Tynan

    Dear Mr. Rossi,

    I would like to commend your behaviour and responses during what must be a very trying period of your life. I am sure your rewards will be great and be well earned.

    I am an Irish unemployed science graduate and your invention has captured my imagination. This is a very exciting time in Physics with great leaps being made in Metametals, Superconductivity , Quantum Computing and other area’s along with our understanding of our universe being made more complete thanks to results from experiments such as the LHC.

    I would count your findings to be one if not the most exciting of these events not only because of the immediate impacts with regards to energy production but also because of what it can tell use about how the universe works and what might result from that understanding. It is light of this I ask you to your share you method and apparatus details as soon as you can.

    As a scientist your are aware that our method since Franics Bacon has involved a repeating cycle of observation, hypothesis, experimentation and the need for independent verification.

    Your results are being treated with scepticism not due to lack of credible theory or because of dogma as some claim they are being treated with scepticism because we cannot independently repeat and verify them. Until such time as the results are independently repeated it is only proper we remain sceptical. Repeated demonstrations if the are not independent will and should not remove this scepticism though they will and have lessened it.

    Once the results are independently reproduced then we can turn our attention to attempting to proving or disproving theories to explain them.

    I can understand the problems you are currently faced with and why you need to keep your secret and I’m sure you can understand why we as fellow scientists must be sceptical until we can reproduce your results.

    To that end I hope you will not delay sharing your method and apparatus set-up a moment longer than is needed to product your rights.

    On that note would like to caution you to take steps to ensure that you and your safe hands at all times until such rights are secure. I believe a critical mass in terms of people being aware of your results is about to be reached and as such you and your invention are increasingly likely to be the target of criminal elements. In fact this is another reason why you should make your apparatus and method public as soon possible since it will become increasingly difficult to protect it from theft.

    I would also like to ask whether you given any thought as to what will happen to the by-products of the reaction. My understanding is that to begin with the units will be returned a facility where they will be refilled with your catalyst and although the a mount of transmuted metals is small individually it could over time as the technology becomes widespread it could up to a significant source of value metals.

    Lastly I would ask if you have any idea as to when you will be able to share you method and apparatus and wish you the best of luck. I hope to acquire a unit at the earliest opportunity but have been unable to find any details of any Irish distributor yet nor any mention of when we are likely to see units in this country.

    Sincerely, Rhuaidhri Tynan

  • Fabrizio

    Dear Rossi,
    i think future is not in big power plants but in to put energy source directly inside all devices. for that i hope you get the intuition for the next step of your research.
    great job and good luck,

  • Marcia Pires

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    I understand now the reason you won’t sell electricity with the e-cat without a plug to the wall. There would be heat loss in the Carnot cycle not counting the power generator machine, to recycle the water, there would be loss in by the ecat and also to put electricity back in the reactor. So, the energy gain in electricity is small. So, you we have to wait until you find a proper machine with high efficiency to convert energy and make sure that you can give higher than a 6x output of heat

    Is that correct?
    What is the output gain of energy in so that the e-cat can be profitable in making electrical energy? 10X, 15X?

    Best wishes,

    Marcia Pires.

  • groitswitch

    Dear Mr Rossi -if there is still an issue with driving a turbine off the thing- why not use the available heat exchange stirling engine technology- the so called “wobble drive” from the Whispergen boiler would be perfect if the steam produced being made to do useful “work” -the whispergen produces 1kw of electricity and 6kw of heat from a gas boiler?
    This would enable production of a chp version of this miracle reactor?
    Surely this non pressure reliant tech could be integrated and the heat exchange cycle factored into the heating resistor /reactor regulation controls?
    can i have a job?

  • Roger Hill

    I can’t understand why you don’t carry out a test/demonstration that cuts out all of the issues with steam dry/wet/waterflow etc:

    Fill a reasonably large tank with a known amount of water. Drop a (suitably waterproofed) e-cat in. Turn it on, wait and measure the change in temperature of the water and the current going into the device. Working out the energy input over the time is trivial. A 500l tank and a 10KW unit should produce a temperature rise of 17°C over 1Hr

    As a control, do the same thing with an e-cat without any hydrogen in it (and therefore no fusion), the only input coming from electrical power put into the device.

    This would be much more convincing to many people, and I think much harder to argue with.

  • eernie1

    Dear ING. Rossi;
    If you will permit me a deviation from the main topic of this blog site,I would like to make some comments about your work. Your invention is a very important aspect of future energy production but I think that another consideration is equally important.In the past many academic sources have suggested that the human race has now reached the point where no more fundamental physical knowledge will be discovered. They postulate and have even written books that all the recent theoretical discoveries(Relativity,Quantum Mechanics,etc.)have exhausted the obtainable basic information about our universe,and any other discoveries are only variations of what is now known.My main concern is that this philosophy can discourage many investigators from conducting research into ideas that are different from accepted theories,especially the young people who have the most energy to follow other ideas.Your work should encourage those who may have been hesitant to offer new ideas and to do work in new areas.
    I have an example of my thoughts that may be of interest to your readers who seem to be intelligent and educated for the most part.My first love in science is Cosmology.I have,for many years,been interested in the mechanisims that are involved in the creation of our universe.The prevailing theory is that of the Big Bang or the oscillating universe.However the analogy that is used to describe the creation of the universe system for me is perhaps one of the most unbelievable of any scientific descriptions I have ever encountered.The proponents of the theory want us to believe that there could be 10 times the amount of visible energy and matter packed into a tiny volume of space which subsequently inflates into a flattened disk 10^14 light years in diameter almost instantaneously,violating many of the rules of previous physics.I would be a poor critic if I did not propose a better scenario than this.What if there exists spheres approximately 10^14 light years floating in an almost infinite space and containing a large amount of substance in equilibrium with itself(0 entrophy) Like a rain drop a spherical form is the most efficient shape to obtain equilibrium with any material. The spheres are propelled by the vacuum energy that is thought to be there by many scientists.If another sphere containing an anti substance collides with this sphere,like anti matter there is instantaneous conversion to energy(maximum entrophy) within the cross section of collision which would resemble a flattened disc with a diameter of a significant size relative to the diameter of the colliding spheres.(Take two balloons and push them together).The effect would be to create energy evenly and at the same time throughout the disk.No need to sqeeze energy into an impossible space or to have an impossible inflation of the energy distribution.If only ten percent of the substances react the remainder would resemble the dark energy that scientists insist exists.If the anti substance sphere is only one tenth the size of the substance sphere only substance energy and matter would remain with only a trace of anti substance.Black holes and gravity would be manifestations of the remaining sphere attempting to regain its previous equilibrium.I have other considerations that seem obvious when I do some dimensional analysis but I fear I have dragged this blog entirely too long.I hope that this could serve as an incentive for future enquirers.

  • Jam

    Concerning your 1 MW plant, what is the final temperature and pressure are you going to provide? If it is not atmospheric, did you start connecting multiple modules under higher pressure? So far, from your posts, it seems that you are still working on single E-cat test (330 of them) at atmospheric pressure. Can you also provided some indication of your progress like : ” one sub-assembly done with 5 E-cats : everything works; 3 sub-assembly connected : pressure= XXX , temperature = YYY etc… “. It would be nice.

  • Tomasz Rojewski

    Dear Mr Rossi
    Can you bring to light what are the profits of using (as you said) a new generation of e-cats in your plant?
    Tomasz Rojewski

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Guru Gurovic,
    Yes, the data you got before were a typo, probably due to the erroneous translation.
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Marcia Pires:
    The reactor is very well insulated, so that, once in equilibrium, the heat loss from the reactor is very low. Still, some heat is lost. We calculated 100 wh/h per E-Cat. Good question, thank you.
    Warm Regards,

  • Marcia Pires

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    How much heat of the reactor is absorbed by the water and how much is absorbed by the solid parts of the e-cat?

    Best wishes,

    Marcia Pires

  • Guru Gurovic

    Dear Mr. Rossi,

    well, 30 USD per charge is very very sympatico price.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Vocesolitaria:
    There are industrial, political and technological reasons for which an integration is necessary.
    Warm regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Ian Mc Carthy:
    I agree with you, and of course this application is fit for our tech.
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Guru Gurovic:
    Your numbers are wrong, my friend:
    1- Defkalion never said that. The cost of the charge is now 30 $ every 180 days per E-Cat. What you have read was probably a typo somewhere
    2- the conversion of thermal into electric will have an efficiency of 30-35%, when we will make it: is the normal efficiency of a Carnot cycle. We have still problem to resolve, though, for the production of electric power. We so far produce heat. The efficiency of our device, anyway, must be calculated on the production of heat, , because the further conversions depend not on us, but on the efficiency of the further apparatuses utilized. So, when we talk of cost of power, we mean thermal power, not electric power.
    Now, be good: remake your maths.
    Warm regards,

  • Guru Gurovic

    Dear Mr. Rossi,

    I see little inconsistence in claim about cost of 1 US cent / 1 kWh of electric energy produced by E-Cat/Hyperion:

    Defkalion publicly stated they want fee 500 to 900 Euros per 1 charge of few grams of nickel. This is some 700 to 1300 US dollars.

    1 e-cat with 4 kWh of THERMAL output = cca 1 kW electric output.

    1 charge of nickel powder is for half year.

    182 days x 24 hours = 4 368 hours of operation

    x 1 kW electric output = 4 368 kWh output electricity for half year

    x 1 US cent = 44 US dollars for this sum of electric output energy

    1 charge cost 700 to 1300 US dollars so 1 kWh must cost around 20 to 25 US cents per kWh and it is not calculated amortization of hardware.

  • Ian McCarthy

    Hi Ing. Rossi, using your new technology, will it be possible to have manufactured, direct water heating systems to directly replace central heating boilers. These currently provide heating of domestic water in the range 70°-85° with an output power provision of typically 20kW to 40kw. These units come in white boxes measuring approx 800mm by 400mm by 300mm and weigh about 35Kg to 50Kg. Lets say there are about 10M of these units currently installed in the UK. I would like a direct e-cat replacement unit, I realise that they will require to be refuelled, so this swapping of units needs to be a simple process maybe where the whole unit is just swapped, say every three years, which would require 30MWh to 100MWh of energy to be available from the unit if it were to be replaced at this frequency.
    By using the e-cat in this manor the requirement for heating steam is removed, along with the requirement for the transportation of power to the home. Maybe this is a better way to go, rather than producing larger units, do distributed systems at the point of requirement. Small is beautiful :)

    keep up the good work
    Ian Mac

  • vocesolitaria

    Dear Mr Rossi,
    I do not understand why you say that “we will not have a killer technology”.
    If it works, and you say it does, this seems to be the cheaper, cleaner, greener, politically easier technology so far.
    Could require some time to get all the required authorizations, could have some limitation in terms of instant power (that I am sure could be overcome with appropriate accumulation technology), buy why shouldn’t this technology replace all the others?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Italo:
    From what I have understood,
    we are using the same kind of thermocouples, connected with a datalogger which transmits the data to the control system.
    Warm regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Hansson:
    We will: there will be a very restricted number of journalists, but they will be the very top level ones.
    Warm regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Ing. Albert Ellul:
    …and I repeat that there will be not just competition, but integration between the competitors, at the service of Mankind.
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Georgehants:
    Where we will sell our plants, there will be set up close assistance.
    Warm regards,

  • italo

    Gentile Ing. Rossi, mi scuso se sto dicendo cose ovvie alle quali avrete sicuramente già pensato e provveduto. A volte l’esperienza altrui può fornire utili brandelli di informazioni, e desidero pertanto raccontare alcune mie esperienze.
    Molti anni fa ho lavorato come strumentista in impianti di polimerizzazione di Politene. Il reattore tubolare molto lungo e avvolto a spirale aveva un diametro interno di circa 1 pollice e incamiciato con vapore. Al suo interno scorreva ad alta velocità etilene gas, alla pressione di circa 2500 bar, scaldato dal vapore nella camicia. Ad intervalli avveniva l’iniezione di catalizzatore liquido, e si formavano così le catene di polimero.
    Un parametro molto importante da tenere sotto controllo era la temperatura interna del reattore, e ciò avveniva con speciali termocoppie tipo J.
    Ogni termocoppia era formata da una guainetta in AISI diametro esterno circa 2 mm al cui interno si trovavano i due sottili fili della termocoppia (ferro e costantana) isolati elettricamente tra loro e dalla guainetta.
    L’estremità della termocoppia (giunto caldo) era formato per saldatura direttamente all’estremità della stessa guainetta, assieme al materiale della stessa. Tale termocoppia era poi inserita nel reattore attraverso un sottile foro praticato su una guarnizione posta fra un tubo e l’altro del reattore, in modo che il giunto caldo sporgesse all’interno di alcuni millimetri ed essere direttamente investito dal materiale fluente all’interno del reattore. La guainetta era brasata nel foro di tale guarnizione per avere la tenuta perfetta.
    I segnali provenienti da tutte queste termocoppie arrivavano poi ad una sala controllo per essere elaborati ed in particolare per mettere in sicurezza il reattore nel caso la reazione “sfuggisse” con generazione di altissime temperature (sì, poteva succedere come col vostro reattore :-)).
    La velocità di risposta del sistema era molto alta, e la sicurezza era sempre garantita. Nonostante l’esercizio fosse molto gravoso, tali termocoppie avevano una buona affidabilità.

    L’esperienza di tali sottili termocoppie potrebbe essere estesa anche sul vostro reattore le cui dimensioni sono piuttosto piccole.
    E’ impensabile infatti effettuare misure di temperatura interponendo la classica guaina termometrica. A parte le dimensioni eccessive, porterebbe intollerabili ritardi nella misura di temperatura soprattutto per sue rapide variazioni.

    Spero di non averle fatto perdere tempo prezioso avendo detto ovvietà.
    Cordiali saluti,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Prof. Brian Josephson (Nobel Prize):
    I forgot to say in my answer to your comment of today: your comment has been luckily recovered by myself from the spam of the blog of the Journal Of Nuclear Physics: while your former comments arrived regularly, this last of yours has been spammed from our robot: we receive hundreds of spams per day, and I just randomly check a page of spam to see if something good is there: so, luckily, I found your comment and, obviously, I saved it and published it. This means that in the last address you used there is something that our robot thinks is a spam. Please use the address you always used before. In any case, please remember that your comments are ALWAYS approved, whatever the content, therefore, if you do not find published a comment of yours within 24 hours after you send it, this means that it got lost in the spam, and immediately resend it to my personal address:
    I will put it anyway in the blog.
    Warmest Regards,
    Andrea Rossi

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Prof. Brian Josephson (Nobel Prize),
    First of all, thank you for your very important attention.
    Please read very carefully what I am writing to you:
    1-The 1 MW plant that we will start up in October will be tested, on behalf of our Customer, by very, very high level world class scientists. You are in the list, so please, if you want and you can, take free the last week of October.
    2- The test will be witnessed by several very, very high level world class scientific journalists
    3- The E-Cats we are working with now in our factories, which will be the modules of the 1 MW plant, are producing perfectly dry steam, mostly without energy input, as you will see yourself if you will honour us with your presence.
    Very Warm Regards,
    Andrea Rossi

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Alessandro Ferrari:
    Thank you for the interesting info, I will study it.
    Warm regards,

  • Alessandro Ferrari

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    I’m a physic graduated following LERN news in last years and e-cat since January with big interest and hope.
    First of all I wish you best success with 1MW plant in October.

    I see in news a new direct heat to electricity conversion technology. Its core is a nanoscale-tailored heat radiator emitting all heat in a narrow wavelength only. This way traditional semiconductor photovoltaic conversion can be very efficient.
    It’s not an off the shelf product but maybe can be of future interest to scale e-cats as miniaturized electricity generators.

    I know you are focused mainly on 1MW plants but maybe new emerging technologies paired with e-cat can revolutionize energy supply (heat, mechanic, electricity) in a very wide range of applications faster than expected. Anyway this is my hope.

    Warm regards,

  • Peter Heckert

    Mr. H. Hansson,

    You are right. There are a lot of discussions and videos, but there is no really good documentation online, thats the problem. And offline in newspapers there is nothing at all.
    Now, if I buy a car, I will drive it before buying. Is this sceptic?

    I do not agree with those scientists that say: “This is impossible in our theory and therefore it cannot be”. I know that cold fusion is improbable, but possible in theory.
    I know it has been done before, but never before has been done with a useful degree of efficiency.

    If there is a transparent and experimental proof, then I will believe it. Experiment has priority over Theory, I am convinced about that.
    Maybe, if I had a chance to watch such a presentation myself, measure the ingoing currents myself, touching the wall where the hose ends, this must be warm, because 10 kW is enough energy to heat a building, then I would already be a convinced believer.

    However, this is about science and technics and what finally counts for me is experimental evidence and experience and not theory and not believe.

    I always think this way, thats my nature, I cannot change this 😉

  • October demo

    You’ve said the 1MW E-cat due in October will be the real test, but in what way will it be more convincing than the ones done so far? Will it be done in such a way that people are sure about the amount of water/steam coming out of the reactor, and how dry the steam is (which affects the heat content)?

  • georgehants

    Dear Mr Rossi,
    May I ask, could people who live in remote areas have spare recharges for your E-Cat to fit themselves or would an engineer from the company always have to change them.
    Thank you.

  • Ing. Albert Ellul

    Regarding Peter heckert’s worry on wind turbines losing share value due to Your invention: I believe that man was created a capitalist. Even in the distant past men traded sheep for grain, salt for bread with everyone trying to make the best finacial deal. It’s the same thousands of years later. We are always seeking the best finacial deals. IN energy matters, we seek the cheapest way to produce energy, which today is coal, then oil, gas, nuclear. The new green technologies are very expensive and only sell because governments, in a non-capitalist manner, subsidise heavily these expensive energy systems ‘to save the planet’. However, your new invention will not only really save the planet but will also save humanity from energy poverty, meaning that today people across the world are becoming energy poor because of OPEC’s dominancy, monopoly, of the market and political intrusions in the energy market.
    Dear Ing. Rossi, I believe that your great invention will not only return cheap energy to us, but will also stop the rushing in of politicans where angels fear to thread. Because today’s politicians don’t know anything about science and economics. They only know how to win an election with a lot of empty words, then spen 5b years telling us why they cannot keep their promises.
    Green technologies, being the most expensive form of energy generation, will be the first to fall once the e-Cat is in the market. Coal, oil and gas will react by lowering their prices and by adaptation to other forms of prime-mover fuel. This logic is based on the natural lwas of survival.

  • H. Hansson

    Dear Mr. Rossi,
    Thank you for clearing the skeptic issue with Mr. Dwayne- I think I belongs to the “1- honest skeptics” group… which a vast majority of all people do. Unfortunately, the media penetration on this have not been as it should. Therefore I hope that as most of us could not be with you in Greece in October, you make sure to document and broadcast the upcoming 1 MV eCat event.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Ransom,
    Why don’t you write me personally
    Maybe I will need your help.
    Warm regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Peter Heckert:
    As I always said, all the energy sources have to be integrated, we will not have a killer technology, we will have a good team of technologies.
    Warm regards,

  • Peter heckert

    Also I am contemplating if it might be a bad idea to buy windenergy stocks.
    If your invention works this might turn into a financial desaster.
    This way I am directly affected by this, and I want to know whats going on 😉



  • Peter heckert

    Mr. Rossi,
    No, I am not a customer. But in the country where I live (Germany Baden Würtemberg) windenergy was neglected in the past time.
    Now it happened, that the green party won the last votes and they will without doubt financially invest into wind energy a lot in future and fight atomic energy. If your device works this might be partially obsolete. There are townships that dont want wind energy because they fear this will reduce tourism. So if you succeed to convince the sceptics and politicians and proof the energetic efficiency beyond all doubt scientifically, then you might win political support.

    Ok, I understand, we mortals have to wait some months, and I really understand you must drive your busyness forward, but anyway I wish you a lot of success.



  • Ransom

    I have been following your discovery since January. The banter on the internet about your discovery is fascinating. I wish you every success, Mr. Rossi. Should you ever need a Lawyer, who also has an MBA and worked as a CPA, let me know. I am tired of the nonsense I have to deal with daily in the law business and would be happy to help you in your effort.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Peter Heckert:
    Please read the reply I wrote to Dwayne few minutes ago.
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Dwayne,
    I agree with your attitude. By the way: my only real problem is to manufacture plants which satisfy the needs of my Customers. Skepticism is not my business. Nor is my business if a person is convinced or not, so far he is not a Customer.
    Your comment is very smart also on another point: I cannot lose my very limited time to answer or to convince the so called “skeptics”, because whatever I answer they will always have new objections: I saw that Skeptics are divided in the following categories:
    1- honest skeptics (like you): they do not need to be convinced by chatters, they are like you, they wait for a 1 MW plant in operation, and after that to the thousands of 1 MW plant in operation which will follow up
    2- Competitors: they want to know how my toy works: they will never accept an explication unless they are put in condition to copy my tech: with them my time should be totally lost, or negatively (for me) employed;
    3- Lobbysts against my tech and “journalists” paid by competitors or lobbysts : whatever I will say, they will shoot. Ignoring them. their shoots will make the effect of tennis balls against a tank
    4- Imbeciles: an army of persons that have nothing to do and play the scientists, without even understanding what they are talking about; to talk with them is a pure loss of time
    The categories 2 and 3 are the most vociferous in asking new public tests in “indipendent” labs, wherein “indipendent” means a lab in competition with us and in contact with them…one among the most called for is also the one that has organized a campaign against me, to try to discredit my work, buying a “journalist”. Never mind: just other tennis balls against my tank: the 1 MW plant that I will put in operation in October and that will be the first of a long sery. My plants will talk for me: FACTS, AGAINST CHATTERS. Let them chatter, we will see. And I am sure you will be glad to know that from our analysis we understood that in the Skeptics universe most of People thinks like you. The competitors, lobbysts, corrupt journalists, imbeciles battalion is made of a small number of persons that to try to appear more persons than they are invent a lot of fake names. Our informatics have found one imbecile who has coined for himself 11 different names and email addresses…basically, is a small and not significant self- referencing community. If my plants will work well for my Customers, they will be the last of my problems. If my plants will not satisfy my Customers, they will be the last of my problems. Definitely, in any case they will be the last of my problems, so there is no reason for me to lose my time to repeat thousands of time the same things. I am putting my life on this stake, I have bertter to do than to listen these guys.
    After this analysis, it is clear why I have chosen to employ my time only to work as hard as possible. While the imbeciles chatter, you have not idea of the difficulties I have to overcome every day.
    Warm regards,

  • Dwayne

    As far as everyone’s suggestions for more tests, skeptics will be skeptics until the end. If Mr. Rossi arranges another test, I doubt that there would be many people who would switch from being unconvinced to convinced. In that case, all you would have accomplished is a reduction of time spent on meeting the October date. Anyone who would be convinced by another small-scale test would also be convinced by a large 1 MW test; yet there would be more people convinced after a successful 1MW implementation. As for me, the whole idea has caught my attention/interest and I’m gathering facts while suspending judgement until there’s enough information to draw a conclusion (as any true scientist should in all doings); question things, but never fall victim to dogma.

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>