Cold nuclear fusion

by E.N. Tsyganov
(UA9 collaboration) University of Texas Southwestern
Medical Center at Dallas, Texas, USA

Direct Download

Abstract
Recent accelerator experiments on fusion of various elements have clearly demonstrated that the effective cross-sections of these reactions depend on what material the target particle is placed in. In these experiments, there was a significant increase in the probability of interaction when target nuclei are imbedded in a conducting crystal or are a part of it. These experiments open a new perspective on the problem of so-called cold nuclear fusion.

PACS.: 25.45 – deuterium induced reactions
Submitted to Physics of Atomic Nuclei/Yadernaya Fizika in Russian

Introduction
Experiments of Fleischmann and Pons made about 20 years ago [1], raised the question about the possibility of nuclear DD fusion at room temperature. Conflicting results of numerous experiments that followed, dampened the initial euphoria, and the scientific community quickly came to common belief, that the results of [1] are erroneous. One of the convincing arguments of skeptics was the lack in these experiments of evidence of nuclear decay products. It was assumed that “if there are no neutrons, therefore is no fusion.” However, quite a large international group of physicists, currently a total of about 100-150 people, continues to work in this direction. To date, these enthusiasts have accumulated considerable experience in the field. The leading group of physicists working in this direction, in our opinion, is the group led by Dr. M. McKubre [2]. Interesting results were also obtained in the group of Dr. Y. Arata [3]. Despite some setbacks with the repeatability of results, these researchers still believe in the existence of the effect of cold fusion, even though they do not fully understand its nature.  Some time ago we proposed a possible mechanism to explain the results of cold fusion of deuterium [4]. This work considered a possible mechanism of acceleration of deuterium contaminant atoms in the crystals through the interaction of atoms with long-wavelength lattice vibrations in deformed parts of the crystal. Estimates have shown that even if a very small portion of the impurity atoms (~105) get involved in this process and acquires a few keV energy, this will be sufficient to describe the energy released in experiments [2].  This work also hypothesized that the lifetime of the intermediate nucleus increases with decreasing energy of its excitation, so that so-called “radiation-less cooling” of the excited nucleus becomes possible. In [5], we set out a more detailed examination of the process.  Quite recently, a sharp increase of the probability of fusion of various elements was found in accelerator experiments for the cases when the target particles are either imbedded in a metal crystal or are a part of the conducting crystal. These experiments compel us to look afresh on the problem of cold fusion.

Recent experiments on fusion of elements on accelerators
For atom-atom collisions the expression of the probability of penetration through a Coulomb barrier for bare nuclei should be modified, because atomic electrons screen the repulsion effect of nuclear charge. Such a modification for the isolated atom collisions has been performed in H.J. Assenbaum and others [6] using static Born-Oppenheimer approximation. The experimental results that shed further light on this problem were obtained in relatively recent works C. Rolfs [7] and K. Czerski [8]. Review of earlier studies on this subject is contained in the work of L. Bogdanova [9]. In these studies a somewhat unusual phenomenon was observed: the sub-barrier fusion cross sections of elements depend strongly on the physical state of the matter in which these processes are taking place. Figure 1 (left) shows the experimental data [8], demonstrating the dependence of the astrophysical factor S(E) for the fusion of elements of sub-threshold nuclear reaction on the aggregate state of the matter that contains the target nucleus 7Li. The same figure (right) presents similar data [7] for the DD reaction, when the target nucleus was embedded in a zirconium crystal. It must be noted that the physical nature of the phenomenon of increasing cross synthesis of elements in the case where this process occurs in the conductor crystal lattice is still not completely clear.

Figure 1. Up – experimental data [8], showing the energy dependence of the S-factor for sub-threshold nuclear reaction on the aggregate state of matter that contains the nucleus 7Li.  Down – the similar data [7] for the reaction of DD, when the target nucleus is placed in a crystal of zirconium. The data are well described by the introduction of the screening potential of about 300 eV.

The phenomenon is apparently due to the strong anisotropy of the electrical fields of the crystal lattice in the presence of free conduction electrons. Data for zirconium crystals for the DD reactions can be well described by the introduction of the screening potential of about 300 eV. It is natural to assume that the corresponding distance between of two atoms of deuterium in these circumstances is less than the molecular size of deuterium. In the case of the screening potential of 300 eV, the distance of convergence of deuterium atoms is ~510ˆ12 m, which is about an order of magnitude smaller than the size of a molecule of deuterium, where the screening potential is 27 eV. As it turned out, the reaction rate for DD fusion in these conditions is quite sufficient to describe the experimental results of McKubre and others [2]. Below we present the calculation of the rate process similar to the mu-catalysis where, instead of the exchange interaction by the muon, the factor of bringing together two deuterons is the effect of conduction electrons and the lattice of the crystal.

Calculation of the DD fusion rate for “Metal-Crystal” catalysis
The expression for the cross section of synthesis in the collision of two nuclei can be written as

where for the DD fusion

Here the energy E is shown in keV in the center of mass. S(E) astrophysical factor (at low energies it can be considered constant), the factor 1/E reflects de Broglie dependence of cross section on energy. The main energy dependence of the fusion is contained in an expression

that determines the probability of penetration of the deuteron through the Coulomb barrier. From the above expressions, it is evident that in the case of DD collisions and in the case of DDμcatalysis, the physics of the processes is the same. We use this fact to determine the probability of DD fusion in the case of the “metal-crystalline” DD-catalysis.  In the case of DDμ- catalysis the size of the muon deuterium molecules (ion+) is ~5×10ˆ13m. Deuterium nuclei approach such a distance at a kinetic energy ~3 keV. Using the expression (1), we found that the ratio of σ(3.0 keV)/σ(0.3 keV) = 1.05×10ˆ16. It should be noted that for the free deuterium molecule this ratio [ σ(3.0keV)/σ(0.03keV)] is about 10ˆ73.  Experimental estimations of the fusion rate for the (DDμ)+ case presented in the paper by Hale [10]:

Thus, we obtain for the “metal-crystalline” catalysis DD fusion rate (for zirconium case):

Is this enough to explain the experiments on cold fusion? We suppose that a screening potential for palladium is about the same as for zirconium. 1 cmˆ3 (12.6 g) of palladium contains 6.0210ˆ23(12.6/106.4) = 0.710ˆ23 atoms. Fraction of crystalline cells with dual (or more) the number of deuterium atoms at a ratio of D: Pd ~1:1 is the case in the experiments [2] ~0.25 (e.g., for Poisson distribution). Crystal cell containing deuterium atoms 0 or 1, in the sense of a fusion reaction, we consider as “passive”. Thus, the number of “active” deuterium cells in 1 cmˆ3 of palladium is equal to 1.810ˆ22. In this case, in a 1 cmˆ3 of palladium the reaction rate will be

this corresponds to the energy release of about 3 kW. This is quite sufficient to explain the results of McKubre group [2]. Most promising version for practical applications would be Platinum (Pt) crystals, where the screening potential for d(d,p)t fusion at room temperature is about 675 eV [11]. In this case, DD fusion rate would be:

The problem of “nonradiative” release of nuclear fusion energy
As we have already noted, the virtual absence of conventional nuclear decay products of the compound nucleus was widely regarded as one of the paradoxes of DD fusion with the formation of 4He in the experiments [2]. We proposed the explanation of this paradox in [4]. We believe that after penetration through the Coulomb barrier at low energies and the materialization of the two deuterons in a potential well, these deuterons retain their identity for some time. This time defines the frequency of further nuclear reactions. Figure 2 schematically illustrates the mechanism of this process. After penetration into the compound nucleus at a very low energy, the deuterons happen to be in a quasi-stabile state seating in the opposite potential wells. In principle, this system is a dual “electromagnetic-nuclear” oscillator. In this oscillator the total kinetic energy of the deuteron turns into potential energy of the oscillator, and vice versa. In the case of very low-energy, the amplitude of oscillations is small, and the reactions with nucleon exchange are suppressed.

Fig. 2. Schematic illustration of the mechanism of the nuclear decay frequency dependence on the compound nucleus 4He* excitation energy for the merging deuterons is presented. The diagram illustrates the shape of the potential well of the compound nucleus. The edges of the potential well are defined by the strong interaction, the dependence at short distances  Coulomb repulsion.

The lifetime of the excited 4He* nucleus can be considered in the formalism of the usual radioactive decay. In this case,


Here ν is the decay frequency, i.e., the reciprocal of the decay time τ. According to our hypothesis, the decay rate is a function of excitation energy of the compound nucleus E. Approximating with the first two terms of the polynomial expansion, we have:

Here ν° is the decay frequency at asymptotically low excitation energy. According to quantum-mechanical considerations, the wave functions of deuterons do not completely disappear with decreasing energy, as illustrated by the introduction of the term ν°. The second term of the expansion describes the linear dependence of the frequency decay on the excitation energy. The characteristic nuclear frequency is usually about 10ˆ22  sˆ-1. In fusion reaction D+D4He there is a broad resonance at an energy around 8 MeV. Simple estimates by the width of the resonance and the uncertainty relation gives a lifetime of the intermediate state of about 0.810ˆ22 s. The “nuclear” reaction rate falls approximately linearly with decreasing energy. Apparently, a group of McKubre [2] operates in an effective energy range below 2 keV in the c.m.s. Thus, in these experiments, the excitation energy is at least 4×10ˆ3 times less than in the resonance region. We assume that the rate of nuclear decay is that many times smaller. The corresponding lifetime is less than 0.3×10ˆ18 s. This fall in the nuclear reaction rate has little effect on the ratio of output decay channels of the compound nucleus, but down to a certain limit. This limit is about 6 keV. A compound nucleus at this energy is no longer an isolated system, since virtual photons from the 4He* can reach to the nearest electron and carry the excitation energy of the compound nucleus. The total angular momentum carried by the virtual photons can be zero, so this process is not prohibited. For the distance to the nearest electron, we chose the radius of the electrons in the helium atom (3.1×10ˆ11 m). From the uncertainty relations, duration of this process is about 10ˆ-19 seconds. In the case of “metal-crystalline” catalysis the distance to the nearest electrons can be significantly less and the process of dissipation of energy will go faster. It is assumed that after an exchange of multiple virtual photons with the electrons of the environment the relatively small excitation energy of compound nucleus 4He* vanishes, and the frequency of the compound nucleus decaying with the emission of nucleons will be determined only by the term ν°. For convenience, we assume that this value is no more than 10ˆ12-10ˆ14 per second. In this case, the serial exchange of virtual photons with the electrons of the environment in a time of about 10ˆ-16 will lead to the loss of ~4 MeV from the compound nucleus (after which decays with emission of nucleons are energetically forbidden), and then additional exchange will lead to the loss of all of the free energy of the compound nucleus (24 MeV) and finally the nucleus will be in the 4He ground state.  The energy dissipation mechanism of the compound nucleus 4He* with virtual photons, discussed above, naturally raises the question of the electromagnetic-nuclear structure of the excited compound nucleus.

Fig. 3. Possible energy diagram of the excited 4He* nucleus is presented.

Figure 3 represents a possible energy structure of the excited 4He* nucleus and changes of its spatial configuration in the process of releasing of excitation energy. Investigation of this process might be useful to study the quark-gluon dynamics and the structure of the nucleus.

Discussion
Perhaps, in this long-standing history of cold fusion, finally the mystery of this curious and enigmatic phenomenon is gradually being opened. Besides possible benefits that the practical application of this discovery will bring, the scientific community should take into account the sociological lessons that we have gained during such a long ordeal of rejection of this brilliant, though largely accidental, scientific discovery. We would like to express the special appreciation to the scientists that actively resisted the negative verdict imposed about twenty years ago on this topic by the vast majority of nuclear physicists.

Acknowledgements
The author thanks Prof. S.B. Dabagov, Dr. M. McKubre, Dr. F. Tanzela, Dr. V.A. Kuzmin, Prof. L.N. Bogdanova and Prof. T.V. Tetereva for help and valuable discussions. The author is grateful to Prof. V.G. Kadyshevsky, Prof. V.A. Rubakov, Prof. S.S. Gershtein, Prof. V.V. Belyaev, Prof. N.E. Tyurin, Prof. V.L. Aksenov, Prof. V.M. Samsonov, Prof. I.M. Gramenitsky, Prof. A.G. Olshevsky, Prof. V.G. Baryshevsky for their help and useful advice. I am grateful to Dr. VM. Golovatyuk, Prof. M.D. Bavizhev, Dr. N.I. Zimin, Prof. A.M. Taratin for their continued support. I am also grateful to Prof. A. Tollestrup, Prof. U. Amaldi, Prof. W. Scandale, Prof. A. Seiden, Prof. R. Carrigan, Prof. A. Korol, Prof. J. Hauptmann, Prof. V. Guidi, Prof. F. Sauli, Prof. G. Mitselmakher, Prof. A. Takahashi, and Prof. X. Artru for stimulating feedback. Continued support in this process was provided with my colleagues and the leadership of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, and I am especially grateful to Prof. R. Parkey, Prof. N. Rofsky, Prof. J. Anderson and Prof. G. Arbique. I express special thanks to my wife, N.A. Tsyganova for her stimulating ideas and uncompromising support.

References
1. M. Fleischmann, S. Pons, M. W. Anderson, L. J. Li, M. Hawkins, J. Electro anal. Chem. 287, 293 (1990).
2. M. C. H. McKubre, F. Tanzella, P. Tripodi, and P. Haglestein, In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2000, Lerici (La Spezia), Ed. F. Scaramuzzi, (Italian Physical Society, Bologna, Italy, 2001), p 3; M. C. H. McKubre, In Condensed Matter Nuclear Science: Proceedings Of The 10th International Conference On Cold Fusion;  Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA 21-29 August, 2003, Ed by P. L. Hagelstein and S. R. Chubb, (World Sci., Singapore, 2006). M. C. H. McKubre, “Review of experimental measurements involving dd reactions”, Presented at the Short Course on LENR for ICCF-10, August 25, 2003.
3. Y. Arata, Y. Zhang, “The special report on research project for creation of new energy”, J. High Temp. Soc. (1) (2008).
4. E. Tsyganov, in Physics of Atomic Nuclei, 2010, Vol. 73, No. 12, pp. 1981–1989. Original Russian text published in Yadernaya Fizika, 2010, Vol. 73, No. 12, pp. 2036–2044.
5. E.N. Tsyganov, “The mechanism of DD fusion in crystals”, submitted to IL NUOVO CIMENTO 34 (4-5) (2011), in Proceedings of the International Conference Channeling 2010 in Ferrara, Italy, October 3-8 2010.
6. H.J. Assenbaum, K. Langanke and C. Rolfs, Z. Phys. A – Atomic Nuclei 327, p. 461-468 (1987).
7. C. Rolfs, “Enhanced Electron Screening in Metals: A Plasma of the Poor Man”, Nuclear Physics News, Vol. 16, No. 2, 2006.
8. A. Huke, K. Czerski, P. Heide, G. Ruprecht, N. Targosz, and W. Zebrowski, “Enhancement of deuteron-fusion reactions in metals and experimental implications”, PHYSICAL REVIEW C 78, 015803 (2008).
9. L.N. Bogdanova, Proceedings of International Conference on Muon Catalyzed Fusion and Related Topics, Dubna, June 18–21, 2007, published by JINR, E4, 15-2008-70, p. 285-293
10. G.M. Hale, “Nuclear physics of the muon catalyzed d+d reactions”, Muon Catalyzed Fusion 5/6 (1990/91) p. 227-232.
11. F. Raiola (for the LUNA Collaboration), B. Burchard, Z. Fulop, et al., J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys.31, 1141 (2005); Eur. Phys. J. A 27, s01, 79 (2006).

by E.N. Tsyganov
(UA9 collaboration) University of Texas Southwestern
Medical Center at Dallas, Texas, USA

Direct Download

3,497 comments to Cold nuclear fusion

  • Greven Grevesson

    Dear Mr. Rossi

    Thank you for your answer. I was referring to the public test of the 1MW plant in October to which you will invite the world class scientists (like Essén, Kullander, Josephson etc.). Will they have full access to the 1MW plant or will they only have access to a smaller e-cat in order to fully test the device?

    BR
    Greven

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Olaf Eriksen:
    Since the E-Cats will hit the market, our Customers will test and use them. We will continue our R&D with the Universities of Bologna, Uppsala.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Greven Grevesson:
    Since the 1 MW plant has been sold, it is property of our Customer, who is free to make all the tests he wants.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Nadarer Michael:
    The right contacts, to tale in November for commercial issues, are:
    ccassarino@lti-global.com
    info@leonardocorp1996.com
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Magnus:
    You must distinguish between our tests, made inside our factories, and the test that will be made in October from our Customer.
    The tests inside our factories are made every day.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Magnus

    Dear Mr. Rossi,

    First of all I must thank you for answering most of the questions in this forum, verty good job indeed!

    I would like to now if the test of the 1MW plant are done? In your latest post you claim that tests are done and you will start deliver but in the post just before you sa “We will work on the information system, after the 1 MW plant test of october.”.

    I am a bit confused, are the tests done or do you still testing?

    Best Regards
    Magnus

  • Naderer Michael

    Dear Andrea Rossi!

    I am speaking on behalf of an establishing consortium and first of all we want to give you our deepest congratulations for your achievements. We are following your progress since about a year, and three weeks ago we met the journalist Giorgio Iacuzzo and some swedish entrepreneurs and scientists referring to you and Mr. Focardi in the most symphatetic way.

    This and much more drives us to set up a strong consortium in order to make your technologies accessible on a large scale, especially in the german speaking world. Regardind the information available on the internet it is not clear which legal entities we should get in touch with.

    Dear Mr. Rossi, we ask you for clarification regarding the right and authorized entity and people.

    With the greatest respect,

    Michael A. Naderer

  • Greven Grevesson

    Dear Mr. Rossi.

    Yesterday you wrote in a comment that “In october the first 1 MW plant will be delivered.”.
    Does this mean that the world class scientists will do their testing on the already sold 1MW plant? Does this put any restrictions on the testing crew? Can you guarantee that the scientists will get access to all of the machine (except the reactors) in order to do a fully scientific test? (that means drilling holes in the container to search for hidden fuel etc.)

    BR
    Greven

  • olaf Eriksen

    Best Mr Rossi!
    First congratulations to the greatest invention of mankind.
    I wonder i you can confirm if the rumor going on is true?
    that there will be no moore tests or demonstrations for
    so well physics or public? That it “only” will be a
    delivery to your customer? but nothing else?

    Best regards! Olaf Eriksen

  • Joseph Fine

    Barrel of oil equivalent
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrel_of_oil_equivalent

    The barrel of oil equivalent (BOE) is a unit of energy based on the approximate energy released by burning one barrel (42 US gallons or 158.9873 litres) of crude oil. The US Internal Revenue Service defines it as equal to 5.8 × 10^6 BTU.[1] The value is necessarily approximate as various grades of oil have slightly different heating values.

    5.8 × 10^6 BTU equals 6.1178632 × 109 J, about 6.1 GJ, or 1.7 MWh.

    —————————–

    So, one barrel of oil (equiv.) produces about 1.7 MWh or 1700 KWh.

    If a 1 MW plant produces 744,000 KWH or 744 Megawatt Hrs of heat per month, you’d have to consume about 744/1.7 = 438+ barrels of oil (equiv.) to get the same output. (Depending on the fuel being used.)

    At $87.50 per barrel (current price), 438*87.75 = $38,434 more or less. Which is about a 5 to 1 price advantage for the E-CAT.

    If the price of $.01 per KWH is the expected cost of E-Cat electricity (not just heat), there is another factor of 2-3 advantage. So, there may be a cost advantage in favor of the E-CAT of not just 5-to-1 but of 10 to 1 (for heat only).

    Sounds like a winning proposal.

    J.F.

  • Joseph Fine

    The question is how many KWH can be produced by a 1 megawatt plant each month?

    Answer:

    1 megawatt is 1000 kilowatts.

    There are 31 days per month (more or less) x 24 hours per day = 744 hours per month. In a 31 day month, we would get (1000 X 24 X 31) KWh =
    7.44 x 10^5 KWH or 744,000 KWH.

    At 0.01 cent per KWH, that would be $7,440. Is that the cost for heat or electricity?

    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_can_a_1_megawatt_plant_produce_KWH_per_month

    J.F.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Claudio Caprara:
    The tests with the modules of E-Cats have been already made. The test criteria have been correct and have been confirmed by our daily operation with our E-Cats. Now we are starting the delivery of industrial plants to the market. In october the first 1 MW plant will be delivered. This is not to show to the public that it works, this is because we have to deliver a 1 MW plant.
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

  • Gentilissimo dott. Rossi, grazie per il lavoro che fa e per la disponibilità che ha verso di noi curiosi.
    Da diverso tempo Lei è orientato alla realizzazione dell’impianto da 1Mw mentre il mondo (scientifico e non) le chiede solo di misurare correttamente e con criteri più stringenti i risultati di un reattore anche piccolo purchè funzionante in modo appurabile da soggetti diversi.
    Fare delle misurazioni e verifiche sull’impianto da 1Mw risulterà sicuramente più difficile che su un singolo ecat. Qual’è il motivo che la spinge a evitare una verifica pubblica semplice (anche non scientifica) su un singolo modulo se questo può effettivamente produrre eccesso di calore in quantità interessante e lo può fare da subito ?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Giovanni Guerrini:
    Yes, you are not wrong. We will work on the information system, after the 1 MW plant test of october.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Giovanni Guerrini

    P.S.
    In sostanza,a volte lo scetticismo e la diffidenza sono figli della ignoranza,la miglior strategia per il credito è l’informazione.

  • Giovanni Guerrini

    Vorrei portare l’attenzione su di una questione di carattere mediatico in quanto, da uomo della strada parlando con uomini della strada(non addetti ai lavori),ho notato una caratteristica di carattere culturale che porta a sottovalutare questa forma di energia.Infatti anche persone di livello culturale medio alto se non hanno una specifica formazione scientifica in branche tecnologiche non sanno bene cosa sia la fusione nucleare,le lenr e gli ordini di grandezza implicati tra combustibile impiegato ed energia liberata.La nostra mente è abituata empiricamente a porre in relazione solo grandezze di ordine chimico e quantità di 200 tonn di uranio per ottenere 1Gw/anno,e quando si rende noto il rapporto che vi è nella fusione si vedono espressioni incredule.
    Anche se i media parlassero di questa invenzione senza informare correttamente sugli ordini di grandezza,la gente non farebbe altro che pensare,come ho notato,che si tratti solo di un altro bizzarro tipo di caldaia.
    Essendo estremamente importante per la riuscita e la diffusione del progetto che la gente non informata capisca di cosa si tratta,auspico che a tempo debito alla presentazione alla stampa si ponga con enfasi l’accento su questo particolare.

    Cordiali e sempre solidali saluti Giovanni Guerrini

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Paul:
    I think that all the energy sources must be integrated: each of them is necessary.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Rick Meisinger:
    It has been refined, because one year of tests have been of enormous importance. Besides, I have learnt very important things in Uppsala University and in the University of Bologna. The work made together with great professors has substantially refined the theory. Honestly, I have also learnt much from the articles we published on the Journal Of Nuclear Physics.
    Time is not passed for nothing…we are very focused, and pick up all the particulars apparently irrilevant, but very important as rings to pull out a chain. When Alice returns in the usual world her view of it is more throughly.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Rick Meisinger

    Dear Andrea Rossi;
    I was curious if your theory that you are considering releasing in October has changed or has been refined since your “Alice in Wonderland” analogy “describing” your theory in your 11/10/2010 post. A great post, by the way. I understand if you decide not to answer.
    Warm Regards;
    R.M.

  • Paul

    It was 1989 and two electrochemists, Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons claimed to have tapped nuclear power in a simple electrochemical cell.

    Sir Arthur C. Clark then wrote:
    “It could be the end of the fossil fuel age: the end of oil and coal. And the end, incidentally, of many of our worries about global warming.”

    He died in 2008, but it seems that he wrote that for today events…

    Paul

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Fabio Sanzani:
    Thank you very much: I agree with you.
    For the rest, you can contact me in November,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • fabiosanzani

    Caro Ing.Rossi,
    la seguo da tempo e precisamente dal suo esperimento fatto a Bologna nel gennaio e si ricorda faccio parte di uno studio ingegneristico nella zona Roveri. Mi continuo a sorprendermi come si continui a discutere sul metodo di rilevazione dei risultati della sua invenzione, non fidandosi dei risultati da lei recensiti più volte insieme al Prof. Focardi (di cui ho grande stima!). In particolare mi riferisco alle diatribe se le misurazioni sono a peso o volume, a bulbo secco a bulbo umido e via discorrendo.
    E siccome dobbiamo essere concreti vi sono solo due soluzioni possibili da ottobre/novembre in poi:
    1)Che l’invenzione funzioni e produca energia termica e che per verificare la produzione in eccesso di un macchinario da 1 MW basta un idraulico (senza offesa per nessuno)
    2)Che l’invenzione non dia i risultati sperati.
    Io come sempre sono dalla sua parte e quindi attendo la soluzione 1, sempre pronto a poter umilmente collaborare con lei e il suo staff.
    Buon lavoro e cordiali Saluti

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Peter Heckert,
    I think I have understood well what happens in the reactor and after the start upof the 1 MW plant the theory on the effect inside the E-Cats will be released, probably.
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Frank Acland:
    We do not use radioactive materials, do not produce radioactive wastes, so the issue is different from nuclear plants. Our USA Partner is addressing this issue.
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

  • Dear Mr. Rossi,

    Your new plan to launch with a ‘big’ partner in the USA is very interesting. If you have a strong ally with plenty of resources and much influence it could be very helpful.

    You speak about making 1000 1MW plants in the near future — how easy is it to get approval from US government regulators for building and operating an E-Cat plant? (Many people are very concerned when the word ‘nuclear reaction’ is mentioned)

    Best regards,

    Frank Acland

  • On July 3, Mary-Sue Haliburton commented: “Everyone says it will improve the economy and create jobs. I hope it does, especially for the Greek company that has acquired world rights. However, there hasn’t been a rush of investors to get on board. Everyone is accustomed to the fuel-based energy model for investment in which ongoing sales pay dividends for the shareholders. As governments cut pensions and delay the age at which people are able to draw on them, how one’s retirement will be funding is a pressing issue for all in wage-based jobs. Especially older people will need to see that economic model laid out. What is known about the business plan for the E-Cat? Will the refreshing of the nickel and catalyst replace refuelling with oil or gas as far as the investor’s income from shares is concerned? I have in the past glibly written about how these new technologies will lead to new jobs. However, there’s this transitional phase during which many people’s personal savings are still locked into “resource sector” shares held through mutual funds. So, I hope that someone who’s business-savvy will be able to explain how this can work, so as to help people decide to buy shares in this new field.”

  • Peter Heckert

    Hi all,

    Im a layman about cold fusion, but I made an observation that might be interesting:

    Years ago, in the 70’s 80’s before Pons & Fleischmann high temperature superconductivity was observed in NI-H and Pd-H systems. It is believed, that microscopic areals of superconductivity can exist at room temperature.

    If we look to recent coldfusion experiments, that where reported as successfully, we see often an electric current:
    1) The heater in the Rossi experiment might induce a magnetic field.
    2) Electrically heated NI wires in H athmossphere where reported to produce energy. Now, these wires must have an electric field.
    3) In electrolysis, high currents are used. Due to pinch effects the local momentaneous current density can become rather high. These currents must have a magnetic field.

    Nickel is ferromagnetic and is magnetically attracted.
    Superconducting areals are diamagnetic and are magnetically repelled.
    As we all know, magnetic forces are much stronger than electrostatic forces.

    Could it be possible to overcome the Coloumb wall by magnetic forces?
    Might it be posssible that a magnetic field and room-temperature-superconductivity are required for cold fusion?

    Best,

    Peter

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Burt:
    he,he,he…Enrico Billi, graduated in Physics in Bologna, is now a researcher in China, and he works alot to make well his job…so I close always my messages to him with “lavolale,lavolale” …
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Drar Rick Meisinger:
    Interesting.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Ivan Idso:
    In the USA today there is a very strong will to regain all our economical strength. I give what I can to help this strong processof our Country.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Ivan Idso

    Dear Mr Rossi,

    Greetings from Minnesota. On behalf of the “little guy”, I want to thank you for all you are doing. I admire your entrepreneurial spirit, something I feel we are lacking in the U.S. today. I also appreciate your approach to rolling out the e-cat, I trust that you have the interests of your fellow mankind and not just your own interests. You are a rare breed!

    God Speed

  • Rick Meisinger

    Dear Andrea Rossi;
    I doubt if you wanted to be in the business of supplying the hydrogen but I thought it is interesting that the catalyst for hydrogen production was nickel based in this Science Daily article: Catalyst that makes hydrogen gas breaks speed record – http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110811142803.htm
    Warm Regards
    R.M.

  • Burt

    And I have actually deduced all about the word “lavolale”. Good luck now.
    Best Regards
    Burt

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Burt:
    Thank you for your precious support, anyway the questions of Arja Skaptsson are useful…he,he,he…let it go! Plus: I have learnt a piece of the wonderful Swedish language.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Burt

    (Mr Rossi, “Arja Skäptsson” means angry sceptic, its someone making fun of us all. Handle like spam I suggest.
    Warm Regards
    Burt)

  • Arja Skäptsson

    Dear Mr Rossi!
    I totally understand!
    well im really happy now anyway!
    Thanks again! See u in us!

    Best regards/ Ciao! Arja

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Arja Skaptsson:
    We must distinguish between tests and visits. Are two different and well distinguished things. The tests for the validation of the plants are reserved to the operators. The visits will be accepted during the normal work of the plant, after all the tests will have certified its safety.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Arja Skäptsson

    Dear mr Rossi.
    Thats sad to hear. But what i understand
    i can “only” see the demonstration or what?
    Well thats sure good enough for me!
    Im very thankful u letting me as
    an just ordinary worker take part
    of this very very exciting moment.

    Again thank you very much!
    Best regards! Your fried Arja

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Arja Skaptsson,
    No, it is impossible to open the attendance to the tests, for obvious reasons.
    Thank you for your enthusiasm, which I am delighted to take as an encouragement.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Arja Skäptsson

    Thank you so much Mr Rossi. Im really excited!
    We can take the details by e-mail.
    Looking forward to meet u in the US!
    Maybe if i can go as an assistant to
    ekstrom or essen or kullander our high level
    scientist of sweden? it can be possible to see the test to? Or what do u say?
    Thanks again!

    Best Regards! Arja

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear H. David:
    Thank you for your kind words, now I have to focus on the plant, it has to work perfectly.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Arja Skaptsson:
    Please contact us in November for this issue. Please consider that for securiry reasons we will need copy of your identity document, and a short c.v.
    All the Visitors will have to accept that our security will check their I.D. (which have to be the same sent to get the invitation) and our Visit Pass.
    During the tests will be allowed only the presence of the Scientists that have to perform them and of the Scientific journalists that will have been permitted.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Arja Skäptsson

    Dear Mr Rossi!
    If u decide to invite me to
    the 1MW test, when do i get
    the invitation so i can plan for
    my work and flight visa etc?

    Best Regards!
    Arja Skäptsson

  • H. David

    Dear Mr. Rossi,
    We hope we will see an inspiring speech from you of the level of magnitude it deserves during a press conference October.
    We all remember the speech of Neil Armstrong and the speech of Martin Luther King amongst others for the sake of humanity; we should remember your speech too.
    God bless you, we are all with you.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Enrico Billi:
    Very glad to receive again a comment from you (I agree upon it, nevertheless I think I got the core of the theory).
    Lavolale, lavolale!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Enrico Billi

    I think this kind of works show a thing: we may got a good description of the high energy physics and the basic principles of nature, but low energy nuclear physics have been studied in a time where the technology wasn’t evolved like now.
    The technology development allow physicist to test with new powerful tools if we really know what we are talking about.
    Usually after centuries of experiments physicist can understand a natural process and develop a theory, but it doesn’t work on the opposite way. The Nature will work in its own way no matter if we THINK it is impossible.
    I hope the 1MW plant will start a new area of research and development of new nuclear technologies.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Horace Heffner,
    Thank you for your interesting comment.
    I have a precise idea, at this point, that probably will be published after the start up of our 1 MW plant in the USA.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Various theoretical papers have been produced which demonstrate why electron screening should be sufficient to enable D+D fusion. However, theories of this type do not explain the transmutations of heavy lattice elements that have been observed in conjunction with cold fusion, the lack of radioactive product formation from such transmutations, or the ability of protium to be involved in such heavy element transmutations, especially without neutron activation effects. A combination of mechanisms is likely required to explain all the characteristics experimentally observed in low energy nuclear reaction (LENR) experiments.

    Publication, examination, and experimental evaluation of serious theories such as this are important and necessary steps to the understanding of LENR. It is unfortunate that such responses typically do not occur in the general scientific community at this time.

    Horace Heffner

  • eernie1

    Here is an interesting scenario.If you can enhance the decay of nuclear pions in the nickel atoms you create energetic muons.If the muons exit the nucleus with its negative charge equal to the charge of an electron,you create an extra proton and obtain a copper atom.Since the pions also carry the packets of the strong force which hold the protons together in the nucleus you can enhance the energy of the muons that enter the electron configuration of the nickel crystals. This energy can be transfered to the lattice electrons by emf coupling to create thermal phonons providing the heating observed in the nickel powder.If there are also ionized energetic hydrogen atoms present in the vicinity of the crystals,The muons when they reach a critical energy level can couple with the hydrogen nuclei to form an atom and because they have a much bigger mass than an electron,the atom has a much reduced diameter and a much more charge entangled form acting more like a neutron.This increases the probability for the hydrogen atom(larger cross section)to overcome the coulombic barrier and create a nuclear reaction.If the result is more muons created,a modified chain reaction can occur and the process continued.

  • This seems to me, an unqualified, careful scientific layman, to be reasonable, simple theory, citing recent experiments:

    “Recent experiments on fusion of elements on accelerators

    For atom-atom collisions the expression of the probability of penetration through a Coulomb barrier for bare nuclei should be modified, because atomic electrons screen the repulsion effect of nuclear charge.
    Such a modification for the isolated atom collisions has been performed in H.J. Assenbaum and others [6] using static Born-Oppenheimer approximation.

    The experimental results that shed further light on this problem were obtained in relatively recent works C. Rolfs [7] and K. Czerski [8].

    Review of earlier studies on this subject is contained in the work of L. Bogdanova [9].

    In these studies a somewhat unusual phenomenon was observed:
    the sub-barrier fusion cross sections of elements depend strongly on the physical state of the matter in which these processes are taking place.

    Figure 1 (left) shows the experimental data [8], demonstrating the dependence of the astrophysical factor S(E) for the fusion of elements of sub-threshold nuclear reaction on the aggregate state of the matter that contains the target nucleus 7Li.

    The same figure (right) presents similar data [7] for the DD reaction, when the target nucleus was embedded in a zirconium crystal.

    It must be noted that the physical nature of the phenomenon of increasing cross synthesis of elements in the case where this process occurs in the conductor crystal lattice is still not completely clear….”

    7. C. Rolfs,
    “Enhanced Electron Screening in Metals: A Plasma of the Poor Man”,
    Nuclear Physics News, Vol. 16, No. 2, 2006.

    8. A. Huke, K. Czerski, P. Heide, G. Ruprecht, N. Targosz, and W. Zebrowski,
    “Enhancement of deuteron-fusion reactions in metals and experimental implications”,
    PHYSICAL REVIEW C 78, 015803 (2008.

    9. L.N. Bogdanova,
    Proceedings of International Conference on Muon Catalyzed Fusion and Related Topics,
    Dubna, June 18–21, 2007,
    published by JINR, E4, 15-2008-70, p. 285-293.

    Can these papers be shared in full or in part?

    within mutual service, Rich Murray
    rmforall@gmail.com 505-819-7388 rich.murray11 Skype audio, video

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>