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

3,496 comments to Cold nuclear fusion

  • Peter Heckert

    Dear Koen Vandewalle,

    I dont think it is difficult to measure with the new method.

    They made two important changes to the method:

    1) The output hose is shorter and is thermal isolated.
    So the hose cannot loose thermal energy.
    2) They measure the amount of water that comes out of the hose.

    So we can simply measure the pump water input and the hose water output and can ignore what happens inside the ecat.

    Water inflow mass – water outflow mass = mass of steam.

    The temperatures and pressures inside the e-cat are dont-care, we dont need to know them. (Mr Rossi has to know this, he needs this data to control the reactor, but we dont need this data for energy calculation)

    Finally, at the end of the hose, steam and water are at air pressure and therefore steam will expand its volume and cool down to 100 degrees and water -if its over 100 degrees- will boil and vaporize and cool down until it is at 100 degrees.

    To calculate the energy we need this data:
    1) Water inflow and temperature.
    2) Water outflow and temperature at the end of the hose.

    Thats all. If we assume the system and the hose is well isolated, then it cannot loose (much) energy inbetween. So we can reliably calculate the energy based on this data and ignore anything that happens inside of the e-cat.

    So this should stop all these steam discussions. Anything we need to know is visible at input and output and can be measured reliably and visibly.

    Best,

    Peter

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Don Witcher:
    The lead shielding is inside, not over the insulation.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Don Witcher

    Dear Mr. Rossi

    It would appear from photos that you are currently wrapping the lead shielding over the insulation. I understand why you would do this at this stage of development. I assume that for mass production specially designed and fitted lead jackets could be made and thus achieve a considerable weight saving. 1.) Is this true? If true 2.) Do you have an estimate of how much the custom lead jackets would weigh or an estimate of the weight saving you would achieve.

    Best of Luck on your continuing progress

    Don Witcher

  • Koen Vandewalle

    For all those who ask the question why there was some water coming out of the self-sustaining e-cat, even with high internal temperatures: E-cat is a highly concentrated energy source (which is big part of its value). It needs continuous and good contact with coolant. Here the coolant is water at atmospheric pressure. The core has to be flooded. If not, it melts immediately and the e-cat is lost. Just like a meltdown of other proven technology, but without the hazard. This demo was done with an e-cat that is meant to be integrated in a pressurized system. So the peristaltic pumps were tuned in a way that they kept the e-cat flooded anyway. In my opinion, calculations are pointless. Counting a moving, mixed herd of sheep and birds while birds transform in sheep and vice-versa.
    That is also the reason why earlier demos were so difficult and limited in time, and why Andrea Rossi once had to regulate “something” to keep it stable. For independent long-term testing, with calorimetry etc. a closed-loop is necessary, but that could reveal something about the nature of the e-cat that is to be kept secret for now. But on the other hand, in a test of a couple of hours with an open and not regulated cooling system, it is not easy to eliminate other energy sources. So a 1MW machine, with multiple e-cats, of which you cannot measure the individual input (we cannot know which ones are in self-sustain and which are in normal operation) of electricity and water and the individual output, is the better solution to prove its reality and maintain the secret in presence of highly specialized scientists and spying engineers that are using advanced instruments. And I think there is enough lead in small strips and patches too 😉
    Please Mr. Rossi, modify of delete as you wish, never hard feelings on that, but some of your best supporters may need a fork to catch snakes as these might become more violent.
    Kind regards,
    Koen

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Petri:
    Leonardo Corporation
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Andrea Marcato:
    possible Yes to all the questions,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Insight:
    I will work on that when I will have the time, now I am too focused on the heaters.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Italo:
    The R&D with the University of Bologna did not begin yet.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Cures:
    Write to
    info@leonardocorp1996.com
    Warm regards,

    A.R.

  • Andrea Marcato

    Dear Ing.Rossi,

    What kind of control system are you planning to use in order to monitor/drive the operation of your 1MW plant? PLC or a custom made integrated solution? Have you already thought about it for the “home version” of the e-cat?

    Also, It would be very interesting to integrate your e-cats in smart grids someday.. :)

    Thanks and good luck!

    A.M.

  • Petri

    Which company are going to make those E-Cats? Just a hint for buying stocks :)

    -Pete

  • Cures

    Caro Andrea

    non riesco a spedirti posta all’indirizzo info@leonardo1996.com

    Mi viene respinta con la dicitura -impossibile inviare il messaggio-

    La mia posta sembra funzioni. Hai problemi con la tua?

    Domenico

  • Italo

    Daer ing. Rossi, it seems that University of Bologna hasn’t yet received an E-Cat to be tested, and that the deadline for the beginning of the experiments is now January, 2012.
    Can you please tell us something about?
    Thank you
    Italo

  • Alex

    Soeone has asked Ing. Rossi the difference between the e-Cat and the heat pump.
    The heat pump is a refrigeration cycle, which normally, at best, cannot exceed a coefficient of performance (COP) of 4, meaning an input of 1KW of electrical energy gives you back 4 KW of heat. The problem with the heat pump is that this COP is the best a heat pump can give you.
    On the other hand, the e-CAT as designed by Ing. Rossi has a COP of 6 at least andthis is only the biginning. The e-Cat is currently in the phase comparable to the Wright brothers’ first flight. When it runs in self-supporting mode, with the electrical supply to the heater switched off, the COP is infinite.

  • Peter Heckert

    Andrea Nisto,
    Colza Oil is in use here in germany and in industry. It is only allowed to use industrial oil where the tax for motoroil is applied.
    It is also not allowed to use mineral oil thats for heating purposes.
    The reason for this is the tax system. Building of streets and so on is financed from the mineraloil tax.
    I think this system is obsolete. It is expected, that we use electric cars or hydrogen cars soon. So I think this tax-system must be changed soon anyway.

  • stevehigh

    Dear Ing. Rossi,
    Here’s an idea. When you turn it on you might run the output through the largest steam whistle on the planet. That will be a sound heard the world ’round! Wake us all up for sure. I’ll be listening…..

  • insight

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    is it possible to make a custom E-Cat module that can be suddenly turned off by suddenly stretching mechanically the volume where the powder is? Is possible to modulate in a similar way?
    Furthermore, which is the power output elasticity that a E-Cat module can guarantee? I mean, maybe it is not enough for cars if we think about the way we use the gas pedal, but I think that a special mechanical coupling gear, power modulating capability and turning off capability could make it possible.

  • Lodewijk Langeweg

    Dear Andrea Rossi:

    Please take into consideration that probably for those with long time established interests in the energy fields the only way to stop your project is to create a scene in which the E-Cat suffers an “accident”, which then would be used as an excuse to prohibit its further employment.

    Maybe constant security vigilance is called for to prevent that from occurring (God forbid).

  • Peter Heckert

    “e-cat” is widely in use independent from Mr. Rossis invention.
    If you nowadays search google you will of course find Rossis e-cat in first place.

    e-cat is also an abbreviation for:
    ExxonMobil Citizen Action Team
    http://www.exxonmobilcat.com/
    There are also companies using e-cat as an abbreviation for “electric cat”, so far I know this is used by caterpillar.
    😉

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear John M.:
    No.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Martin Fallon,
    Thank you!
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Franck:
    I already answered to this question many times.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear David Robertson:
    Thank you.
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Richard M:
    We will.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Guru Gurovic,
    I recovered this comment of yours from the spam of the blog, where I fortuitly searched if there was something useful, as I sometime do: probably in your address there is something that goes in our spam. In future, if you do not find your comments within 48 hours, please advise me.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Andrea Nisto:
    Now I have to focus on making good plants working well. Then we will see. Gotta put the maximum of my strength in the due point at the due time.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Nisto

    Dear Ing.Rossi,

    as you probably remember, a few years ago the news of the day in Italy was to feed the car with colza-oil and for a few weeks the topic was discussed in television and on the newspapers. Somebody showed how it was possible to obtain it from cultivations and how it was cheaper (considering the tax-free status) than petrol.

    Of course a prompt campaign of official mass-media against that “alternative” product was immediately activated and the subject was readily forgotten.

    One relevant point against the colza-oil, was said on newspapers,was that a private citizen is not allowed to produce fuels without an official authorization, even if for personal use. Some ‘malicious’could think that the public administration does not want to lose the significant income of energy taxes, but the principle is the energy can’t be managed by private citizens.

    This sample is just to introduce my question: as I do not think that any public administration, expecially the Italian one, will agree to lose its income of gas-power-oil taxes, do you think that you will be subject to a certification, licence, energy-accounting on each e-cat, or whatever control by public administration?

    Or in other words, do you think that e-cat will be classified as a car (registration, driving licence, annual tax) instead of an household appliance like are boilers today?

    Best regards.
    A.N.

  • Guru Gurovic

    Dear Bedřich,

    main advantage is in universability.

    Heat pum is useless in Siberia tundra when outside temperature is in region minus 30°C.

    CoE = 6 is very underestimated guaranteed figure, real CoE is far better 8-10 plus effect selfsustainability 3/4 of duty times, thus around 20-32.

    E-Cat even today have better parameters then heat pump,
    and after some advancement after 1-2 years there will production of electricity and power of merchandise ships etc.

  • Peter Heckert

    @Bedrich Pola

    For a heatpump you always need a thermal reservoir that is above ambient temperature as a thermal energy source. The pump cools down this reservoir and that makes the effect. If you dont have such a reservoir the pump has no better efficiency than a ordinary heater.

    The ecat uses nuclear LENR processes and it can work everywhere even in empty space without air. And it produces virtually unlimited and unexhaustable energy for all foreseeable future.

    Best,

    Peter

  • Bedrich Pola

    Dear Dr. Rossi,

    my question from yesterday did not appear here, so I try to ask again:

    What is the main advantage of E-Cat in comparison to a commonly used heat pump (which also uses electric input power and produces heat which thermal energy is several times higher than the electrical input)?

    Thank you.

  • Peter Heckert

    Mr Rossi,
    I did not want informations about the reactor.
    (Of course I am nosy and would want to know, but I fully understand you cannot give this information 😉 )

    My postin was only about the water and steam flow,temperature and pressure, in order to understand the demonstration.
    However, I believe I got the big picture….
    So far I understand it, also the water flow was increased and so the water is only partially evaporated. Which is not a bad idea, because the water outflow is measured, and we can compare against the inflow, then we can calculate the power much more accurate and reliably than before. I think this was a good idea.

    Peter

  • Richard M.

    Dear Mr. Rossi,

    After studying the results of Mats Lewan test of your E-Cat, I am very impressed with the device, but I am also very curious (insatiably curious) about one particular matter.

    The portion of the test that was in self sustain mode was fascinating, but after only 35 minutes Mats Lewan asked that the test be ended. In my opinion, this was unfortunate, because this is when the test started to get even *more* exciting!

    Near the end of the test, for a brief period of time, the temperature of the steam inside of the device started to rise again. However, we did not see how high it could rise (perhaps all the way back up to 130C) or how long the device would continue in a self sustaining mode of operation.

    To be blunt, this might not seem too interesting of a topic to you. You work on these devices *continually*, and studying the details of how these systems operation is probably is a bit more like “work” than “fun.” But for a science “geek” like me, the fact the line started to rise again brings out the nerd in me, and makes me want to see more!

    Is there any way you could post some test data from one of these modules, in self sustain mode for a longer period of time, showing the temperature rising back up? This is what Mats Lewan’s test *would* have probably showed, if he had not cut the test short.

    After reading the comments of many of your fans on various forums and message boards (the news of this test has spread quite rapidly), I know this is something many of your supporters would love to see! Both because it is *really* phenomenal, and because it would slap down the *pseudo-skeptics* that are pushing their obviously false theory of thermal inertia being the source of the heat during the “self sustain” period.

    If you would please consider granting this request, I would be very grateful!

    Sincerely,
    Richard

  • David Roberson

    Dear Mr. Rossi,

    I wish to express my gratitude to you for your hard work and extreme dedication to a goal that all of us will appreciate. I admire your ability to keep concentrated until the task is completed. You are almost at the finish line, just one last lap.

    It would be appropriate for many who doubted your enthusiasm to come forward now and join the rest of us in acknowledging your wonderful work. I suspect that even they will realize that your dream is actually our collective dream for a better future.

    Congratulations again on the 1 Megawatt power unit. The video produced by Mats Lewan demonstrates that the device truly exists and is not just a figment of your imagination. The self sustaining demonstration is particularly impressive.

    Does anyone doubt that LENR is a real effect now? I can hardly wait for future advancements that will surely follow now that you have blazed the trail. A lot of research dollars should be directed in this direction unless the gate keepers are asleep at the switch.

    Thank you again Mr. Rossi. May God bless you and keep you safe.

    D.R.

  • Franck

    Mr Andrea Rossi,

    I’m following your saga since May as an open minded skeptik
    I have a question :

    When the U.S. patent problem will be fixed, will-you release the full recipe of your e-cat?

    Regards

  • Martin Fallon

    Dear Mr Rossi, When can i purchase one off your E-cats for my house, dont want to jump the gun so to speak but i am realy excited about your invention, Hat off to you

  • John M

    Dear Mr Rossi

    Greg wrote… “I don’t know if it’s important or not, but did you know that the domain http://www.e-cat.com is being redirected to the Exxon Mobil homepage? ”

    Have Exxon bought e-cat rights ?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Rick Gresham:
    Will be possible upgrading, coupling the el. power gen.
    Warmest Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Insight:
    1- can modulate
    2- yes, it is controllable, but not with the elasticity requested from many vehicles, like cars. Can be used for ships, trains.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Greg:
    I did not know, but I am delighted of this, and this is an evidence of what I always said: all the energy sources will be integrated in the interest of Mankind.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Peter Heckert:
    1- we never stopped the water pump during the operation of the E-Cat
    2- I cannot explain how the E-Cat is made inside.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Peter Heckert

    Mr. Rossi,
    Correction for my previous posting:
    oops, I was in error they stopped the pump when the test was finished and they opened the input valve.
    I was in error about this, sorry.

  • Peter Heckert

    Dear Mr. Rossi,

    See the E-cat run in the self sustaining mode

    http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3264362.ece

    I made a little analysis:

    Lets begin at the end of the video, because this is easier to understand:
    At the end, when the water input valve is opened, then a mixture out of water and steam comes out with remarkable pressure.
    Now, how can we have pressure when the steam outlet is still open?
    Answer: The steam outlet is not open. Probably there is a pressure reduction valve in the oulet. This opens at 1-2 bar pressure and it closes when the pressure sinks.
    This means inside the ecat is always 1-2 bar overpressure.

    Saturated steam temperatures versus pressure tabulated:
    (This is the over-pressure that is more than air pressure)
    1 bar -> 120.2°
    1.5 bar -> 127.4°
    2.0 bar -> 133.5°
    2.5 bar -> 138.9°

    Now this explains why water and steam come out. Water comes out and it has a temperature of 120-130°.
    Wenn it flows out it will therefore vaporize partially and produce some steam.

    This also explains the water output flow at the steam hose:
    The steam inside of the ecat has a pressure between 1 and 2 bar and a temperature between 120 and 133 centigrade.
    When the steam passes the pressure reduction valve then it will expand to air (over) pressure of 0 bar. To do this, work must be done and the steam will cool down to 100° and partially condensate. This explains the output water flow at the steam outlet.

    So far my qualitative steam & temperature & pressure analysis.
    Do you think, this is correct?

    There is one thing that irritated me. When they show the e-cat in self-sustained mode, then I cannot hear the pump anymore. Did they stop the pump and why?

    Best,

    Peter

  • Greg

    Dear Dr. Rossi,

    It’s very exciting to see the pictures and the video of your 1 MW power plant! Congratulations! Fantastic!

    May I have a question?

    I don’t know if it’s important or not, but did you know that the domain http://www.e-cat.com is being redirected to the Exxon Mobil homepage?

    Thanks.

    Greg

  • insight

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    you said that you are working on a device that can be used in houses.I would like to know if it is possible with the E-Cat device or this new toy to turn off suddenly as needed or modulate the power output.
    Someone is interested in steam vehicles. But is it reasonable? How to control the power?
    Best regards

  • Rick Gresham

    Dear Mr. Rossi,

    I am excited to see news of the new, more powerful E-Cat and the 1 MW system. I’m curious whether early generation E-Cats that are designed primarily for producing hot water for heating can be upgraded in the future when you’re ready to produce electricity or will producing electricity likely require replacing the earlier generation e-cat?

    Thank you.

    Rick Gresham

  • AB

    Thank you Andrea Rossi and Mats Lewan for these two videos. It is good to see that the 1 MW plant is on track. Are there any news about when the testing at the University of Bologna and the University of Upsala will start?

  • Dear all,
    Here’s our latest news on the E-cat (pics and videos):

    Here’s Rossi’s one megawatt plant
    Here it is: the plant that according to inventor Andrea Rossi will produce one megawatt of thermal energy via an unknown reaction in his ‘energy catalyzer’. The plant is now being shipped to the United States.

    See the E-cat run in self-sustained mode
    Just over half an hour without external energy input. Ny Teknik assisted recently in a test where the ‘E-cat’ invented by Andrea Rossi was run in self-sustained mode.

    /Mats Lewan

  • Per Kylemark

    First of all thanks for allowing pictures being taken of your 1 MW plant as well as allowing new demonstrations by Mats Lewan and NyTeknik! Allowing us to be a part of the development process in the way you have done is highly appreciated and somewhat unique! I have a couple of questions:

    (1) Mats Lewan tested the self-sustained mode during 30 minutes which he himself says he regrets not doing a longer time (being exhausted from 18h testing they ended it prematuraly). What is the longest time you have tested a module in sulf-sustained mode and how is the relationship between input electrical power and output heat power related?

    (2) I presume that your customer ordered the 1 MW with a specification of 1/6 output/input power relationship. Since this relationship has been altered in self-sustained mode have you received any feedback from your customer? They now have a superior product compared with before?

    (3) With this new knowledge (i.e. you using 8 kW units). Is there a potential to scale these modules to even higher levels of output?

    (4) Will the tests in October still use water only testing i.e. avoid the steam phase (which have been one of the big issues from critiques)?

    (5) Have you had thoughts about adding a cool logo at the container walls? :)

    Thanks again and wishing you good luck on your continued adventures!

    /Per

  • Bill Nichols

    Mr Andrea Rossi

    Noted your comments to Frank Acland on the progress for a small home unit. Per our previous conversations, this thermodynamically is a reasonable and effective use the power of water.

    Please keep in mind, as we’ve discussed, how this could be applied in transportation vehicles using steam power. Recall some of the ideas I’ve provided, as what you’ve described on a small home system suggests some overlap to these ideas.

    I’m an atmospheric scientist, not an engineer, plus not knowing more about your device specifics, can speak only phenomenologically. Yet, the scale of the basic energy budget you describe over and over again (this case — 9 kW) with potential scalability, should be favorable for applications in steam vehicles since your device has apparently overcome the biggest hurdle, the power needed to heat water to steam.

    I do know as a program manager in developing systems, its all about efficiency. This is why from the positive tone in your comments from your tests, this type of application in vehicles would appear increasingly worthwhile to pursue when you get to it.

    As we’ve agreed to, will contact you in November to schedule a visit and discuss ideas of applying the E-Cat toward applications in steam powered vehicles.

    Also, please keep in mind all the properties of water, as they offer both potential enhancements and also hurdles. Any hurdles though, appear manageable (one example: freezing in low temperatures).

    Good Luck and please take care during these challenging times.

    Kind Regards,

    Bill Nichols

  • RockEye

    Dear Mr. Rossi

    I was shocked when i saw this “It worked perfectly, stable, with a power of 9 kW, also in self sustained mode”. Does that mean that using E-Cat solely for home heating would be super cheap?

    You’re the best, Hooray for Dr. Rossi, a scientist who’s gonna change the world.
    Can’t we travel through time to the last week in october…!!?? :))) I can’t wait.

    Regards

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>