Cold nuclear fusion

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

Direct Download

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

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.

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.

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.

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

3,558 comments to Cold nuclear fusion

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Malcom:
    The primary circuit has its pump and the secondary ciscuit has its pump: between the primary and the secondary circuit there is not communication, they just exchange he4at. The water rate is measured by a standard flowmeter.
    Warm Regards,

  • Malcolm

    Dear Dr Rossi,

    I assume the primary circuit has a pump. Is this internal to the reactor and if so how will the water rate be measured? I would seem to me that for accuracy a calibrated flow meter should be used.

  • Italo

    Dear Ing. Rossi, thank you for your kind reply.
    May I ask what kind of instruments do you use to measure the flow of water in the secondary circuit?
    I suppose that you measure that flow, as it is indispensable to compute the exchanged heat.

    The signal of that flow can be datalogged, together all others signals to make the final reports.
    Kind regards,

  • Roberto M

    Peter Heckert,
    many thanks for your clear and complete information. I have no doubts, you are right, that is the usual path a new product should have do before enter the market. But in this case it will be a “new product” and the Authorized Institutions could take time asking new safety requirements that could involve additional tests. In this sense I asked info to Andrea to know if all the problems concerning CE certification are over. My fears are about some political/economic obstacles should come out from environmental lobby. The lobby is very powerful and its backing or opposition could influence E-Cat certification acceptance (remember Concorde story). Some “economic interest” could use the environment flag to slow E-Cat applications in its favor while oil disasters (economic and environmental) continue like “in the name of God” Crusades done.
    Roberto M

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Italo:
    I confirm
    The energy measurements will be made only on the water heated by the reactor’s primary circuit in the heat exchanger that will heat the water using the steam made by the reactor. The steam will be in a closed loop, and will be condensed by the heat exchanger; one thermometer will be put along the water circuit at the input of the heat exchanger and one thermometer will be put at the exit of the heat exchanger, so that the delta T to calculate the energy will be taken only from the liquid water flow of the secondary circuit. This of course will penalize us, because some energy will be lost in the heat exchange, but the energy we produce is so high that we can accept it. The E-Cat will work also in self sustained mode. We have invited selected scientists from Sweden, USA, France, G.B., Germany, Italy, Greece, Japan, Cina, Russia.
    Every component of the circuit will be inspected and weighted before the test, and also external measures will be taken of the reactors.
    The test will last at least 12 hours. At the end all the components will be again disassembled, weighted, etc.
    Measurements will be taken from a specialist expert to accertain that no radiations modify substantially the background radiations of the room.
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Enrico Billi:
    Our theoretical explication of how the E-Cat works is ready, the problem now is that it is bound to confidential information. As soon as we will have enough patent coverage we will publish it. What happens in my E-Cats now is clear. This knowledge, by the way, has led to improvements to the reactors, as you will see from the tests which will be performed in October.
    As you said, a lot of work has been necessary.
    Warm Regards,
    (lavolale, lavolale!)

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Jeff Smathers:
    Maybe in future, for now it is not possible. I am totally focused on my job.
    Warm Regards,

  • Enrico Billi

    @Eric Ashworth
    The news about the speed of neutrinos you wrote: “Einstein speculated that nothing could travel faster than light”. Forgive me if i tell you that Einstein didn’t “speculated” this statement, the assumption Einstein made is the speed of light is constant for every observer. Rewriting the equation of motion using the new kinematics formula, massive particles have the speed of light as upper limit… the tachions are also solution of the same equations and the speed of light is the lower limit for them (but no one has never seen one!).
    By now, like for the reactions in the e-CAT, we have not enough information for giving any kind of logical statements or physical models to describe with good accuracy the experimental results.
    Surely there is a lot of work to do before trying to develop “theories of everything”. So as i usually say to my friend Andrea Rossi… lavolale lavolale

  • Jeff Smathers

    Mr. Rossi,

    would you consider to collaborate on a test with Dr. Randall Mills of Blacklight Power (Hydrinos) to see if there is a reaction rate varience using a sample of hydrino gas in instead of H2 or Atomic Hydrogen?

    I would assume a reaction rate delta based on the difference in the binding energy.

    Thanks for your sacrifices to enable your work to be made available to the world.

  • Peter Heckert

    Forgot to mention this:
    CE certification is only required for the final product, when it is sold to an end-user.
    A product can (and often does) contain components without CE sign.
    In this case the systemintegrator will test the final product and give the CE certification. He can add protection features, such as shielding and so on to reach the CE requirements.
    Yes, CE sign is necessary. Without it can only be sold to non-private (industry, craftmanship) customers.


  • Peter Heckert

    Roberto M,

    CE certification is not made external.
    The manufacturer does all necessary tests and confirms officially by the CE logo he has done this.
    Usually this is not questioned without reasons such as customers or test instituions complainig.
    In the case, howewer when it is questioned then you must give prove and documentation that all necessary tests where done.


  • Italo

    From the blog

    “On October 6 we will have the opportunity to make a long (more then 12 hours) test of one of the modules of the Rossi 1 MW generator. The module will be opened to us and we will have the opportunity to verify volumes and weights of the internal components.
    Heat measurements will be done condensing all the steam produced in heat exchanger and a secondary circuit where no water will be vaporized.
    This is NOT an official test of the University of Bologna because the contract is not active yet.
    Brian Josephson”

  • Louis

    All the best Mr Rossi.

    I have watched the development of your device with great interest. Now, it seems, we are on the threshold of a new era in energy technology thanks to your hard work.

    Though I have no technical background, I await the final proof of your technology with great interest. I hope you receive the rewards and honours your achievements will deserve.

    This device might provide a solution to energy production on Mars, so facilitating the settlement of that planet in years to come, and hope it will come up for discussion on

    We could probably dispense with the lead protective payer on Mars where the first colonists would have available protective suits in any case.

    Perhaps you should get in contact with Space X (Elon Musk’s company) as I know he thinks Mars settlement could begin within 10-20 years and your machine may be a great facilitator, given there is plenty of water on Mars.

  • David Roberson

    Does the neutrino move faster than light?

    The CERN test does not prove that the neutrino moves faster than light. The speed difference only amounts to 18 meters of error as compared to several hundred miles of distance. The fact that the neutrinos traveled through the earth might suggest a possible error in the true distance. I would be much more impressed if the recently measured speed were several times that of light. When the dust clears, Einstein will be found correct.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Eric Ashworth:
    I am not able to answer to your question, maybe some of our Readers is.
    Warm Regards,

  • Dear A. R. With regards the discussions about nutrinos exceeding the speed of light. Although I believe this has nothing to do with the E-cat technology it is an interesting topic. Einstein speculated that nothing could travel faster than light. My own thoughts on the subject has always been that light is a constant impulse, in other words, a photon does not move from point (a) to point(b) but merely transferes a pressure/charge potential to its close associate i.e. a chain reaction. I could be wrong but if this is the case light could be considered semi dense substance within a structure whereas nutrinos could be considered more dense with regards being a substance within a structure. A steel bar transferes a shock wave faster than a plastic rod. Empty space is, I believe, central to a structure, anything off centre is full of waves constructed of particles of varying densities with regards position and potential. Could this help explain the recent statement made by CERN?.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Enzo:
    We have better systems. Please read carefully what we have already published.
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    1- yes
    2- yes
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Italo:
    Your issues have been properly analyzed in due time.
    Thank you for your attention,
    Warm Regards,

  • Italo

    Dear Ing. Rossi, the safety of your plant during its normal operation is very important, and surely you have already studied and applied all necessary safety systems.
    I apologize if I am talking about obvious things.
    In example:
    In the hydrogen line in input to each reactor there must be a solenoid valve to automatically open or close the hydrogen.
    This valve must be “normally close type”: it is open if electrically excited, and closed without electricity.
    Each reactor must have another solenoid valve to depressurize the reaction chamber to a vent line; this valve must be “normally open type”: it is closed if electrically excited, and open without electricity.

    These two valves, in case of loss of electricity or in case of fire, will put in safety conditions the reactors closing hydrogen to the reactors and venting them, stopping the reactions.

    Fire is very important thing to think. Fire could occur by hydrogen losses or by short-circuit in electric wires.
    Fire could melt the lead shieldings, letting radiations to escape outside during the time that reactions are still alive.

    So I think that a very important sensor inside each container must be a fire sensor.

  • Roberto M

    Dear Mr. A.Rossi
    Many wishes for your future and  for the great work you are accomplishing. My family and I do cheer for you.
    In many replies on JONF you told that in novembre you will start to commercialize the E-Cat.
    I would like to ask (considering EU area):
    1) Is it necessary for E-Cat apply the CE logo ?
    2)If yes, have you already considered how long does it take to have CE certfication ?
    Thanks in advace for your replay
    Best regards
    Roberto M

  • Enzo

    Hi Ing. Rossi,

    I posted this yesterday, but probably it was spammed.
    I think there ist a simple qualitative test to prove if the e-cat works or not. Switch it on and observe the steam production. After a while close the H2 valve. The e-cat should shut off. With an energy-gain of 6:1 it must be possible to see a strong reduction of the steam production. If not, this means that the e-cat doesn’t work.

    O faccio un errore logico?



  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear MT:
    Thank you for your important question, I already answered to these questions, but when it turns into safety repetitions are useful.
    1- The E-Cats we will put in the market will be regulated to work at 1/3 of their power and they wilol work in conditions of stability. This is why they will not work only in self sustained mood, but will maintain a drive. If the stability is lost, automatically the pressure inside the reactor will be zeroed and the E-Cat will be turned off, as we have experienced in thousands of tests But there is an intrinsic safety system: if the temperature goes above the stability limit, an essential component of the charge will melt, and at this point, not being in the status of powder, the reactor cannot work.
    2- As you know, we do not use radioactive materials and we do not produce radioactive wastes, therefore no radiations are left when the E-Cat is turned off. By the way: we have a double shield of lead, and it is impossible that the 2 walls break at the same time. It is absolutely impossible that the E-Cat is opened during the operation, because it is tightly sealed with multiple casing, and each case is very difficult to be opened not intentionally; as for the reactor, it is impossible to be opened, if not by our specialized personnel: the opening of the reactor has been made impossible both for safety and security reasons; in fact, to change the charge, we change the whole reactor, and the recharge will be made in our factories.
    Warm Regards,

  • MT

    Dear A.R.,

    1) What are the potential dangers of using your technology? I assume there are some risks with respect to the device becoming unstable, based on your prior comments about doing certain things (such as using external power from time to time, and running the devices well below their maximum capacity) for the sake of stability. What happens if stability is lost? What are the worst-case-scenario risks?

    2) What sort of radiation can potentially leak out of the device if, for example, certain of the lead casings that house each core reactor unit get broken or are accidentally opened while the device is running?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Joseph Fine:
    The E-Cats and the Fat-Cats will work also in self sustained mode.
    During the demo the heat will be dissipated. The Customer wants not public when in the real production site.
    Warm Regards,

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    LHC, matter, antimatter, photon, neutrino, and Quantum Ring Theory

    In september-2011 a team of European scientists has reportedly clocked a flock of subatomic particles called neutrinos moving at just a shade over the speed of light. According to Albert Einstein’s special theory of relativity, that can’t be, since light, which cruises along at about 186,000 miles per second (299,000 km/sec.), is the only thing that can go that fast.,8599,2094665,00.html#ixzz1YuHT7Dx7

    The question is: is Einstein’s theory wrong ?

    And the answer is: his theory is incomplete. Let’s see why.

    According to QRT, the photon is constituted by a particle and an antiparticle which move in contrary directions with helical trajectory. Because they move in contrary directions, a strong electromagnetic field is created, and it is responsible for the interaction of the photon with matter (the photon interacts with the electric and magnetic fields of matter).

    In the page 203 of QRT is proposed the structure of the neutrino: it is formed by positron-electron moving in helical trajectory. The electron gyrates about the positron, and they both gyrate about the line center of the helical trajectory (like the moon gyrate about the earth, and they both gyrate about the sun; as the sun moves in the space, the moon-earth have a helical trajectory in the space).
    The electron is tied to the positron through the spin-fusion phenomenon, and so the electron loses its spin (the electron becomes a boson). That’s why the neutrino has spin ½.
    In the antineutrino, the positron gyrates about the electron.

    As the electron is very close to the positron, their total electric charge is null. And so the neutrino has not any electromagnetic field. That’s why the neutrino does not interact with the matter, because it has no charge, and it has no field.
    Therefore the neutrino is not matter, in the sense we know what matter is. Matter is any particle with electric charge and electric and magnetic fields. Matter interacts with matter because of its charge and fields.
    So, the neutrino is actually an exotic particle, which does not obey to the rules of matter.

    When Einstein developed his Theory of Relativity, he did not have knowledge on the existence of antimatter. He developed his theory from two points of departure: the properties of light and the properties of matter, and so the postulates of relativity are valid for light and matter.

    The light has its limit of speed in space thanks to the interaction of the photon (and its helical trajectory) with the aether that fills the space. The matter cannot get the speed of light because its mass increases with the growth of the speed, because of the interaction matter-aether. If a particle of matter would get the speed of light, its mass would become infinite.
    But the neutrino does not obey to such rules. As the neutrino is not matter (in the sense we konw the properties of matter), then it is not submitted to the laws of relativity proposed by Einstein.

    The speed of a neutrino depends on the condiction in which it was created. Nowadays the Large Hadron Collider is working with half of its capacity, and the neutrinos produced have their speed slightly above the speed of light. When the LHC will start to work with its full capacity, the neutrinos created in the collisions will have a little increase in their speed.

    There is need a New Physics. It must be developed from a new point of departure: by considering matter, antimatter, and light. The models and fundamental laws of this New Physics are proposed in my book Quantum Ring Theory.

  • Joseph Fine


    1: Will the complementary reactor, (e.g. Demo-CAT or FAT-CAT) be operated with a continuous electric heater input for stability, or will it also be switched on and off?

    2: What will you do with the 1 MW steam output, other than measuring the power produced? Will the steam go through another heat exchanger to make hot water, do mechanical work, or make a loud whoosh! (If the demo will last for several hours, that steam should be put to work. We’ll wait and see. )


  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Insight:
    Thank you for your “insight”,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Simon Knight:
    You will see.
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Bjorn Eriksson:
    You will have soon news about a tremendous work we are going to do in Sweden. You need the Italian heat? I need the Swedish honesty.
    Like water in the desert.
    Warm Regards,

  • björn eriksson

    Mr Rossi!
    Thank you for making life so interesting.
    Here in Sweden we sure could use some Italian heat in our cold winters.
    Cant wait to throw the old pellet-burner out the cellar window.
    Good luck and dont you mysteriously disappear or go sleeping with the fishes!

  • Simon Knight

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    A new type of reactor? That sounds really interesting, but where will you find space for them? As you know Mats Lewan has shown us a movie with the interior of the 1 MW container and the only free space I could see was where the Demo-Cat is normally sitting.

  • insight

    Dear A.R.
    It is very important to keep common sense when performing physics experiments, especially with so a controversial subject. Nowadays physics experiments are a matter of international work groups and so accustomed practices that it is easy to lose common sense.
    No experiment dealing with matter, particles and c should rely on GPS measurements, GPS antennas, post-eartquake geodetic measures and so on. No scientist should accept so many points where to “trust” that other measures were accurate.
    Who can really be sure about that underground path length? Or the time interval? Every previous measurement they say they rely on has to be sifted. Probably none can be accepted with common sense certainty.
    I will be very happy if c proves not to be an absolute limit but according to me this experiment could be bringing no information.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Simon Knight:
    By half October we will explain exactly what follows:
    1- where the 1 MW plant will be tested
    2- all the (not confidential) characteristics of the 1MW plant (the complementary part is more reactors, of a new type that in the meantime we have developed)
    3- possibly, who is the Customer, if the Customer will allow us to communicate his name.
    The measurements will be made, as I said, by world top class scientists.
    I can confirm that we are well in schedule, therefore all will happen in October.
    I also confirm that in November we will start our commercial strategy.
    Warm Regards,

  • The idea that neutrinos would always travel slightly faster than photons would contradict supernova 1987A observations. The idea that some (presumably high energy) neutrinos would do so would plausibly indicate a similar energy-dependent speed for photons as well, but that would contradict many astrophysical data (simultaneity of gamma and radio waves from explosive events). So a measurement error appears to be likely.

    On contrary, Rossi’s device doesn’t seem to contradict anything. Certainly it appears to be hard to explain it theoretically, but that’s another matter. Superconductivity needed 50 years to explain, including having to invent quantum mechanics.

    And I could be wrong in everything I said, of course.


  • Chris Johnson

    I had a though about self sustaining mode that might be able to help you run the E-Cat for more than 20 minutes on/10 minutes off cycles. Perhaps you could interconnect two different E-Cats and have them out of phase such that the heat from one in self sustaining mode could be used to stabilize the other one in non-self sustaining mode. This way, all of the heat would be generated by E-Cats, and no electrical heating would be required. You could have an external heat exchanger and controlled mixing valve so that you could get any temperature water that you wanted in order to control the non-sustaining E-Cat with the heat from the sustaining E-Cat.

    I know you can’t discuss the inner workings of the reactor, but I thought I would offer the suggestion, in case you have not already thought of it.


    Chris Johnson

  • Simon Knight

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Quoting an article by Mats Lewan about the 1 MW plant,

    “According to Rossi, the launch is scheduled as planned in October, and will be controlled by a “very important entity” in the U.S. At the launch a complementary part will be included to attain a power-output rating of one megawatt, as the 52 units will be operated at reduced power levels to ensure stability even at intervals with self-sustained operation.”

    Could you tell us what this “complementary part” is?

    Kind regards, Simon

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Insight:
    My opinion here is that the core problem consists in the error margin of the instrumentation, which is very high respect the quantity of speed increase calculated for the neutrinos. The measurement has been done with a system of instruments each of which has an error margin and summing the error margins we go very close to the excess of speed respect c that has been claimed. The issue can be resolved, I suppose, repeating thousands of times the measure for a year and making statistics. But this is just a humble opinion.
    Warm Regards,

  • insight

    Dear User,
    You are right, your doubts are mine too. I think that this is the worst way to demonstrate that c is not an absolute limit. Neutrinos going underground, it is crazy.
    v=s/t so everyone can imagine what kind of measure errors can be lurking. And this leaking to the media is very bad because it is very risky.
    A crazy thing about media is that they think that neutrinos being faster than light means that they are going backwards in time,
    while at the same time they say this means Einstein was wrong. But if Einstein was wrong all that time-travel stuff is wrong.
    I did not study the details yet so I cannot judge as far as now. However I am not an Einstein’s fan-boy so it is likely that all this hype and enthusiasm can
    relieve all that fear of bothering Einstein that thwarts physicists. I think that the proof of c being not an absolute limit descends from the
    more and more unbelievable theories in cosmology. c and doppler effect could have led to misunderstand all measures in universe.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    As CERN new experiments with neutrinos are suggesting that Einstein can be wrong, now the physicists are comparing the present situation of his theory with the situation of cold fusion in 1989, as we see in the blog TIME SCIENCE:

    The swarm created at CERN could fly out of the accelerator, zip right through the Alps and appear in the Gran Sasso Observatory, located in a tunnel deep beneath Italy’s Apennine Mountains. Most of the neutrinos kept on going, but just a few, by pure chance, were intercepted by one of the observatory’s neutrino detectors. And when the two labs synchronized their watches, it appeared that the particles had made the 450-mi. (724 km) journey 0.0025% faster than a beam of light would have (if light could travel through mountains, that is).

    No one is tearing up the Einsteinian rule book just yet. As physicists well know, astonishing results like this often turn out to be wrong, especially when they haven’t been double-checked. Sometimes that means the group announcing the big news has done shoddy work, like the Utah chemists who announced to great fanfare back in 1989 that they’d achieved controlled nuclear fusion on a tabletop — the cold-fusion kerfuffle — trumping the physicists who’d been struggling for years to do the same thing with billion-dollar machines.,8599,2094665,00.html

    Sometimes I have the will to laugh at the physicists.
    But I would have to cry…

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Michel:
    My focus is on the plants, not on the media.
    Media will follow plants, not vice versa, as well as cars follow the trailer, not vice versa.
    Warm Regards,

  • User

    Dear Insight,

    Speed measurements of neutrino were based on absolute GPS locations of the reference points which have never been independently confirmed to the accuracy required – up to several meters. Yes, the repeatability of those coordinates is very good, but nobody knows if they are not offset by 20 meters relative to each other.


  • Michel

    Dear Dr Rossi,

    – How do you explain that your work is not covered by the medias, as it merite to be ? (Do you think the Upsalla university will make an annoncement after the test? )

    – There is probably no link with your invention, but here is an interresting article about Nickel isotopes ( June 9 2011):



  • Dear Dr. Rossi,

    30 day countdown begins!
    E-Cat may well turn the tide of negative economic news we have all had to endure lately.
    You have put everything you have into this huge task.
    Is there anyway your supporters and well-wishers can now help you besides our prayers for your success?

    Best of Luck!

    Dan Zavela

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Lui:
    I cannot give information regarding the reactor operation,
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Italo,
    October will be a month very full of a lot of informations…you will find everything on this Journal and its blog, but also in many other places.
    Warm Regards,

  • Italo

    Dear Ing Rossi, we all are very impatient to read news by you about your PLANT.
    Yes, I know very well that all details will be revealed at the end of October.
    But could you please anticipate something?
    How are things going?
    Thank you.
    Best regards,

  • Lui

    Mr. Rossi

    regarding the temperature of the reactor core. You have mentioned before that it is at about 1500 C. Is this the stability point at which all versions of the core work or is this the max temperature at which they can work at.


  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Insight and Dear Sytrat:
    I answer to both together, because is the same issue. Of course the theory regarding the speed of neutrinos has nothing to do with my theory and my technology, but it is interesting to note the difference of treatment…In any case, it is soon to make considerations, since time has to be given for proper reactions. By the way, this result from the LHC of CERN is of tremendous importance, if the data regarding the speed of neutrinos will be confirmed
    Warm Regards,

  • insight

    Dear A.R.
    do you think that the recent discovery (yet to be confermed) on neutrinos being possible to go faster than light could boost the interest and media coverage about your E-Cat LENR processes?

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>