by E.N. Tsyganov
(UA9 collaboration) University of Texas Southwestern
Medical Center at Dallas, Texas, USA
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.
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
@Neri B
I think the energy issue has several possible solutions using different kind of technologies and may be join them together. Our living standard need energy, we get it from fossil fuels, marginally by nuclear fission and renewable sources. Apparently are in a crisis, we want to continue the improvements of our lives, but the energy needed for that is going to be more expensive. If the e-Cat will be ready for the market and the market will be ready for this new technology, new opportunities will come for conventional and new technologies, all of them. As JFK pointed out 1959: In the Chinese language, the word “crisis” is composed of two characters, one representing danger and the other, opportunity.
Best Regards,
E.B.
(lavolaLe lavolaLe)
Dear Joseph Fine
I did not say that Göran Crafte theory is correct.
I only told him that his idea of neutron formed by proton+electron at low energy is corroborated by Don Borghi experiment.
The rest of Göran’s theory has some problems.
Concerning Santilli’s Hadronic Mechanics, his theory has problems too.
For instance, as the electron has spin 1/2, and the proton has spin 1/2, then according to Santilli’s theory the neutron would have spin 1, but its spin is actually 1/2.
Santilli’s theory also cannot explain some other properties of the neutron.
Wladimir Guglinski, Göran Crafte:
I don’t know the operating principles (of the E-CAT). So, I will patiently wait and find out. If it is based on existing physics, that should be quite embarassing to conventional Science. Or it may be based on Hadronic Mechanics (Ruggero M. Santilli) which is what I expect to be the case. I agree on the implications of the Don Borghi experiment. That result should be simple enough for established science to duplicate, if anyone wanted to make a serious effort to do so. (And they were careful not to get hurt by a flood of neutrons.)
Copper can be formed not only from Nickel (by proton capture) but from heavier elements such as Zinc or Gallium by electron capture (which then decays to Copper). It possibly could be formed from other elements, but like the mathematician Fermat – such an idea cannot fit in this tiny reply box. Perhaps, Nickel IS the catalyst. So, what is actually happening? I honestly don’t know. Enjoy the future, it’s the only one we have.
Dear Rick Gresham:
In October we will have two extremely important tests on the modules of the 1 MW plant, and at end October we will test the 1 MW plant. In November we will hit the market with our E-Cats. This is the future I am focused on, I have not time for all other considerations.
Warm Regards,
Andrea
Dear A.R
I am repeating with hope that this time my post goes through.
I asked if the reason why you don’t approve a free flow water experiment in the primary cooling cycle is because for the reactor to work it must have more than 100c. In other words the primary must be pressurized if one uses water as the primary coolant.
Therefore you allow free flowing water in the secondary cycle as the experiment you plan for October.
If this is the correct explanation for your reluctance to test the primary cycle at <100c, then it makes perfect sens and would be a good explanation for the critics.
If you can't firmly confirm (or refute) this explanation, please at least give me a wink .
Thank you
Guy
Andrea,
Many people speculate about the future impact of your development. Much of this speculation looks like pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking, some seems plausible. I don’t recall seeing you speak much to the future of the e-cat other than saying that many energy sources will need to work together and you’re making improvements in the e-cat.
Would you care to speculate what the potential power level and temperature of the working fluid might be ten years from now for an e-cat unit with physical dimensions similar to the current 1 MWth unit ?
Thank you.
Dear Bertil Nilsson:
Yes.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Will eCats be on market also in Sweden during 2012?
Best regards
Bertil Nilsson
Dear N. Bonfanti:
Read the next reports of October…By the way: in November our E-Cats will be on the market.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Guy Ben-Zvi:
If your comment is gone in the spam, I can do nothing, we receive about 500 spams per day, I cannot check them, I just take a look to the first page…probably there was a link that our robot reads as spam.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr Rossi
I sent a comment yesterday but it doesn’t appear on the blog. Please check if I’m spammed by yiumr server. Thanks. Guy
Dear Mr Rossi,
in relation to the comment of Neri B regarding a 1:10 power gain to produce hydrogen i would like to ask you a question.
I read in your patent request that you have reached up to 200 power gain in your experiments but for safety reason you limit your gain up to 1:5.
Do you think it is possible to have a “special version” of e-cat with a power gain higher than the “commercial one”? Why don’t you setup a test where for let’s say 20-30 mins you increase power gain to 1:10 1:20 or more to show the potential of your Cat and to shut up the snakes/clown? I read in february of a “private” test performed by Prof Levi where he reached huge power gain but he never show data.
Thanks for your kind attention and warm regards.
N. Bonfanti
Göran Crafte wrote at September 28th, 2011 at 1:14 AM :
“Dear Andrea Rossi,
Here is my theory about what is happening in your energy catalyzer:
* In the reactor, hydrogen becomes so compressed that it is transformed to neutrons when the proton and the electron come together.”
Dear Goran,
according to Quantum Mechanics, it’s impossible a proton and electron to come together so that to transform in a neutron, at low energy. Such process can occur only in condictions of very high pressure and very high temperature, as occurs into the sun.
However your hypothesis is according to the results obtained by Don Borghi. In his experiment neutrons are formed by protons and electrons at low energy.
His experiments shows that Quantm Mechanics is wrong.
Italo A. Albanese wrote at September 28th, 2011 at 3:44 AM :
“Dear Wladimir Guglinski: For what I know, neutrinos from CERN are not produced in LHC but in a different plant called SPS (Super Proton Synchrotron).”
Dear Italo,
neutrinos are produced in any collisions of hadron colliders. Even if the present measurment time was made in the SPS, however the same can be made with the neutrinos produced in the LHC.
As it’s a crucial experiment which can point out a faillure in Einstein’s theory, I suppose the scientists will be interested to compare the speed of neutrinos produced with the LHC working with half of its capacity and neutrinos produced with its working at full capacity.
If a difference of time measured is detected, it will imply that Einstein’s theory is wrong (or at least incomplete, as I think).
Peter Heckert wrote at September 28th, 2011 at 1:52 AM
“Wladimir Guglinski,
couldnt it be, that the GPS distance measurement has errors?”
Dear Peter,
yes, it is possible.
However, as I know that Einstein’s theory is incomplete, and I know that neutrino is not matter (and it is not antimatter too), because actually it is an exotic combination of matter-antimatter, so the most probable is that neutrinos can move faster than light.
Dear Wladimir Guglinski: For what I know, neutrinos from CERN are not produced in LHC but in a different plant called SPS (Super Proton Synchrotron).
Regards,
Italo A.
Wladimir Guglinski,
couldnt it be, that the GPS distance measurement has errors?
Imagine a larger rock-mass or mountain mass between Neutrino starting point and Neutrino end point. Could this bend EM waves (respective light) so much that this explains the measured result?
I think the measurement must be repeated at another location and the results precisely compared, to get clarity.
Best,
Peter
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Here is my theory about what is happening in your energy catalyzer:
* In the reactor, hydrogen becomes so compressed that it is transformed to neutrons when the proton and the electron come together.
* As the neutrons do not have any electric charge they can easily cross the Coulomb barrier and when more and more neutrons enters the nickel it will be more and more dominated by heavy isotopes.
* When the nickel atoms are overloaded with neutrons, some of the neutrons re-transform to a proton and an electron. This creates copper out of the nickel.
* If the creation of heavy nickel is too slow, the process dies. If the creation of heavy nickel is too fast, the reactor will get too warm and melt down.
* Some e-cats burn up the fuel, while others build up fuel. Fuel from the “breeder-cats” can be shared among the ordinary e-cats.
* One has to remove the copper from the nickel powder and if there is too much heavy nickel, one has to blend it with ordinary nickel powder.
* The “catalysts” might possibly rather be neutron absorbers.
Am I right or am I very wrong?
Warm regards,
Göran Crafte
Gent.mo Andrea Rossi
Seguo con emozione quella che ritengo sarà l’invenzione del secolo.
Desidero ringraziarla per questo dono che Ella farà all’intera umanità e non importa se nel contempo avesse le giuste remunerazioni per il Suo splendido lavoro. Ciò che mi preme chiederle, e che spero Ella faccia, è di non vendere il brevetto a una multinazionale del petrolio che sicuramente terrebbe nel cassetto il Suo ritrovato, per meri interessi economici e quindi a discapito dell’umanità che verrebbe ancora una volta danneggiata dal micidiale inquinamento globale causato dai combustibili tradizionali.
In poche parole sarei felice se Ella mantenesse in produzione il Suo dispositivo E-Cat in modo da darne ampia divulgazione. Le rinnovo infine i complimenti per la Sua brillante idea ben capendo quanti e quali sacrifici personali avrà dovuto fare per portarla a compimento. Cordiali saluti.
Francesco Toro Cagliari
To all concerned.I have followed the Rossi adventure since before January.With the information provided by him and the results of tests and demonstrations published in various blog sites,I have generated a scenario for his functioning device.First I have concluded that he has not created fusion or fission in the nickel nuclei,but has succeeded in disrupting the nucleus with the generated hydrogen ions both cations and anions with the aid of thermal energy provided with the heaters in his device.These ions penetrate into the nickel configuration far enough to influence the EM fields inside the nucleus with their own EM fields.No need to enter the nucleus with particles.We know that electron fields easily interact with the proton fields inside the nuclei since one electron must be present in the atom for every proton to establish neutrality of the atom.When the EM fields of the hydrogen ions disrupt the ground states of the nickel nuclei,a decay mechanism is instigated.This decay process involves the kaon particle present in all nuclei(kaons regulate the gluons which hold the protons together in the nucleus).The known decay mechanism of the kaon produces three daughter mesons namely a positive pion,a negative pion and a neutral pion.The positive pion further decays into a positron which then converts a neutron into a proton thereby creating the copper transmutation observed in the residue of the spent nickel.
The neutral pion decays into gamma radiation providing the observed gamma radiation and the negative pion decays into a heavy electron(-muon) which exits the nucleus with energy obtained from the combined decay rearrangement of the nucleus.This muon then interacts with the lattice electrons of the nickel to produce the thermal phonons that heat up the core materials.Almost every decay process produces gamma radiation of some sort and Rossi’s device is no exception.However from experience I have in running a facility that generated the largest amount of gamma radiation in the US from Cobalt-60,in the 1950’s,I can say that although we radiated metals,liquids,organic tissues and chemicals there was a minimum of thermal effects. No melted metals no boiling liquids and no cooked tissue.The most we observed was a small elevation in temperature.We certaintly had much more gamma radiation than Rossi’s device.The reaction that produces his thermal energy must come from particle interaction with the nickel lattice.The produced phonons that sustain the reaction if only a portion of their energy is removed through conduction by a liquid in contact with the core.Too little removal can result in a meltdown of the core,too much can squelch the reaction and require further heating of the device.
Good luck Ing.Rossi in your tests.I am with you all the way.
David Roberson wrote in September 25th, 2011 at 8:21 PM :
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.
Dear David,
nowadays the LHC works with half of its capacity, with neutrinos going faster than light (according to measured time) with a difference of 60 nanoseconds.
Suppose that in 2012 or 2013, when the LHC starts to work with its full capacity, the difference measured becomes 80 nanoseconds.
Well, in this case the controversy will be over, and LHC will prove that neutrinos indeed move faster than light.
So, let’s wait the results of LHC experiments. They will tell us the true.
Dear JHohn mc Manus:
We will have assistance close to where we will have Customers.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Caro Mauro Melis,
]Mi contatti in Nvembre.
Cordiali saluti,
A.R.
Ill.mo Ing. Rossi
Ho seguito sin dai primi esperimenti la Vostra invenzione per la produzione di energia termica e la trovo ……..(penso che la lingua italiana non abbia ancora coniato la parola giusta per definirla). Qual’ora lo riteniate opportuno sarei lieto di collaborare con Voi per la commercializzazione del prodotto.
In attesa di gradita risposta resto a disposizione per un eventuale incontro in luogo e periodo da concordare.
Cordiali Saluti Mauro Melis
Città: ORISTANO
Dear Andrea,
You have said that the nickel cell will be changed at the factory.
As I live in New Zealand this seems hardly practical?.
The cell really needs to in the form of a quick change cartridge similar to an oil filter.
This could then be changed quickly by the local dealer/technician.
Or if the e-cat was suitably designed it culd be changed by a regular person, who would hold a spare cartridge. This would make the Down time only a few minutes.
Best regards in your endeveaurs’s.
John McManus
Mr. Rossi, do You think that this: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080110161823.htm technology could be fit to create electrical energy from E-cat’s steam ?
Dear Enrico Bill, Thanks for the information regarding Einstein. Have taken note. What a great web site. Regards E.A.
Dear Marco Assirelli:
Contact me in November for commercial issues.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Italo,
All will be explained in a proper report.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Ivan:
LENR
Warm Regards,
A.
Mr. Rossi
Now that you understand what’s happening in your e-cat, is Cold Fusion or LENR the most appropriate definition?
Ivan
Dear Andrea Rossi, Enrico Billi
the idea of a hydrogen production application is something i am thinking about since January 14, the first public test where i was amazed by the results of Rossi-Focardi E-Cat. To be really feasible the e-cat should give at least 1:10 el/thermal energy so that in association with a low enthalpy co-generator (e. g. stirling) we could produce hydrogen by med-temp electrolysis in a relatively cheap way (in respect with gasoline).
Here in Tuscany, Italy, we have been working for years on internal combustion engines fueled with hydrogen and liquid ammonia (i would be really glad to send you informations if you are interested) and the major obstacle is the production of fuel with a reasonable price in respect to gasoline. The e-cat COULD solve this problem and i am really really looking forward to the test of October 6th to see if this will be a possible scenario. Good luck and best wishes mr Rossi !
Neri B
Andrea,
You previously said on many occassions that you would be releasing your theory of E-Cat operations at the same time that the 1MW plant went online. Now you appear to be backing off that promise and saying that you will not be publishing the E-Cat theory until you have additional patents granted. Why the change? Many will be very disappointed that you have changed your mind on this point.
Nonetheless, we wish you much success in you upcoming activities.
BC
Dear A.Rossi,
With simple calculus a have tried to imaging the possible power output (Kw) of your device (Single E-Cat). See the table attached. As input you will find DeltaT ( left side column) and Water flow (l/sec – upper row). The match between column and row will be the power (Kw) transferred to water flow from heat exchanger . As you said it is necessary divide this number by heat exchanger efficiency to have E-cat power. Do you mind say us what will be the range you will use for the test ( DeltaT and flow-l/sec)?
0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5
5 2,09 4,19 6,28 8,37 10,47
7 2,93 5,86 8,79 11,72 14,65
10 4,19 8,37 12,56 16,74 20,93
13 5,44 10,88 16,33 21,77 27,21
15 6,28 12,56 18,84 25,12 31,40
17 7,12 14,23 21,35 28,47 35,58
20 8,37 16,74 25,12 33,49 41,86
Many wishes for the future!
Roberto M
Dear Ing. Rossi, the day of the test (october 6) is near, and we are really impatient about the results.
I know that my question is difficult or impossible to reply in this moment, but I wonder if we could see just now, before that test, one semplified schematic drawing of the little plant showing pipes, pumps, reactor and heat exchanger, together the measuring instruments (pressure, flow, temperatures and so on.). Thank you.
Kind regards,
Italo
Dear Mr. A.Rossi
I’m interested to know the evolution of your research and development regarding cold fusion apparatus, my interest is related to my activities on energy production and energy saving, I will be grateful to you, if you could give me some information about the state of the project and what you foresee about timing to have a commercial product for industrial or civil application.
If feasible, we would be very interested in contacting you in order to evaluate the possible sinergy for our mutual benefit
Oh my god, you’re not a researcher, you are an inventor and inventors
keep things as simple as possible, so:
– high pressure + solid membrane (Nb, V, Ta, Pd, PdAg) = atomic (H)
– low pressure (He) atmosfere to help keep it atomic
– (Ni Co Fe …) one side
– (Cu Zn) other side
– warming one junction and cooling the other = seebeck effect
– seeback effect = polarization or electrons current
I would like to have money to test this, but crisis is forcing me and my family
to go to a warmer place, so I have to wait that you can produce also electricity,
may be directly 😉
don’t waste your time to answer this, I know the reactor is secret !!!
Warm Regards
A.P.
Caro Andrea,
vedo con piacere che i tempi pianificati sono stati rispettati, anche a dispetto della rottura con i Greci, e spero che con i test del 6 ottobre finalmente si possa mettere a tacere buona parte dei detrattori.
Dunque l’E-cat per il mio giardino si avvicina… 🙂
Di nuovo in bocca al lupo !!
Fabrizio
@Roberto M,
CE certification is not done by authorized institutions, the vendor himself must do this. The vendor must study the CE criterias that must be fulfilled and in complicated cases needs help from external specialized engineer bureaus. If the vendor is sure that all requirements are fulfilled and he has documents to prove this he can glue on the CE label and print the CE certificate himself.
There is no external official certification procedure for CE.
The vendor must do this in own responsibility.
Of course there will be other external certifications necessary for electrical and chemical and radiation, toxilogical security and so on and if these are fullfilled then CE shouldnt be a big problem.
I must add, I am not a specialist, but I got some schooling about this years ago when CE was introduced.
@Enrico Billi:
(Comment to hydrogen economy)I would consider the possibility of ammonia economy, i.e. to use ammonia NH3 as hydrogen carrier instead of hydrogen itself. Liquid ammonia is much easier to store than liquid or gaseous hydrogen and transporting it in large amounts is routine. NH3 was used in combustion engines already during WW2 and fuel cells would be an additional option nowadays. When burned, ammonia has about 50% of the energy contents of diesel fuel per mass unit, and it can be produced by a Haber-Bosch reactor from hydrogen and nitrogen. Under “E-cat economy”, synthetic ammonia might take the role of gasoline, in case E-cats cannot be used in cars directly. The exhaust products of ammonia burning are water and nitrogen.
r:/p.
Isn’t it better that cars in the future are steam engines? That way you don’t have to lose energy when converting between different kinds of energy.
Good luck with the demonstration, Doctor Rossi. I and many of my friends are looking forwards to confirmation of commercial cold fusion, and I will be happy to contradict many of my sceptical colleagues.
Dear Enrico Billi:
Now I am rooted in present issues,l but your projection has base.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
(lavolale, lavolale!)
Indeed the improvements are impressive because 6 monthes ago we knew about the 10kW module and we was ready to see a 1MW heating system with over 100 e-cat. Now the modules has over 20kW power and only 52 will be used for the system in USA. Have you ever read Jeremy Rifkin’s “Hydrogen Economy”? In future, do you think the surplus of energy made by e-cat could be stored producing hydrogen for cars (like Schwarzneger’s HUMMER) or hydrogen power plants (like in Marghera)?
Andrea Rossi
September 26th, 2011 at 6:28 PM
Dear Sverre Hanch Haslund:
We invited selected scientific journalists.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Mr Rossi – are any of those invited or who will be attending from Nature, New Scientist, or other mainstream science publications? The reason I ask, is that I find it hard to understand how much longer the mainstream press can continue to ignore your discovery. If they’re not careful they will miss out and people will start to ask questions in the end as to how they managed to ignore something with such profound implications for our society.
Craig
Free Energy Truth
Dear Sverre Hanch Haslund:
We invited selected scientific journalists.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Prometeo:
Around the half of October we will give info about the 1 MW start up. On the 7th you should find in the net the report asnd video of the test of October 6th regarding one cluster of the modules of the 1 MW plant.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Carissimo Dottor Rossi
Stò cercando di sensibilizzare la popolazione del comune dove abito riguardo alla sua epocale scoperta.
Potrebbe indicarmi la finestra temporale (magari il giorno) della diretta video della dimosrazione dell’impianto da 1MW? Sarebbe bello organizzare un incontro dove proiettare l’evento e spiegare il potenziale impatto che gli impianti LENR
potrebbero avere nella nostra vita futura: ovvero energia praticamente illimitata a costo irrisorio in spazi relativamente piccoli e senza alcuna emissione nociva (ogni volta che ci penso mi vengono i brividi!! Roba da Corso A.Rossi e Piazza
S.Focardi!!)
GOOD LUCK
Dear Mr. Rossi,
I would like to congratulate you with your achievements and I am looking forward to the upcoming tests.
Have the mainstream press been invited to the tests and if so, do you know if anyone has announced their attendance ?
Kind regards,
Sverre H. Haslund
Dear Italo:
The water flow in the secondary circuit is measured by means of a standard water flowmeter.
Warm Regards,
A.R.