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
Dear Goran Crafte:
We enrich Ni 62 and 64 isotopes, but this is not an effect of the operation of the reactor.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
By “heavy nickel” I mean nickel with a higher than normal concentration of the heavy isotopes of nickel. The ones you say is the fuel for the cat. I am very curious about how you produce or extract the heavy isotopes!
Warm regards
Göran Crafte
Dear Sean True:
Yes,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Goran Crafte,
No. I don’t even know what heavy nickel is.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Do you produce heavy nickel inside your e-cats?
Warm regards
Göran Crafte
Dear D R Lunsford:
Unfortunately, no. We know which theory is behind our “effect”, but it is confidential, yet.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Gent. Fausto Iannotta:
1-I moduli sono in parallelo, la T in uscita è 101-115 Celsius
2- solo produzione di calore
3- 180 giorni
4- Per affidabilità e sicurezza
Cordiali saluti,
A.R.
ing. Rossi
Sono un ingegnere entusiasta della sua scoperta. I vantaggi che essa darà all’umanità sono ancora inimmaginabili. Il mondo ne ha bisogno. Spero che lei risolva quanto prima i problemi commerciali per rendere disponibile questa scoperta al benessere dull’intera umanità.
Tecnicamente le chiedo quanto segue:
1) Nella centrale da 1Mw, a che temperatura massima arriva il vapore alla fine della successione dei singoli moduli. Sono certo che avete già valutato se la quantità di vapore è in grado di azionare una turbina per la produzione di energia elettrica. In tal caso qual è l’efficienza dell’intero sistema e i costi orientativi del kw*h elettrico?
2) Se non può rispondere alla domanda per ragioni di riservatezza commerciale mi puo almeno svelare se il modulo sarà utilizzato per la produzione di acqua calda per uso industriale, oppure sarà convertito in energia elettrica?
3) Il sistema ha bisogno di manutenzione? Se si ogni quanto tempo deve essere interrotto?
4) Perchè anzicchè mettere piccoli moduli in serie, non ha prodotto pochi moduli di dimensioni maggiori? E’ solo una questione di efficienza oppure ci sono problemi di scala per la reazione?
Infine una piccola fantasia: ho immaginato un autoveicolo a vapore prodotto da una serie di e-cat attivati solo inizialmente da un pò di carburante. Faremo il pieno con l’acqua!
[…] le più recenti osservazioni di Rossi , i primi prodotti ad arrivare sul mercato saranno impianti da 1 MW (o varianti di […]
Ciao Rossi,
I am a physicist who could not stomach string theory, cosmology, and other sorts of mathematical science fiction. How can we old guys get involved with the theory here? Is there a center for this research?
Best of luck, we real scientists are all with you and Focardi!
-drl
Andrea –
Can you confirm that the first customer is a US company or entity?
Thanks.
— Sean
Dear Ing. Albert Ellul:
Yes, it can be modulated turning off a number of modules proportional to the energy reducton demanded.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Janez:
I wish all the best to my Slovenian Friends.
About the video: I never make videos, ask to videomakers.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
I am sending you greetings from neighboring Slovenia.
When can we expect new videos on website http://www.ecat.com/ ?
Best Regards, Janez
Following your esteemed answers to other readers’ questions, the following question comes to mind:
Can the 1 MW e cat be modulated down to a lower level of power? Say 30%, 50%, 75%? Or would it work in a start/stop manner, that is, 0% and 100%?
Regards,
Albert Ellul
Dear Gediminas:
1- yes
2- several tenths at least
3- no
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dario:
There is no way that a 50 watts RFG can modify the measurements of 3 amperometers put at meters of distance from each other !
It is impossible that 3 amperometers remain stable and measure the same amperage if there is any kind of perturbation strong enough to modify their performance: noises would produce unstable and different values. Ask to any expert of electric measures, possibly a Prof. of Electric Measures of any Engineering University.
BY the way: during the periods when the RFG was turned off no variations have been seen in the amperometers.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Egregio Ing. Rossi,
per prima cosa ci tengo a farle sapere che la sua invenzione mi affascina e le auguro di consolidare il suo progetto con il test di venerdi 28.
Il web strabocca di entusiasmo per l’E-cat, ma non mancano osservazioni critiche, dovute al fatto che questa nuova tecnologia semba troppo perfetta per essere vera.
Un’osservazione di questo tipo e’ quella di una possibile interferenza delle onde generate dal RFG con la misuarazione della corrente poi utilizzata nel calcolo della potenza consumata
(vedi http://www.e-catworld.com/forum/discussion/6/the-mystery-behind-the-radio-frequency-generator ).
La prego di un commento a riguardo fiducioso della precisine ed accuratezza delle misure finora effettuate.
Dario
Dear Andrea Rossi,
You mentioned that from November comercialization of the E-Cats will be started.
If it is not secret do You have plans to sell more than one 1 mw plant in 2011 ?
How many 1 mw plants You going to sell in 2012 ?
If 1 mw plant is to big for our needs, is it possible to buy 1 mw plant and split it into 3 or 4 smaller lets say 250 – 300 kw heating plants by ourselves ?
Wish You success start of 1 mw fat cat !
Dear Jan:
1- november 2011
2- safety systems would be cut off, therefore it is impossible
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hello Andrea,
I believe your e-cat will be the Black Swan event that will help the global economy from imminent disaster. Very excited about the Oct 28th testing.
Thanks,
Ankur
Dear Andrea Rossi,
1. When will the first 1 MW plant that works for 24/7, 365 days a year start up?
2. What would happen if you completely cut off all power to the E-Cat, including the RFG?
Best Regards,
Jan
Dear Marco:
1- factories mainly
2- yes
3- yes
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Justine Kelley:
I do not think so, because the particular kind of the Customer is strictly connected with confidentiality.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear S.O.:
I understandyour suggestion, which is right, but there are ssues to be resolved before small units can hit the market.
It will be matter of one year.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Roberto B.:
Your questions are connected with confidential information.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Caro Ing. Rossi.
Mi piacerebbe conoscere la funzione che esericita la resistenza di riscaldamento. Quale è il range di temperatura che deve fornire al nucleo del reattore?
Penso sia un punto critico visto che su di essa poi si procede nel calcolare COP ed efficienza generale del sistema, nonostante il suo dispositivo non sposti la temperatura altrove ma bensì la generi.
E’ possibile sostituire il calore di tale resistenza con calore generato da un e-cat pilota rendendo il COP tendente all’infinito?
Se il valore di temperatura da raggiungere tramite la resistenza non fosse troppo alto si potrebbero ipotizzare qualche altra interessante applicazione con i sali fusi nel sostituire la funzione della resistenza.
Dear Mr Rossi,
you wrote
“Dear Marco:
The 1 MW plants will be for sale starting November. We did not decide, yet, about the smaller units.”
I suggest you to concenrate your efforts on SMALLER UNITS.
Small unit must be PERFECT. Small unit should be produced up to 1 million in first year and up to 10-100 millions in second year.
Third-party companies will assemble 1 MW plants. And millions fans will adjust small units to new fields: cars, helicopters, chemistry…. Many businesses will appear.
Time will be compressed after goverments realize invention really works.
Israel, Russia, China goverments will start research and reproduce invention in 1 year.
They will go around your patent (maybe take out a patents you should go around!) and they will produce millions units in two – three years.
You have the only way – to take the lead all time.
To take the lead all time you should concentrate on your know-how. Not on engineering issues others can easily do.
Take a look at movie “Pirates of silicon valley” about Steve Jobs invention and Bill Gates snaking…
Small units won in computer field. The same situation seems to be in energy field…
Best regards
S.O.
Dear Mr Rossi,
Do you know if you customer intends to reveal who they are to the public on the 28th?
Dear Ing Rossi
according to your kind answer, you will start to sell the 1 MW plants first, and -maybe- later the smaller units.
I deduce then that your technology is not intended for personal-domestic use by now. Do you plan to install the plants in factories or condominiums/housing complexes? Is any trained personnel needed during normal operation of the plant? Finally: will any company be able to purchase and run a plant to warm/power supply its own factory?
Thanks again and good luck
Best Regards
Marco
Dear Jan:
Our Customer, who will make the test, is still planning for this.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Caro Sergio M.:
Per i moduli domestici ci vuole ancora tempo, per motivi autorizzativi.
Cordiali saluti,
A.R.
Dear Sean Parker:
Thank you for the suggestions,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Claudio:
6:1
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hi Andrea,
you don’t seems a superficial men, probably you switched ON the 1MW plant already during these days (more then one time I suppose). Can you tell us what’s the maximum power reached and the COP obtained ?
Thank you,
Claudio
Dear Andrea Rossi,
The October 6 Fat-Cat demo was fairly successful, but I have heard that the cat sprung leak when the overpressure was about 40 kPa. One leaky cat is not too bad, but 52 would be much worse, so in order for you to have a successful October 28 test I would like to offer you some advice.
I think we can assume that the leakage occurred between the lid and the reactor vessel. The metal sheet is way to thin to make a tight seal, it needs help and fast too. The best way to do this would be to reinforce the rim with flanges, one on the top and one on the bottom of the rim. These flanges could be made like rectangular frames with thickness 5 mm and with 25 mm and a suitable material would be steel or perhaps stainless steel. These frames could be manufactured quickly and accurately using water jet cutting. If the existing holes are drilled according to drawing the holes in the flanges can be water jet cut too. Otherwise the flanges could be attatched to the E-Cat using four welding clamps. The easiest way to hand drill the holes is to pre drill a 4 mm center hole, using a short rod with center hole as a centering tool. After center drilling you finish with an 8,2 mm drill.
To get the flanges tight you need a good sealant, perhaps something like the UV hardening gasket product you can find here at http://www.dymax.com. It can be formed in place and resists temperatures up to 150C.
Good luck, and if this is of no help do not hesitate to tell us about your problems, we may be able to help you!
Helfpul regards, Sean
I would love to see one hooked up to a steam engine/generator, running for a few days?.
How-ever we can only waint & see what will come from this new science which after some 22 years is going commercial.
Best regards John M
Caro ing. Rossi, Seguo dall’inizio e con passione la sua avventura. Le faccio qualche domanda da comune mortale. Ho un appartamento da 100 mq., quanto tempo dovrò aspettare per acquistare e montare un E-Cat al posto della caldaia a gas di casa? Quanto sarà il costo di acquisto? Quanto costerà la ricarica di nichel per anno? Le faccio i miei complimenti e i migliori auguri di massimo riconoscimento suo personale per il bellissimo lavoro. Sergio
Dear Mr. Rossi,
On September 11th, regarding the 1 MW Plant demonstration, you confirmed that you will have a webcam and real-time power meters of your plant to be shown on this site.
Is this still planned for?
Best Regards,
Jan
Dear Francesco Toro:
For now 6 is the possible COP.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Marco:
The 1 MW plants will be for sale starting November. We did not decide, yet, about the smaller units.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
P.S.
Nel mio post in data odierna, al quale Lei ha cortesemente risposto, ho commesso un refuso che vorrei segnalare per chiarezza di chi legge : prima ho parlato di “test del 28 ottobre” , poi ho fatto riferimento ad “una centrale che sarà testata il 28 novembre”. Naturalmente intendevo far riferimento ad una unica data e cioè quella del 28 ottobre.
Di nuovo , cordiali saluti
Guido Chiostri
Dear Ing. Rossi
I have been following your tests since January. I was really impressed by the last demo (October 6th), I think it left almost no room for doubts.
My only great regret is that I work very close to the place where your demonstrations take place, but only invited people are allowed to attend.. of course I understand this well, and on 28th of October I will follow you on the Internet, as usual.. (and maybe have a small look from the street, if possible..)
I just wanted to ask you a couple of questions; sorry if they were already answered.. do you plan to start selling the single e-cat units for domestic/industrial use, or the whole 1MW plant? Can you tell approximately when the units will be available for purchase in Italy?
THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK.
I REALLY WISH YOU THE GREATEST SUCCESS.
Best Regards,
Marco
Carissimo ing. Rossi
La media COP=6 da Ella indicata starebbe ad indicare che se voglio 6 Kw/h, devo spenderne almeno 1, Sbaglio?
Detto ciò, sulla base delle sperimentazioni che Ella sta ancora tenendo pensa che questo rendimento medio sia ulteriormente incrementabile? Se sì di quanto?
Grazie
Dear Joseph Fine, we will have both modes.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear H.Hansson:
Enough.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Peter:
Our Customer is an Entity that wants not absolutely to be disclosed.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Guido Chiostri:
1- yes
2- it’s ready for the market
3- november confirmed
4- no more info before the contract is signed
5- november confirmed
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Cara Fulvia:
1- 12/15 ore
2- No, la distribuzione di energia non è costante. Il rapporto 6:1 deriva dalla media. In certi momenti il rapporto è centinaia di volte, come, appunto, durante il self sustaining, altre è molto più basso.
Cari saluti,
A.R.
caro ing. Rossi,
gli scettici proprio non vogliono riconoscerLe i meriti che ha, Lei comunque continua deciso e questo prima o poi aprirà gli occhi anche a loro.
in merito all’avvio della centrale da 1MW del prossimo 28 ottobre mi permetto di farle ancora 2 domande:
1) quante ore proseguirà il test?
2) considerando il rapporto 6:1 che Lei garantisce ai suoi clienti iniziali, l’impianto proseguirà in autosostentamento per un periodo 5 volte superiore all’alimentazione esterna iniziale?
saluti ed auguri vivissimi per venerdì!
Fulvia