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

3,496 comments to Cold nuclear fusion

  • Rick Gresham

    Dear Andrea,

    In the continuing evolution of the E-Cat, have you been able to determine what will likely be the upper temperature limit of the coolant leaving the E-Cat – that is, the temperature that can be transferred to another fluid or gas in a heat exchanger?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Simone Grazioli:
    Thank you, it will be.
    Warm regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Erik Ander:
    I am in very good health, even if I work 16 hours per day with my E-Cats. As I said, we have not neutrons and high energy gamma emissions, and we know now perfectly why. I will give the theory in November.
    Thank you for your attention,
    Warm regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Daniel Jonsson:
    Your insight is correct.
    Thank you for your attention,
    Warm regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Italo A. Albanese:
    OK, we will do also this.
    Warm Regards,

  • Italo A. Albanese

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    Great to read it! Idiot-proof is always the right thing to do. I would like to suggest an idiot-proof steam quality measurement system, a water trap.
    A small and well insulated vase should be connected to the steam output.
    A float valve in the vase will open when water level builds up in it and let the water freely drip out to a bigger, graduated vase. The valve will close when the water ends, not to let the steam escape from the water drip. In the upper part of the water trap there will be the output hose connection, to let the water-free steam out. I’ll try to draw a sketch of it.

    Best regards,
    Italo A.

  • @David Roberson:

    I’m not a climate scientist, but I think that if there were an accurate answer to your question, then there would also be an accurate prediction to how much the earth will heat up due to the (approximately known) amounts of fossil fuels we have burned, and judging from the ongoing debate, such an answer seems to be lacking. The difficulty is to predict the dwell time of CO2 in the atmosphere, for example, part of it dissolves in oceans.

    In other words, it’s easier (although still not trivial) to predict global temperature increase due to direct heat input (i.e. E-cat) than due to released CO2.

    In any case, the theoretical conclusion that is most relevant to this forum is, I think, that energy consumption could grow at least by a factor of 10 without problems, but going beyond factor 50-100 might be too much. (I emphasise that there could well be OTHER, possibly far bigger adverse ecological and other effects due to increased energy consumption, my small calculation was only about the possible effect on global temperature, nothing more.)

    thanks, /p.

  • Daniel Jonsson

    Dear Mr. Rossi

    Before powering up an energy-catalyzer do you know the exact power it will produce? or is it as I would suspect a certain variation in the power output between separate runs of an single energy-catalyzer.

    I did some calculations base on the Uncertainty principle partially covered in your article “A detailed Qualitative Approach to the Cold Fusion Nuclear Reactions of H/Ni”, my preliminary results is that the power output would have a variation of approx 3%. Is this something you have noticed in your years of development?

    I wish you good luck in the future,do not give up, lot of great minds have been ridiculed in history, but the truth will always prevail.

    D. Jonsson

  • Erik Ander

    Best Mr Rossi!
    Im sorry but i really have to draw your attention to this!
    Because im worried your health may be in danger!!
    I have calculated that when the Ni-He fusion occurs in the e-cat
    you must have much moore than 2cm lead-shilding, i think its around
    50cm (no gurantee). so please dont run the e-cat whitout this you can get very sick
    and even worse. so pleae be careful.

    Best regards! Erik

  • insight

    Dear Wladimir Guglinski,
    I am not necessarily a fan of the nowadays accepted physics theories, but I can say you are wrong because particles are not like balls and forces we are talking about are not mechanical forces. They are called forces but at atomic level they just are terms of Hamiltonians, operators in the quantum vector space.
    I can understand your wonder at the mysteries of matter. Believe me, it was the same the 20th century scientists felt when addressing the amazing physics phenomena occurring with atoms and nuclei, and Physics students still today feel marvel at them. It’s why Physics is so a beautiful subject.
    At present time you have to accept that there are many amazing (and challenging) mysteries in nature and that the found explanations are often counterintuitive or unsatisfactory. So talk about interactions, not forces: those interactions are not like you imagine them, they act just as described by quantum mechanics.

  • Simone Grazioli

    Buon giorno Dr. Rossi, seguo fin dall’inizio i news sulla Sua fantastica innovazione. Vorrei che Lei sappia, che mi auguro ogni giorno che sia ben presto sul mercato, alla portata di tutti

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Bill Nochols:
    A report will be published regarding the test of our first industrial plant. Of course the instrumantation is fit for the purpose. The measure of the quality of the steam will be made by an “idiot proof system”, not because it is necessary ( what made in all our former tests was technically correct) but to avoid chatters from idiots. There are few, in the great People waiting for this event, but still there are, and I will answer, as usually, with facts to the chatters of snakes and clowns. By the way: the Customer will pay after the test, not before, just to answer to one of the clowns.
    Warm regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Lex:
    Thank you very much, we are working for People like you.
    Warm Regards,

  • Lex Steigenga

    Dear Mr. Rossi,
    It is a bit dramatic to say so, but I personally think your E-Cat will bring new hope for my
    kids and future generations; end of the disaster scenarios like climat change, energy crisis, peak-oil, wars-on-oil, foodprice crisis etc.
    Wouldn’t it be a good idea to set a date in October at which you will ‘tell and proof to the world’ the E-Cat is operational and ready for the next step to mass production. That would create the possibility for mainstream media to plan (live) coverage of that moment. I can
    assure you there are plenty of people willing to get the media interested for that event.


  • Bill Nichols

    Mr Rossi:

    Since your within a couple of months of the demonstration, some questions from my life working R&D programs…then implementing to operations.

    1.) Are there any product specifications required by the customer that are causing any problems or challenges for the demonstration?

    2.) Any environmental and performance operational issues that you haven’t mentioned for the E-Cat to work? One Example: Computers have temperature ranges as most appliances. Per your description of the phenomena (i.e. Ideal Gas Law) shouldn’t this suggest certain pressure and/or density operational profiles to maximize performance (at least internally in the chamber to work) and is it near the standard atmosphere? Are you comfortable with the sensors to measure and ensure the reaction is effectively and efficiently managed? Finally…is the chamber insulated enough that any reasonable external changes (i.e. fire/cold) would not impact the reaction?

    3.) You mentioned what happened with the loss of hydrogen to stop the reaction (supports part of question 2 above)…how large is the “sweet spot” to maximize performance now? Isn’t there potential this could change in the future with future R&D and discoveries?

    From past experience, offer this is a small beginning on the road to discovery if your device comes to fruition.

    Thanks for the opportunity to ask these questions.

    Kind Regards,

    Bill Nichols

  • David Roberson

    @Pekka Janhunen

    I appreciate your response to my question and it helps my understanding of the net process. The figure of 50 to 1 increase in heating to reach parity at today’s level might be close to what I am seeking (although it seems high for this case). The problem that still confounds me is that the current effect is a result of the integration of carbon dioxide emissions for the entire historical period.

    Is it possible to draw a direct conclusion relating to this particular point in time? I would truly appreciate a ratio based upon one joule of energy generated by coal burning instead of the much more difficult to translate total figures you mentioned. I wish to compare apples to apples.

    Could we try again to simplify the concept for my humble understanding? Assume we burn a certain amount of coal resulting in one joule of energy released. At the same time carbon dioxide escapes into the air and is a calculatable number of grams of gas. Now this gas allows for the continual trapping of solar heat for as long as it remains within the atmosphere. So, how many net joules of heat are thus trapped before the gas has become dissipated? I would assume that we can add the one initial joule to the total trapped joules and divide by one joule to achieve a fixed ratio. That is my goal. Do the climate change models not show an effect as simple as this?

    I have noted other responses, such as the one from @Alex (thanks) that suggest that it is unimportant. He may well be correct in his observations, but the simple calculation that I have proposed might allow us to have a much clearer understanding and E-CAT comparison. @Pekka or others, please expand your inputs, if possible, to the one joule case. Thank you for your patience.

    I wish to thank @John Dlouhy for his excellent post. The E-CAT technology might become an important tool for the mitigation of damage to the environment as he suggests.

  • raul heining

    “However, a postulate cannot prevent two neutrons to form a dineutron by the action of the strong force”

    Yes, but a model with a postulat comes from experiment. Call it isospin or whatever you want, if it makes predictions than it works.

  • Paolo Accomazzi

    Dear Enrico Billi,

    citing the article about binuclear atoms you write “From these publications seems new experiments below the KeV energy should be done in order to improve our understanding of subbarrier proton radiative capture”

    I believe that the “binuclear atom” idea is a valid key to solve cold fusion puzzle.

    “binuclear atom” model was born to explain why fusion rates in nuclear impacts at low energies did not decay to zero when energy was under the “Coulomb barrier” value.

    When collisions are in a “chemical range” (eV) instead of “physical range” (MeV) the stabilizing effect of electrons may give birth to metastable states where nuclei are much nearer than at ordinary chemical bond lenghts. This leads to the prediction of a “close bound state between proton and heavy atom”. And, of course, this opens the possibility of a “chemical way” to nuclear phenomena, which is precisely the topic we are discussing here.

    These two papers explain the birth of this model:

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Wladimir: I found this message of yours in the spam’s first page of this blog, and of course I saved and approved it. Please try to find why it is gone to spam: usually your messages arrive well, so there is probably some difference in the address.
    In any case , if in future you do not find your comment published within 24 hours, please advise me, because if they go in the bulk of the spam I can’t recover them: I just take a look to the first page of spam.
    Warm regards,

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    insight wrote:
    “So the reason why electrons do not fall down onto the nucleus is that a similar physical condition isn’t a solution for the Schrödinger equation, or its derivatives”

    Dear Mr. insight,
    only a force can avoid the electron do not fall down into the nuclei.
    It must be the force capable to oppose the force of attraction between the nucleus and the electron.

    An equation cannot produce a force.

    Your suggestion remembers me the isospin proposed by Heisenberg. As two neutrons have not repulsion, but they have attraction by the strong force, then two neutrons would have to form a dineutron.
    So that to explain why there is no dineutrons in nature, Heisenberg proposed the isospin postulate.

    However, a postulate cannot prevent two neutrons to form a dineutron by the action of the strong force.
    Only another force can do it.
    Only a force can oppose to another force.
    Only a REPULSION force can oppose to an ATTRACTION force, and to separate two neutrons, so that to avoid them to form a dineutron.

    Several solutions in Modern Physics actually are not fundamental solutions. They are only bandages.

    We cannot explain cold fusion occurrence with a theory developed by the use of bandages.

  • John Dlouhy

    To Roberson, Janhunen, Alex, Dr. Rossi

    The historical trend in per capita energy consumption has been strongly exponential. The introduction of an energy technology that offers a magnitude lower cost and magnitudes larger abundance would reasonably promote that trend. Radiative forcing, while not an immediate concern, could become a longer term issue, especially in light of continued population growth.

    The use of energy alternatives that convert solar radiation to do useful work should be a part of the future energy mix to help obviate these concerns. Dr. Rossi has reiterated the necessity for his discovery to work alongside with other technologies. Here we have a concrete reason why.

    To offset anthropogenic CO2, the E-Cat presents a tantalizing possibility. A technology exists, already demonstrated to scale by the University of Calgary (, to scrub CO2 directly from the atmosphere at an energy cost of less than 100 kWhr/tonne. That’s less than 1 dollar per tonne at E-Cat rates. Catalytically combined with hydrogen from electrolysis, the captured CO2 could be used to form polymers and made into useful plastics, permanently fixing the carbon taken from the atmosphere.

  • Burt

    Dear all,
    I don’t think we should expect Mr Rossi to say that the e-cat will replace everything else when it comes to production of energy. Mr Rossi cannot be an expert on all kinds of energy production and consumption. What would you say yourselves if you were in Mr Rossis position? “Yes the e-cat will replace everything”? No, the expectations are big enough anyway, right? I think that the e-cat could replace very, very much, but since I am not a super expert on other new ideas, or wind, or solar or even oil, I cannot be certain about anything. Maybe nobody can. But I realize that this must be a big time revolution, of course.

  • John L Miller-George

    Thank you!

    I’d like to bring my brother who is a tiny bit of a skeptic, but not unreasonably so, considering this revolutionary technology. However he is very interested in the possibilities if he can see that it works.

    I am very proud of him because of the wonderful engineering he has done in industrial process design and I know he has many contacts in large industrial plants such as oil refineries, heavy equipment, and power generation. He has also ‘packaged in shipping containers’ generator, heating and cooling.

    Since you ‘get fun’ in your work like my brother and myself, you will have the pleasure of showing ‘two kids’ around your ‘candy store’!

    Thanks so much,


  • insight

    Dear Wladimir Guglinski,
    I do not agree with you that “There is not in Theoretical Physics a satisfactory explanation for the fact that electrons do not fall down into the nuclei.”.
    Maybe you believe that electrons and protons are like “balls”. No, they are not: they have to be considered “quantum states”, that is, probability distribution of matter, considered according position or speed, not both at the same time because there is also the “uncertainty principle”. Also consider the wave-particle dualism, the same puzzle Schrödinger had to address before writing his well-known equation.
    So the reason why electrons do not fall down onto the nucleus is that a similar physical condition isn’t a solution for the Schrödinger equation, or its derivatives. You can imagine that, the more the electron gets close to the nucleus, the less it behaves and appears like a “ball”.
    In the nucleus protons are subjected to further forces, still they do not collapse but stay together (someone says the nucleus is like a “sea of quarks” instead).
    Note: I am not saying that the above mentioned principles cannot be corrected or changed. I am just answering your statement.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear John L. Miller-George:
    We will try to invite all the possible persons. among those who sustained our efforts. Just contact me at the beginning of November, while the test of the start up will be reserved to the professionals involved.
    Warm regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Georgehants:
    We are working to make a very good test in the USA at end October, in the site chosen by our Customer. You bet.
    Warm Regards,

  • Alex

    David Roberson, all the energy produced by mankind ends up as a rise in temperature. however, the impact on the planet is insignificant. no amount of energy generation would have any mea urable impact on theplanet’s hydro,cryo or atmosphere. i had worked it out some months ago.
    as for greenhouse effects, a good scientific read is found at, the world’s most visited sciee website.

  • Alvaro Rodriguez

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    you have written in many comments that all forms of energy-production will be necessary.
    Could you please explain why you think that way?
    or,in other words, what could stop LENR reactions from substituting all the other forms of energy?

    Thank you.

  • georgehants

    Dear Mr Rossi I sent a personal e-mail to you asking you to confirm to me personally as one of your strongest supporters that your E-CAT works as you say.
    I believe you to be a very honest man who would not assure me that something works if it does not.
    With your personal assurance I will be able to wait for October a happy man.
    please reply to my e-mail if at all.

    Best wishes George.

  • georgehants

    Dear Mr Rossi,
    Time is going slowly to October, please give a good news update on progress to keep everybody happy.
    Best wishes.

  • John L Miller-George

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    I’d like to ‘second the motion’ of Jonathan’s request ( August 23rd, 2011 at 7:59 PM ) concerning the October delivery of the first 1MW E-Cat unit, which is to have some members of the ‘interested public’ present, perhaps by a lottery among interested folks as observors.

    For many of us this would be similar to having a chance to watch the first flight of the Wright brother’s airplane! I, for one, would love to have a chance to be present at an event that could be as important to human history as the discovery of flight or the first taming of fire!

    Please give this some careful consideration, sir, you are making history! America and the world will be talking about this event for centuries.

    Warm Regards!


  • @David Roberson:

    Current world energy consumption is about 14 TW. The present estimated anthropogenic radiative forcing is about 1.5 W/m2, or 760 TW. Thus, if the total energy consumption would grow by a factor of 50, it would have a similar effect on the global mean temperature as the man-made part of the greenhouse effect has today.

    Of course, the uncertainties in the radiative forcing numbers are rather large, and it also plays a role where and how the energy is released (for example, an artificial hot spot under dry atmosphere would radiate efficiently into space, while releasing heat as water vapour would also bring the greenhouse effect due to H2O, until the H2O precipitates). In any case, direct global warming due to the present level of energy usage is negligible, and there seems to be at least an order of magnitude room for increase, as far as the global temperature is concerned.


  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Erik Ander:
    I can’t give this info.
    I can say that the lead is ALSO around the external body of the Cat.
    Warm regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Jonathan:
    I am not in charge for this issue; I think that the test will go on Youtube.
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Enrico Billi:
    Thanks, interesting,
    Warm Regards,
    (studiale, studiale!)

  • David Roberson

    E-CAT Net Heat vs. Coal

    It is apparent that the E-CAT device will be vastly less expensive than coal when generating heat energy. This energy can then be used to produce electricity for the power grids.

    The question that keeps raising its head is the net heating of the Earth’s environment by these sources of energy. The E-CAT is relatively straight forward to calculate. It releases approximately one joule of heat into the environment for each joule of heat generated. I am just thinking of the final conversion at the moment, not counting the cost of mining or processing the component parts.

    Burning of coal for energy is different. Carbon dioxide is generated during combustion and released into the air. The released green house gas will then enable more of the suns energy to be trapped within the atmosphere and result in additional heating. This additional heat is trapped over and over during the entire time that the gas remains within the atmosphere. It is not clear how long this process continues until the carbon dioxide gas is reabsorbed by natural processes. I would assume that it behaves as a multiplier effect upon the original heating joules. If this is true, one original joule of coal generated heat is equivalent to X number of joules of Earth heating. Has anyone seen calculations that define this X factor? I am sure that climate scientists among readers of this blog would know how to determine this factor and I hope that someone will enlighten me. All I have seen thus far is reference to the billions of tons of carbon dioxide released and its serious environmental effects.

    I ask this question in an attempt to understand the true environmental improvement expected when E-CAT systems begin to replace current coal fired stations. My suspicion is that one day the heat released by these devices will itself become a burden upon the world. It would be wise to understand the extent of this influence as soon as practical.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear Dr. E.N. Tsyganov
    In spite of atomic electrons may screen the repulsion effect of nuclear charge, it’s hard to believe that such phenomenon can be able to explain the Coulombic penetration, because:
    1- When the proton is on the verge of entering the nucleus, it has a big Coulombic repulsion with the protons of that nucleus, and such repulsion increases with the square of the distance decrease.
    2- The electrons that cause the screen effect are very far from the nucleus: about 10^-11m (Bohr’s radius).
    So, it’s hard to believe that one proton very near to the nucleus (about 10^-15m) can be helped by the screen effect.

    Besides, if a proton (with positive charge) is able to enter into a nucleus, then an electron (with negative) charge would have chance to do it easier.

    There is not in Theoretical Physics a satisfactory explanation for the fact that electrons do not fall down into the nuclei.

    It’s hard to believe that any cold fusion theory, based on the prevailing principles of current Theoretical Physics, can be able to explain cold fusion occurrence.

    A satisfactory theory capable to explain cold fusion must be able to explain why the electrons do not fall down into the nuclei.

  • Enrico Billi

    These experimental results tell us some kind of screening effect at KeV energy must be considered to describe the physics at subbarrier proton radiative capture. In fact,
    from this article you can see that the S factor of atoms in the vacuum is almost constant:
    so the electronic plasma must be considered when the energies of the protons are below the 100KeV.
    I found this article that describe a bound state of protons at 0.6a (a=Bohr radius) inside heavy ion electron shell.

    From these publications seems new experiments below the KeV energy should be done in order to improve our understanding of subbarrier proton radiative capture.

  • Jonathan

    I’m sure a lot of us would be interested in seeing the October demonstration in person. Have you considered allowing some of public attend the demonstration? Maybe you could have a small drawing where folks could submit their names and a couple of people could be allowed to come.

    Either way, my family and I are excited and if the demonstration is televised we will be watching it.

    Good luck.

  • Erik Ander

    Best Mr Rossi.
    Thanks for the answer of my questions!
    I have only one more, i wonder where is
    the lead-shield actually located?
    I have seen pictures of the e-cat but
    i can not see the lead. Why i ask is if
    its 2cm lead suronding the entire e-cat is
    it not very heavy? or is the lead only around the
    reactor inside the coppertube or what?

    Best regards Erik!

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Paolo:
    Ideas are never useless, we will think also about what you suggested, even if now we are focused on other issues.
    Warm Regards,

  • Paolo

    Davvero; cosa ne pensa della possibilità che le dicevo di possibili applicazioni automobilistiche ? La tecnologia elettrica e a celle di combustibile è sviluppata,basta “si fa per dire” aggiungere il suo apparato con una turbina e magari un sistema per raffreddare o comunque sfruttare il calore prodotto!Utilizzando poi l’energia prodotta dal solare per innescare la reazione, sarebbe un ciclo chiuso in cui l’unico elemento da aggiungere sarebbe il nichel e il suo catalizzatore. Sinceramente le sembra un’idea bislacca ? Mi rendo conto che il salto energetico è enorme e la posta in palio è già alta, ma penso sarà necessario e chi meglio di lei potrà svilupparlo. Grazie

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Leif Damborg:
    Thank you for your kind comment. The patent you refer to has been granted to me in 1978 (I was 28 years old…) so that it is expired in 1998: the lifespan of patents is 20 years.
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Erik Ander:
    We produce gamma rays, and our energy comes from their thermalization.
    Warm Regards,

  • Erik Ander

    Best mr Rossi!
    Sorry if you have answered this before.
    But i wonder about the gamma-radiation in the
    e-cat. is it or is it not any gamma-radiation
    from the reactor? and if no, why you need lead and boron?

    Best regards! Erik

  • Leif Damborg

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    I only recently found out about you and your amazing invention. At first I, like many, was very skeptical regarding the validity of you claims, however; after spending many hours looking over the many articles, tests and interviews available on the internet i have steadily become more convinced that you and your groundbreaking technology are legitimate. Up until now my biggest concern has been how you have been so secretive/defensive regarding public inquires and tests about you machine. My mind was changed when i recently came across a short documentary on youtube, which i think you may find interesting ( ) . It is is in regards to your waste to oil endeavors almost 20 years ago. Apparently there is now a company in the states which is using your exact same technology to create usable fuel from waste and calling it groundbreaking! After seeing this, and reading about how your company was sabotaged by the government, i came to understand why you are so defensive in regards to how you go about commercializing the E-cat. I’m sure this time you will be successful in unleashing this revolutionary technology to the world. I wish you the best of luck!

    p.s. Since you have already patented the technology that this company is using, do they not owe you royalties?

    Sincerely, Leif Damborg

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear H. Visscher:
    Exactly, you evidently know technology manufacturing: difficulties rise exponentially with time while time goes by.
    My friend Enrico Billi would say: lavolale, lavolale!
    Warm regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Caro Paolo:
    Grazie infinite,
    Cordiali saluti,

  • Paolo

    Caro Dr.Rossi: Perchè devo scrivere in inglese ad un italiano ?
    Mi congratulo per la sua innovazione di una importanza globale, non ci sono parole per descriverne la necessità in questo momento in cui possiamo finalmente arrivare ad una svolta .Nessuno ne parla è vergognoso e anche questa crisi, non è che forse hanno capito che GRAZIE A LEI questo sistema economico assurdo è agli sgoccioli e ci vogliono speculare finchè possono ?
    Mi auguro che tutto vada per il meglio.
    In Italia non è riuscito a far partire il tutto ? Sarebbe stato così importante per il nostro paese, sempre a traino di altri e delle loro fonti energetiche.
    Spero tanto che possa essere alla portata di tutti presto, in modo di poter autoprodurre il proprio fabbisogno energetico. Lei cercherà di tutelare i piccoli in modo che non ci mangino sopra sempre i soliti ? Quando arriverà In Italia ? O comunque quando lo potremo ordinare da qui ? Ma per le auto ha pensato qualcosa ? Penso intuitivamente che tramite una turbina potrebbero funzionare benissimo quelle elettriche magari innescando la reazione dell’E-CAT tramite il solare , oppure stoccare questa energia elettrica prodotta dalla turbina, tramite l’idrogeno che tra l’altro vi serve per il funzionamento dell’E-CAT oppure direttamente dal vapore stoccandolo in un serbatoio a pressione nell’auto o un ibrido di ciò che ho detto. Penso che la ricerca per la locomozione possa essere sullo stesso binario. La saluto cordialmente e spero mi risponda. Mi raccomando non faccia come Meucci e tanti altri nostri geniali connazionali, sia guardingo.

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>