Cold nuclear fusion

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

Direct Download

Abstract
Recent accelerator experiments on fusion of various elements have clearly demonstrated that the effective cross-sections of these reactions depend on what material the target particle is placed in. In these experiments, there was a significant increase in the probability of interaction when target nuclei are imbedded in a conducting crystal or are a part of it. These experiments open a new perspective on the problem of so-called cold nuclear fusion.

PACS.: 25.45 – deuterium induced reactions
Submitted to Physics of Atomic Nuclei/Yadernaya Fizika in Russian

Introduction
Experiments of Fleischmann and Pons made about 20 years ago [1], raised the question about the possibility of nuclear DD fusion at room temperature. Conflicting results of numerous experiments that followed, dampened the initial euphoria, and the scientific community quickly came to common belief, that the results of [1] are erroneous. One of the convincing arguments of skeptics was the lack in these experiments of evidence of nuclear decay products. It was assumed that “if there are no neutrons, therefore is no fusion.” However, quite a large international group of physicists, currently a total of about 100-150 people, continues to work in this direction. To date, these enthusiasts have accumulated considerable experience in the field. The leading group of physicists working in this direction, in our opinion, is the group led by Dr. M. McKubre [2]. Interesting results were also obtained in the group of Dr. Y. Arata [3]. Despite some setbacks with the repeatability of results, these researchers still believe in the existence of the effect of cold fusion, even though they do not fully understand its nature.  Some time ago we proposed a possible mechanism to explain the results of cold fusion of deuterium [4]. This work considered a possible mechanism of acceleration of deuterium contaminant atoms in the crystals through the interaction of atoms with long-wavelength lattice vibrations in deformed parts of the crystal. Estimates have shown that even if a very small portion of the impurity atoms (~105) get involved in this process and acquires a few keV energy, this will be sufficient to describe the energy released in experiments [2].  This work also hypothesized that the lifetime of the intermediate nucleus increases with decreasing energy of its excitation, so that so-called “radiation-less cooling” of the excited nucleus becomes possible. In [5], we set out a more detailed examination of the process.  Quite recently, a sharp increase of the probability of fusion of various elements was found in accelerator experiments for the cases when the target particles are either imbedded in a metal crystal or are a part of the conducting crystal. These experiments compel us to look afresh on the problem of cold fusion.

Recent experiments on fusion of elements on accelerators
For atom-atom collisions the expression of the probability of penetration through a Coulomb barrier for bare nuclei should be modified, because atomic electrons screen the repulsion effect of nuclear charge. Such a modification for the isolated atom collisions has been performed in H.J. Assenbaum and others [6] using static Born-Oppenheimer approximation. The experimental results that shed further light on this problem were obtained in relatively recent works C. Rolfs [7] and K. Czerski [8]. Review of earlier studies on this subject is contained in the work of L. Bogdanova [9]. In these studies a somewhat unusual phenomenon was observed: the sub-barrier fusion cross sections of elements depend strongly on the physical state of the matter in which these processes are taking place. Figure 1 (left) shows the experimental data [8], demonstrating the dependence of the astrophysical factor S(E) for the fusion of elements of sub-threshold nuclear reaction on the aggregate state of the matter that contains the target nucleus 7Li. The same figure (right) presents similar data [7] for the DD reaction, when the target nucleus was embedded in a zirconium crystal. It must be noted that the physical nature of the phenomenon of increasing cross synthesis of elements in the case where this process occurs in the conductor crystal lattice is still not completely clear.

Figure 1. Up – experimental data [8], showing the energy dependence of the S-factor for sub-threshold nuclear reaction on the aggregate state of matter that contains the nucleus 7Li.  Down – the similar data [7] for the reaction of DD, when the target nucleus is placed in a crystal of zirconium. The data are well described by the introduction of the screening potential of about 300 eV.

The phenomenon is apparently due to the strong anisotropy of the electrical fields of the crystal lattice in the presence of free conduction electrons. Data for zirconium crystals for the DD reactions can be well described by the introduction of the screening potential of about 300 eV. It is natural to assume that the corresponding distance between of two atoms of deuterium in these circumstances is less than the molecular size of deuterium. In the case of the screening potential of 300 eV, the distance of convergence of deuterium atoms is ~510ˆ12 m, which is about an order of magnitude smaller than the size of a molecule of deuterium, where the screening potential is 27 eV. As it turned out, the reaction rate for DD fusion in these conditions is quite sufficient to describe the experimental results of McKubre and others [2]. Below we present the calculation of the rate process similar to the mu-catalysis where, instead of the exchange interaction by the muon, the factor of bringing together two deuterons is the effect of conduction electrons and the lattice of the crystal.

Calculation of the DD fusion rate for “Metal-Crystal” catalysis
The expression for the cross section of synthesis in the collision of two nuclei can be written as

where for the DD fusion

Here the energy E is shown in keV in the center of mass. S(E) astrophysical factor (at low energies it can be considered constant), the factor 1/E reflects de Broglie dependence of cross section on energy. The main energy dependence of the fusion is contained in an expression

that determines the probability of penetration of the deuteron through the Coulomb barrier. From the above expressions, it is evident that in the case of DD collisions and in the case of DDμcatalysis, the physics of the processes is the same. We use this fact to determine the probability of DD fusion in the case of the “metal-crystalline” DD-catalysis.  In the case of DDμ- catalysis the size of the muon deuterium molecules (ion+) is ~5×10ˆ13m. Deuterium nuclei approach such a distance at a kinetic energy ~3 keV. Using the expression (1), we found that the ratio of σ(3.0 keV)/σ(0.3 keV) = 1.05×10ˆ16. It should be noted that for the free deuterium molecule this ratio [ σ(3.0keV)/σ(0.03keV)] is about 10ˆ73.  Experimental estimations of the fusion rate for the (DDμ)+ case presented in the paper by Hale [10]:

Thus, we obtain for the “metal-crystalline” catalysis DD fusion rate (for zirconium case):

Is this enough to explain the experiments on cold fusion? We suppose that a screening potential for palladium is about the same as for zirconium. 1 cmˆ3 (12.6 g) of palladium contains 6.0210ˆ23(12.6/106.4) = 0.710ˆ23 atoms. Fraction of crystalline cells with dual (or more) the number of deuterium atoms at a ratio of D: Pd ~1:1 is the case in the experiments [2] ~0.25 (e.g., for Poisson distribution). Crystal cell containing deuterium atoms 0 or 1, in the sense of a fusion reaction, we consider as “passive”. Thus, the number of “active” deuterium cells in 1 cmˆ3 of palladium is equal to 1.810ˆ22. In this case, in a 1 cmˆ3 of palladium the reaction rate will be

this corresponds to the energy release of about 3 kW. This is quite sufficient to explain the results of McKubre group [2]. Most promising version for practical applications would be Platinum (Pt) crystals, where the screening potential for d(d,p)t fusion at room temperature is about 675 eV [11]. In this case, DD fusion rate would be:

The problem of “nonradiative” release of nuclear fusion energy
As we have already noted, the virtual absence of conventional nuclear decay products of the compound nucleus was widely regarded as one of the paradoxes of DD fusion with the formation of 4He in the experiments [2]. We proposed the explanation of this paradox in [4]. We believe that after penetration through the Coulomb barrier at low energies and the materialization of the two deuterons in a potential well, these deuterons retain their identity for some time. This time defines the frequency of further nuclear reactions. Figure 2 schematically illustrates the mechanism of this process. After penetration into the compound nucleus at a very low energy, the deuterons happen to be in a quasi-stabile state seating in the opposite potential wells. In principle, this system is a dual “electromagnetic-nuclear” oscillator. In this oscillator the total kinetic energy of the deuteron turns into potential energy of the oscillator, and vice versa. In the case of very low-energy, the amplitude of oscillations is small, and the reactions with nucleon exchange are suppressed.

Fig. 2. Schematic illustration of the mechanism of the nuclear decay frequency dependence on the compound nucleus 4He* excitation energy for the merging deuterons is presented. The diagram illustrates the shape of the potential well of the compound nucleus. The edges of the potential well are defined by the strong interaction, the dependence at short distances  Coulomb repulsion.

The lifetime of the excited 4He* nucleus can be considered in the formalism of the usual radioactive decay. In this case,


Here ν is the decay frequency, i.e., the reciprocal of the decay time τ. According to our hypothesis, the decay rate is a function of excitation energy of the compound nucleus E. Approximating with the first two terms of the polynomial expansion, we have:

Here ν° is the decay frequency at asymptotically low excitation energy. According to quantum-mechanical considerations, the wave functions of deuterons do not completely disappear with decreasing energy, as illustrated by the introduction of the term ν°. The second term of the expansion describes the linear dependence of the frequency decay on the excitation energy. The characteristic nuclear frequency is usually about 10ˆ22  sˆ-1. In fusion reaction D+D4He there is a broad resonance at an energy around 8 MeV. Simple estimates by the width of the resonance and the uncertainty relation gives a lifetime of the intermediate state of about 0.810ˆ22 s. The “nuclear” reaction rate falls approximately linearly with decreasing energy. Apparently, a group of McKubre [2] operates in an effective energy range below 2 keV in the c.m.s. Thus, in these experiments, the excitation energy is at least 4×10ˆ3 times less than in the resonance region. We assume that the rate of nuclear decay is that many times smaller. The corresponding lifetime is less than 0.3×10ˆ18 s. This fall in the nuclear reaction rate has little effect on the ratio of output decay channels of the compound nucleus, but down to a certain limit. This limit is about 6 keV. A compound nucleus at this energy is no longer an isolated system, since virtual photons from the 4He* can reach to the nearest electron and carry the excitation energy of the compound nucleus. The total angular momentum carried by the virtual photons can be zero, so this process is not prohibited. For the distance to the nearest electron, we chose the radius of the electrons in the helium atom (3.1×10ˆ11 m). From the uncertainty relations, duration of this process is about 10ˆ-19 seconds. In the case of “metal-crystalline” catalysis the distance to the nearest electrons can be significantly less and the process of dissipation of energy will go faster. It is assumed that after an exchange of multiple virtual photons with the electrons of the environment the relatively small excitation energy of compound nucleus 4He* vanishes, and the frequency of the compound nucleus decaying with the emission of nucleons will be determined only by the term ν°. For convenience, we assume that this value is no more than 10ˆ12-10ˆ14 per second. In this case, the serial exchange of virtual photons with the electrons of the environment in a time of about 10ˆ-16 will lead to the loss of ~4 MeV from the compound nucleus (after which decays with emission of nucleons are energetically forbidden), and then additional exchange will lead to the loss of all of the free energy of the compound nucleus (24 MeV) and finally the nucleus will be in the 4He ground state.  The energy dissipation mechanism of the compound nucleus 4He* with virtual photons, discussed above, naturally raises the question of the electromagnetic-nuclear structure of the excited compound nucleus.

Fig. 3. Possible energy diagram of the excited 4He* nucleus is presented.

Figure 3 represents a possible energy structure of the excited 4He* nucleus and changes of its spatial configuration in the process of releasing of excitation energy. Investigation of this process might be useful to study the quark-gluon dynamics and the structure of the nucleus.

Discussion
Perhaps, in this long-standing history of cold fusion, finally the mystery of this curious and enigmatic phenomenon is gradually being opened. Besides possible benefits that the practical application of this discovery will bring, the scientific community should take into account the sociological lessons that we have gained during such a long ordeal of rejection of this brilliant, though largely accidental, scientific discovery. We would like to express the special appreciation to the scientists that actively resisted the negative verdict imposed about twenty years ago on this topic by the vast majority of nuclear physicists.

Acknowledgements
The author thanks Prof. S.B. Dabagov, Dr. M. McKubre, Dr. F. Tanzela, Dr. V.A. Kuzmin, Prof. L.N. Bogdanova and Prof. T.V. Tetereva for help and valuable discussions. The author is grateful to Prof. V.G. Kadyshevsky, Prof. V.A. Rubakov, Prof. S.S. Gershtein, Prof. V.V. Belyaev, Prof. N.E. Tyurin, Prof. V.L. Aksenov, Prof. V.M. Samsonov, Prof. I.M. Gramenitsky, Prof. A.G. Olshevsky, Prof. V.G. Baryshevsky for their help and useful advice. I am grateful to Dr. VM. Golovatyuk, Prof. M.D. Bavizhev, Dr. N.I. Zimin, Prof. A.M. Taratin for their continued support. I am also grateful to Prof. A. Tollestrup, Prof. U. Amaldi, Prof. W. Scandale, Prof. A. Seiden, Prof. R. Carrigan, Prof. A. Korol, Prof. J. Hauptmann, Prof. V. Guidi, Prof. F. Sauli, Prof. G. Mitselmakher, Prof. A. Takahashi, and Prof. X. Artru for stimulating feedback. Continued support in this process was provided with my colleagues and the leadership of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, and I am especially grateful to Prof. R. Parkey, Prof. N. Rofsky, Prof. J. Anderson and Prof. G. Arbique. I express special thanks to my wife, N.A. Tsyganova for her stimulating ideas and uncompromising support.

References
1. M. Fleischmann, S. Pons, M. W. Anderson, L. J. Li, M. Hawkins, J. Electro anal. Chem. 287, 293 (1990).
2. M. C. H. McKubre, F. Tanzella, P. Tripodi, and P. Haglestein, In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2000, Lerici (La Spezia), Ed. F. Scaramuzzi, (Italian Physical Society, Bologna, Italy, 2001), p 3; M. C. H. McKubre, In Condensed Matter Nuclear Science: Proceedings Of The 10th International Conference On Cold Fusion;  Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA 21-29 August, 2003, Ed by P. L. Hagelstein and S. R. Chubb, (World Sci., Singapore, 2006). M. C. H. McKubre, “Review of experimental measurements involving dd reactions”, Presented at the Short Course on LENR for ICCF-10, August 25, 2003.
3. Y. Arata, Y. Zhang, “The special report on research project for creation of new energy”, J. High Temp. Soc. (1) (2008).
4. E. Tsyganov, in Physics of Atomic Nuclei, 2010, Vol. 73, No. 12, pp. 1981–1989. Original Russian text published in Yadernaya Fizika, 2010, Vol. 73, No. 12, pp. 2036–2044.
5. E.N. Tsyganov, “The mechanism of DD fusion in crystals”, submitted to IL NUOVO CIMENTO 34 (4-5) (2011), in Proceedings of the International Conference Channeling 2010 in Ferrara, Italy, October 3-8 2010.
6. H.J. Assenbaum, K. Langanke and C. Rolfs, Z. Phys. A – Atomic Nuclei 327, p. 461-468 (1987).
7. C. Rolfs, “Enhanced Electron Screening in Metals: A Plasma of the Poor Man”, Nuclear Physics News, Vol. 16, No. 2, 2006.
8. A. Huke, K. Czerski, P. Heide, G. Ruprecht, N. Targosz, and W. Zebrowski, “Enhancement of deuteron-fusion reactions in metals and experimental implications”, PHYSICAL REVIEW C 78, 015803 (2008).
9. L.N. Bogdanova, Proceedings of International Conference on Muon Catalyzed Fusion and Related Topics, Dubna, June 18–21, 2007, published by JINR, E4, 15-2008-70, p. 285-293
10. G.M. Hale, “Nuclear physics of the muon catalyzed d+d reactions”, Muon Catalyzed Fusion 5/6 (1990/91) p. 227-232.
11. F. Raiola (for the LUNA Collaboration), B. Burchard, Z. Fulop, et al., J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys.31, 1141 (2005); Eur. Phys. J. A 27, s01, 79 (2006).

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

Direct Download

3,536 comments to Cold nuclear fusion

  • favaro giancarlo

    Preg.mo Ing. Rossi, complimenti per i risultati raggiunti e congratulazioni per il lavoro sin quì svolto.
    Sono fiducioso della bontà dei vostri risultati e spero di poter quanto prima potermi dotare di un vostro apparato di produzione di energia (E-CAT) possibilmente elettrica e non solo di calore.
    Vi stimo e seguo nelle vostre sperimentazioni e messe a punto dell’ E-CAT .
    IN BOCCA AL LUPO.
    SALUTI, Giancarlo

  • Pietro

    Dear Mr Rossi,

    Can you confirm me these approximate and simple calculations, assuming a system with 30% of efficiency in converting heat into electricity?:

    1- Let’s have an E-cat with at least a COP 6
    2- For simplicity let’s say that the E-cat has 6kW of thermal output
    3- So it needs 1kW of electric power to work(input)
    4- Another unit will convert thermal power into electrical power with 30% of efficiency
    5- So the E-cat plus the thermal/electrical converter system will have 1.8kW of output power
    6- Eventually this system will have 1kW of electrical power as input and 1.8kW of electrical power as output, which means that this machine will have an efficiency of 180% in terms of electrical power.

    SO THE EFFICIENCY OF SUCH A SYSTEM IN THE NEAR FUTURE IT WILL BE 180%!! IN A CONSERVATIVE WAY. BESIDES ONE CAN USE BATTERIES OR SOME OTHER TYPE OF ENERGY ACCUMULATORS TO FEED BACK 1kW INTO THE SYSTEM, IN THIS WAY WE WILL HAVE A MACHINE WHICH WOULD HAVE (IN OUR EXAMPLE) 800W OF OUTPUT POWER BUT WITH A VIRTUAL “INFINITE” EFFICIENCY, WHICH MEANS PRODUCTION OF ENERGY UNTIL THE NEXT Ni LOAD!!!

    COULD IN THEORY THIS PRINCIPLE BE APPLIED TO BIGGER SERIES AN PARALLEL SYSTEMS. IN THIS CASE WE CAN HAVE,LET’S SAY 100MW OF OUTPUT POWER FOR PROBABLY 6 MONTHS WITHOUT THROWING ONE SINGLE mWh OF “EXTERNAL” ENERGY INTO DEVICE. (PROBABLY JUST A kg of Ni and some hydrogen)

    PLEASE CAN YOU CONFIRM ME THIS LITTLE VIRTUALLY POSSIBLE PREDICTIONS?

    Kind Regards

    Pietro

  • Andreas

    Dear signor Rossi,

    I’ve yet another question 😉

    What’s the power density like?

    Say of 1 kg Nickel and xxxg hydrogen you can generate yyy Megawatt-hours??
    It should be much Megawatts and low Nickel & hydrogen, I guess?

    Yours sincerely Andreas

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Francesco Toro:
    I do not know, honestly, so far. I can say I will make a thing only if I am sure of it.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Francesco Toro

    Dear ing. Rossi
    A technical question, I believe and I hope no obligation enquiry from the point of view of confidentiality. I knew that each core module E-Cat has roughly the size of a potato and to make the Central 1 MW you have used a number of modules in parallel up to reach this power. I suppose in the future it will be possible to build larger units and then with increased power unit.
    The question is: do you think that this is possible?
    Warm Regards

  • Martin

    Dear Andrea,

    Ofcourse i mean Cold! I also added a link for an open college
    By Sven Kullander. He Seems to be very optimistic.
    It Will be held this month in Orebro university.
    Very interesting maybe i will attend this lecture!

    Best regards,

    Martin

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Giovanni Guerini:
    We must not count on incentives, but on competitiveness.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Giovanni:
    Maybe you are right. But what counts are products, more than articles.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Martin:
    Depends on what ypou mean by “cold” of “hot”.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Martin

    Dear Andrea,

    Nice to read that the people who have real knowledge about this technology
    Are still entousiastic!

    Best regards,

    Martin

    Tomorrow’s nuclear power, is it cold or hot?”

  • Giovanni

    Dear Ing. Rossi
    about the silence from AP about 28/10, I have an idea: is it possible that they are delaying the report because they are trying to discover the identity of the US customer? If yes, when and if they will be able to do that, then they can throw a very powerful scoop on the press. About the press, I am throwing e-mails to the major italian newspapers asking the reason of their silence about your realizations. It could be nice if everybody interested on your e-cat do the same in their own country.
    My best regards
    Giovanni

  • kevin

    dear andrea rossi,

    i am observing the developments as they are unfolding regarding you’re recent accomplishments, across a wide spectrum; your videos/blog to wider mass attention, to the synchronicity with currently held fringe beliefs in “calendar” events..

    i have extensive networks in media and marketing.. i would like to help craft the introduction of the e-cat generator to the wider audience, through marketing/press, as i do not bring any scientific prowess to the table..

    please let me know if you have any interest in help in this department my email has been submitted with this comment.

    i am inspired.

    thank you,
    kevin

  • Giovanni Guerrini

    Caro Dott Rossi,
    non vorrei mettere il carro davanti ai buoi,ma mi piace guardare avanti.Oggi in Italia come in altri paesi sappiamo come i produttori di energie cosidette rinnovabili vengano remunerati attraverso un sistema di incentivi.Le chiedo,sempre a riguardo della futura produzione di energia elettrica,in base alle normative vigenti Lei pensa che questa potrà essere inclusa tra le “rinnovabili”e godere degli incentivi?
    Se così non potrà essere,mi auguro che riuscirete a contenere i costi,attraverso economie di scala e magari qualche sacrificio iniziale da parte vostra,in modo che si renda conveniente la vendita di energia anche senza gli incentivi.Questo per poter avviare quel sistema di rete produttiva utile all’ambiente ed alla nostra economia.L’italia sappiamo che paga una bolletta energetica all’estero di circa 60 miliardi di eu/anno,soldi che escono e non rientrano nel circuito economico interno,quindi credo che ogni euro risparmiato su questa pesi molto di più positivamente sul bilacio che di quello risparmiato in altre spese pubbliche ,che in parte rientra attraverso le imposte e viene speso facendo girare il volano economico.La sua invenzione è etica(se saremo uomini saggi) e come tale potrà generare solo benefici e guadagni etici a chi deciderà di intraprendere utilizzandola e sono molto interessato a questa possibilità.
    La ringrazio ancora,cari saluti.

    Giovanni Guerrini

  • Giovanni Guerrini

    La ringrazio per le informazioni e la precisazione.Non ci avevo pensato,porgo le mie scuse(postume)a Mr Watt!
    Cari saluti.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Giovanni Guerrini:
    The efficiency will be at least 30%.
    The price will be decided when possible, so far we have not the necessary information.
    Small particular: it’s kWh (k and h are small letters because common names; Watt has capital initial because is the name of the inventor; only the M of MW is capital, to distinguish it from the small m of milliWatt (mW).
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Giovanni Guerrini

    Mi scuso per le imprecisioni ed il mio inglese arrugginito.Intendevo Kwh e le chiedevo una stima di massima su quanta energia elettrica,al netto di quella consumata,Lei pensa potrà produrre un reattore abbinato ad un generatore utilizzando la tecnologia più adatta a questo scopo.Poi,in linea di massima,le chiedevo quanto pensa potrà costare una macchina di questo tipo in termini di prezzo/potenza elettrica prodotta (non termica).
    La ringrazio.Cordiali saluti.

    Giovanni Guerrini.

  • Andrea Rossi

    WARNING TO THE READERS:
    I HAVE RECEIVED IN MY EMAIL MANY MESSAGES OF PEOPLE ASKING INSTRUCTIONS TO MAKE IN THEIR “BACKYARD” A PROTOTYPE TO REPLICATE THE EFFECT. I WANT TO REPEAT AGAIN WHAT I ALREADY WROTE IN THIS BLOG: PLEASE BE VERY CAREFUL: HYDROGEN IS EXPLOSIVE AND NICKEL POWDER IS TOXIC. TO TRY THE EXPERIMENT IS VERY DANGEROUS AND IS POSSIBLE ONLY FOR PROFESSIONALS, IN PROPER LABORATORYES AND WITH PROPER SAFETY DEVICES AND CLOTHES, GOGGLES, GLOVES, ETC ETC.
    IN PARTICULAR, IT IS MANDATORY THAT NO MINORS ARE EXPOSED TO THESE RISKS (A LADY TOLD ME SHE WAS MAKING AN EXPERIMENT IN HER KITCHEN WITH HER CHILDREN…..)
    AGAIN: PLEASE DO NOT USE HYDROGEN AND NICKEL POWDER IF YOU ARE NOT A PROFESSIONAL SUPPLIED WITH ALL THE NECESSARY EXPERIENCE AND INSTRUMENTATION, SAFETY DEVICES, INDIVIDUAL PROTECTION CLOTHES.
    WARM REGARDS,
    ANDREA ROSSI

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Giovanni:
    1- we are working on this. It is not easy.
    2- we should reach an efficienty of at least 30%, I mean the thermal energy will yield the 30% in electric energy.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Fusioneafreddo.it:
    You are right, but you have to add other expenses, like manpower etc.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Francesco Toro:
    Yes.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Giovanni Guerrini:
    I did not understand your questions, got translation problems. Try in Italian, I will translate. Just correct: energy is measured in kWh, not kW/h (kW/h is a nonsense, or a typo).
    About the price: now we are selling the 1 MW plants at 2000 Euros per kW. Price will drop with future economy scale, when we will sell the household units.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Lu Fong:
    We will give licenses and manufacturing licenses in specific areas, but we will maintain the reactors core manufacturing. We have chosen this strategy, so far.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Lu Fong

    Andrea Rossi,

    Congratulations on your test and first sale. I hope you have many more!

    With regard to sales, I am curious as to why you are not licensing the technology and allowing others to develop the applications, including control systems for the E-cat. This is the way US universities do it, I believe. It seems to me this is the way to maximize development and adoption of E-cat technology and still allow you to greatly profit from your invention and hard work.

    Sincerely,
    L.F.

  • Giovanni Guerrini

    Dear Mr Rossi,
    I would like to know how long between the reactor with capacity to produce electricty you think will be avaible.Then,how many Kw/h, net energy consumed ,estimate that it will be able to produce?
    Indicatively,which will be the cost of this machine?
    Warm regards
    Giovanni Guerrini

  • Francesco Toro

    Ing. Rossi good evening
    Excuse me if I do frequent questions on your site but I hope you understand that this is due to the enthusiasm that sparked your invention.
    My biggest dream would be that the engines of motor vehicles were replaced by your found.
    Follow your debate after the experiment by 1 Mw, I felt that it would take to power a turbine more E-Cat places in series to create superheated steam. But you said that under these conditions, it becomes difficult to control the reaction.
    One question: you are overcoming this phase?
    Thank You

  • Sorry but I don’t understand.
    The 1MW e-cat use 18 kg Hydrogen and 10 kg nychel for six month, for a total approximately of 150 euro every six month or 1euro/hour?The cost is very different.
    Maybe you refer to the cost of fuel for the power plant that we need to use when we doesn’t go in self sustained mode?
    Thank you for the continuos support on the forum, we are totally unskilled but very very curious!
    Best regards

  • Giovanni

    Dear Ing. Rossi
    I think your e-cat will have the major success and diffusion as a household device (the most of us has a house, few of us have a plant to be heated…!!). In order to have a household device, the best could be to have it being polifunctional, I mean capable of: heating (house and hot sanitary water), cooling, providing electric power. So two questions:
    1) are you thinking about the possibility to build a “scalable” power unit? (I mean, if I leave home for a while, will I be able to run it at a minimal power, just to keep, for example, alarms and fridge operational?). And also “switchable” (if I don’t need heating, the generated power could be diverted to increase production of electric power).
    2) in order to have an elctric power of, let’s say, 6 kW, which could be the power needed by the e-cat? A rough estimate.

    My best regards
    Giovanni

  • Andrea Rossi

    Fusioneafreddo:
    We do not sell the powder, so there is no point to give you the price of the powder.
    About the cost of the fuel, we said, and I repeat, 1 euro/MWh. It doesn’t matter the time , the price is given in euro/energy unit. The catalyzer is confidential.
    Regards,
    A.R.

  • Dear Rossi,
    Can you tell something more about the cost of the powder?
    You said 1 Euro for the 1MW e-cat , 1euro/hour/day/month?
    The catalyzer is a powder?
    Best Regards

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear CUrbina:
    Yes, desalination is a duty we are ready to perform.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Giovanni:
    1- I am waiting to see.
    2- the cost of the powders is irrelevant respect the energy production: it’s around 1 euro/MW.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Giovanni

    Dear Ing. Rossi
    what is happening with AP report about the 28/10 day? Have they disappeared in the fog?
    Another question:
    Did I correctly understand that Ni used in the e-cat is in the form of nano-particles?
    If yes, will be the cost of this form of Ni higher than Ni in the form of a solid rod? If yes, how much higher?

    My best regards
    Giovanni

  • Dwayne A.

    Dear Dr. Rossi,

    Congratuations on your many accomplishments.

    I write to suggest the quickest initial marketing of your new E-Cat technology would be to create products to replace existing heating technology in power generation facilities. And, that it would be beneficial for your organization to form cooperative aggreements with existing vendors of steam turbine generators.

    It may be useful to write letters to existing vendors of steam turbine generators that are most commonly in use now; and, invite them to enter into agreement with you. The existing vendors have the design engineers and technical staff that will be most effective in fitting the new E-Cat units to their existing turbine/generator products (already installed at all their many customers).

    It will be very attractive to power generation facilities if their existing vendors come to them and offer them the opportunity to upgrade their existing units to E-Cat heat generation and reduce their current fuel cost significantly. And, the vendors of the steam turbine generators will be pleased to be able to offer a new product in demand by all their existing and new customers.

    After the first few power generation facilities convert to E-Cat technology, all the others will have to do the same to remain competitive.

    Further, I would suggest you hire legal staff to write/review these proposals (Subject to your approval). Both, to relieve you of the chore and ensure your interests are represented in these agreements.

    Having the current vendors of steam turbine generators working with you in coopertive agreement will be useful to you in the following respects:

    – They already have engineering and technical staff that are experienced and knowledgable about their products that will be able to interface the E-Cat technology with their existing installed products quickly.

    – They already have established relationships with all their customers.

    – They already have staff and experience of what will be required to meet regulatory requirements. They can share that knowledge with your organization and assist with getting any necessary regulatory approvals.

    – They may also be able to share knowledge and experience of how to most effectively begin mass production of your new E-Cat units.

    The home units are a wonderful idea for the future. But, I believe the direction to proceed that will result in the greatest immediate benefit for the most people will be to work with the current vendors of steam turbine generators that currently supply the electrical generation facilities of the world.

    I am delited with idea of having a E-Cat unit available for home use. And, I will be among your first customers when they become available. But, if there is not an initiative to cooperate with the current suppliers of steam turbine generators; I suspect you will have all the current vendors as competitors instead of cooperative partners. And, there is the possbility some of them may use such influence as they currently have to delay your progress (to preserve their current business interests).

    May all your endeavors be successful,

    Dwayne A.

  • CUrbina

    Dear Mr. Rossi:

    Allow me to congratulate you for the efforts to bring the E-Cat to the market.

    As I live and develop my business in a superlative desert area, I often wonder if the E-cat might have a direct application to sea water desalination through distillation.

    Do you see such as a possibility in the medium term?

    My Best Regards.

  • Andrea Piccoli

    Dear Mr. Rossi
    I was wondering how the house-model of the e-cat will be “reloaded” , with a Ni-H “cartrigde” or something else, and if your conpany will sell these “cartridges”.

    I have read in internet that the e-cat can work for 6 months with the exact quantity of Ni-H you have established. The process and the heat remains the same for all the time ? The catalyzer requires maintenance and/or reloading or does not need intervention ? The ecat will be also can used like a boiler for the home heating ?
    Thanks a lot, I’m your fan !

    Andrea Piccoli

  • Francesco Toro

    @Andrea Rossi”I cannot allow free work (it is illegal) , but I can assure you that to get help I will fish in the river of comments on this blog.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.”
    OK, ing. Rossi …The received message.
    Then I try to throw into the River a fish.
    Assuming that we wanted to check the internal temperature of the E-Cat without introducing anything inside the reactor, even assuming that the temperature of the shell does not exceed 600-700° C and that the internal pressure is not excessively high, we practice a very small window on the metal body of the reactor and fiting an insulating element as glass (melting temperature average 1000° C). Outwardly the slide could face light sensors with infrared spectrum or, if necessary, with the spectrum of light, so that the electrical signal as a function of temperature can be amplified and fed into a proportional controller that acting on the parameters of the reactor (which only you know) would keep constant. With this system the speed of response to transients would be the maximum possible.
    I put a good fish in the River?
    Greetings

    OK, ing. Rossi…Messaggio ricevuto.
    Allora provo a buttare nel fiume un pesce.
    Supponendo che volessimo controllare la temperatura interna dell’E-Cat senza introdurre niente all’interno del reattore, supponendo ancora che la temperatura dell’involucro non superi 600-700°C e che la pressione interna non sia eccessivamente alta, noi potremmo praticare una piccolissima finestra sul corpo metallico del reattore ed incastrarci un elemento isolante come il vetro (temperatura di fusione media 1000°C). Esteriormente al vetrino potremmo affacciare dei fotosensori con spettro infrarosso o, se necessario, con spettro della luce, in modo che il segnale elettrico funzione della temperatura possa essere amplificato e immesso in un regolatore proporzionale che agendo su dei parametri del reattore (che solo Lei sa)la manterrebbe costante. Con questo sistema la velocità di risposta ai transienti sarebbe la massima possibile.
    Ho messo un buon pesce nel fiume?
    Cari saluti

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Francesco Toro:
    I cannot allow free work (it is illegal) , but I can assure you that to get help I will fish in the river of comments on this blog.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Francesco Toro

    Dear Ing. Rossi
    As you already understood has created a strong sympathy among you and normal people, because from your ‘ modus operandi ‘ is also a certain spirit for the good of humanity. Many of us, in fact, think that if you spread everywhere in your E-Cat world could save billions of kw/h to benefit the environment.
    Among these thy sympathizers are many those who would actively work to your project, even without economic interest. Now I was wondering this: when you tell us who you are (plural) working to improve or to submit other models of E-Cat, do you mean you say you have a staff? If you need more resources for improving your invention and so accelerate the placing on the market, you may not use other brains that you offer for free? To protect the secret you maybe could regulate details parametrandoli and distributing to different people to devise solutions, of course, making sure that these people do not know each other. For example, I am one that I could probably in electronic field to give you a hand and help you even free because I have a lot of passion for this beautiful invention. Might be a good idea?
    Warm greetings

    Gentilissimo Ing. Rossi
    Come avrai già capito si è creata una forte simpatia tra te e la gente normale, perchè dal tuo “modus operandi” si vede anche un certo spirito per il bene dell’umanità. Molti di noi, infatti, pensano che se tu diffondi capillarmente il tuo E-Cat il mondo potrebbe risparmiare miliardi di kw/h a beneficio dell’ambiente.
    Tra questi tuoi simpatizzanti sono tanti coloro che vorrebbero collaborare attivamente al tuo progetto, anche senza interesse economico. Ora io mi chiedevo
    questo: quando tu dicci che state (al plurale)lavorando per migliorare o per presentare altri modelli di E-Cat, intendi tu dire che hai uno staff? Se hai bisogno di maggiori risorse per il perfezionamento della tua invenzione e così accelerare la collocazione sul mercato, non potresti usufruire di altri cervelli che si offrono anche gratuitamente? Per tutelare il segreto tu forse potresti parzializzare dei particolari parametrandoli e distribuendo a persone diverse l’incarico di elaborare delle soluzioni, naturalmente facendo in modo che queste persone non si conoscano tra loro. Ad esempio, io sono uno che probabilmente potrei nel campo elettronico dare a te una mano e aiutarti anche gratuitamente perchè ho molta passione per questa bella invenzione. Potrebbe essere una buona idea?
    Caldi saluti

  • Ecat-ering

    Spett. Ing. Rossi mi correga se erro nella mia seguente analisi.
    Per essere chiari un COP di 6 ad alta temperatura è già un ottimo risultato in quanto le pompe di calore geotermiche raggiungono questi rendimenti ma a scapito della temperatura 55 58 gradi ed un’impiantistica complicata ed invasiva per le faglie e sorgenti acquifere.
    Giuto per essere ancora più chiaro e semplice se un condominio con caldaie a condensazione spende 30.000 euro di metano equivalenti a circa 36.000 euro a Gasolio o GPL, con un Ecat spenderebbe 5000 euro di corrente, non male .
    Mi rimane ancora il dubbio sul COP di 6 in quanto in tutti i test eccetto quello del 6 ottobre ,( test fermato anche senza il calo di temperatura) i COP rilevati vanno da 30 in su questo vorrebbe dire che quel condominio non spenderebbe più 1000 euro.
    Per tanto possiamo dire che il condominio ha un risparmio da 25 a 29 mila euro anno non male.
    Saluti Ecat-ering

    Respectable. Mr. Rossi correct me if I am mistaken in my analysis below.
    To be clear a high temperature of 6 COP is already a good result because the geothermal heat pumps achieve these returns, but at the expense of 55 58 degrees temperature and un’impiantistica complicated and invasive for the faults and groundwater sources.
    Giuto to be even clearer and easier if a building with condensing boilers spends € 30,000 of methane equivalent to about 36,000 euros in Diesel or LPG, with a current Ecat spend 5000 euros, not bad.
    I still doubt about the six COP as in all tests except that of the October 6, (test stopped even without the drop in temperature) the COP detected ranging from 30 up this would mean that the building does not spend more than $ 1000 .
    Therefore we can say that the condo has a saving of 25 to 29 thousand years is not bad.
    greetings

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Davide C.:
    It’s up to him, doesn’t depend on me.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Falcon:
    I must repeat my former answer: I guarantee a COP 6.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    1- I repeat: all we guarantee is a COP 6
    2- good question: we are working on this. Max 2 years
    3- we have resolved this problem by means of our contractual conditions, in a fair mode that guarantees us from making one million tests for self defining potential Customers that later turn out to be just curious, students or spies, and at the same time guarantees the Customer from buying without the necessary guarantees. The way you indicated is possible, but for obvious reasons does not depend on us.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear G. Singh:
    1- 10% of the profits before tax
    2- We will have partners
    3- production of electric power and of household E-Cats
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Falcon

    Regarding my post of November 3rd 6:42 PM, in my first question, I calculated a cop of 39.9. I assume that it isn’t really the case if we consider that the 66 KWH of electric power spent aren’t properly input power to sustain the reaction but for the pumps and other purposes like heating. So the cop is inifinite (2,635:0). But my first question remains the same: what would be the total input power during an extended period of time (days or months) to sustain and stabilize the reaction indefinitely.

    Thank you.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Ecat-ering:
    All we guarantee is a COP = 6.
    Price/kW: today 2000 Euro. 1MW delivery: 3 months.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Bob Norman:
    That’s thermochemical reaction, with a COP below 1.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Davide C.

    dear Dott. Rossi,
    when the customer’s plant will be put into operation again?
    thanks

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Alex:
    Yes.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Jonatan:
    Yes, we are working on this.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Jonatan

    Hi
    do the future e cat units that provide electrity will contain electrical outlet?

    Thanks

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>