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

3,497 comments to Cold nuclear fusion

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Pietro F.:
    1- also
    2- not yet
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Herb Gills:
    Today we sold in the USA a 1 MW plant which will go to a normal Customer. This installation will be visitable by the qualified public.
    We wait to have completed the contractual procedure through the attorneys, then we will give communication. It will be in the North East of the USA, where I have been in these days.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Hank Mills:

    “I’m only interested in pulling many of the “honest skeptics” off the fence, and changing their minds.” Many of my very intelligent friends are in the above category, I simply do not believe they will be convinced by the “control” test you propose. They are listening to the super skeptics, the jealous ones, the intellectually dishonest ones, the competitors who simply want the E-cat to go away. They will only be convinced by a credible customer saying “it works”. I agree with you it is a matter of sooner or later. Only Mr. Rossi knows how close we are to a customer verification, how important it is for his company to concentrate on research, manufacturing, and how important it is to his cash flow. I do know cash flow(making money)will be critical to the long term battle.

  • Herb Gillis

    Andrea Rossi:
    How long do you think it will be before there is a 1MW customer that is willing to talk about their experiences with the product and act as a reference? Having another customer out there who is willing to act as a reference could provide tremendous leverage. This would be far more valuable than any public test. It would silence the skeptics forever.

  • Pietro F.

    Buongiorno sig. Rossi,
    due domande veloci,
    1 é negli Stati Uniti per velocizzare la brevettazione dell’e-cat?
    2 il primo impianto da 1MW che ha venduto é attualmente in funzione negli Stati Uniti?

    Grazie

  • Fulvia

    Caro Ing. Rossi, come sta?
    Mi sembra di aver capito, da quello che leggo sul web, che ora Lei è in America a lavorare sodo per la produzione dell’eCat da 1 Mw. Mi permetta 3 domande:
    1. Ma in Italia non intende tornarci più, almeno per un bel po?
    2. Qui da noi la distribuzione delle sue centrali non è prevista?
    3. Una provocazione: Se la chiamasse il presidente Napolitano e le dicesse che la fa senatore a vita se rivela al modo il suo segreto, lo farebbe?

    Un caro saluto
    Fulvia

  • Rick Meisinger

    Dear Andrea Rossi;

    Now that you have attained stability at higher temperatures do you have plans to convert existing power plants that are currently connected to the grid with E-Cat technology? It seems that owning power production facilities would be a good early strategy to provide needed cash flow while patents are being obtained and would go a long way in convincing skeptics without public tests.

    With much appreciation and support;
    R.M.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Pekka Janhunen:
    You are right: the amount of vented hydrogen has an electrochemical power content that is too irrilevant to be dangerous.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Deart Karl Heinz Braub:
    I cannot give information about this issue.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Karl-Heinz Braun

    Dear Mr. Rossi,
    after having studied some earlier papers of Focardi I come to the conclusion that the E-cat produces the Ni isotopes required for the Ni/H reaction by itself. This would explain why the additional cost for producing these isotopes is only 10% and it also explains why you were talking about an exponential roll-out.
    I guess the whole process is made of two steps. They run in parallel. While step 2 actualy produces the heat by LENR, it also conditions in step 1 the Ni isotopes (by adding neutrons to the nucleous) for future use in step 2. I could imagine that each e-cat contains one phase-2-reactor and two or more phase-1-reactors. Some of the heat produced in step 2 is used for step 1.
    Can you confirm ?

  • RH

    More about tests.

    As I see it (admittedly I am a layman in these matters), these things are obvious to me:

    a) to get to the next stage, Rossi must put a household model on the market.
    b) to be able to do that, his model will need to pass a whole bunch of regulations and official approval.
    c) there is no way in my mind he will be able get any household model officially approved to install in homes in most countries (at least Europe) without a myriad of regulating authorities and institutions having examined and tested the E-cat (basic safety, radiation, …)
    d) There is no way Rossi could/should do that without proper protection in form of patents or similar

    so: the main focus should be on the patent front, and only sell enough 1Mw plants needed to fund that.

  • Dear Rossi,
    If the user modulates the hydrogen pressure, is the excess hydrogen vented into atmosphere or is it absorbed into some Hydrogen Getter material for safety? Or is the amount of vented hydrogen so small that it cannot be a safety problem?

  • Hank Mills

    Andrea,

    To answer your question, I have never read a statement from you belittling anyone in the cold fusion field, their testing, theories, or their work. The only individuals you have spoken up against, are the ones that have attacked you first — with espionage attempts, lies, blackmail, etc. They deserved to be addressed, and put in their place.

    You are a very polite and respectful person. I admire how you can be so respectful despite a 16 hour a day work schedule, and so much stress.

    I think most of the anger and hostility out there is fairly easy to explain. I think it is pure envy and jealousy. Out of no where, you have suddenly came onto the alternative energy scene with the most promising technology imaginable. The fuel is cheap, there is no pollution, no radioactivity is emitted, and it is totally safe. In addition, the output capacity is phenomenal. They simply can’t believe what is happening, and are lashing out.

    To be blunt, the introduction of your technology in 2011, is like dropping in a brand new, high end sports car back in time to the year 1920. The automakers of the time would have responded just like your competitors are responding today. They can’t fathom the significance of your discovery, and they are letting their emotions control them.

    Sincerely,
    Hank Mills

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Hank Mills (regarding the answer to RH):
    I am very sorry, but I must say I do not agree on the fact that further public tests could have any importance, the puppett-snakes would increase the attacks ( they are paid for this from the puppetteers) and the Customers would be disturbed from the exposition. The real duty now is to make good working plants. Nevertheless I have deep respect for your intellectual honesty, I know you want to help us; I just do not agree. New public tests could only make me lose time just to replicate the usual clownery rising with the usual aggression, whatever we do; by the way: if they think that this technology does not work, I wonder: why are they so aggressive against it? If it doesn’t work, it will die by itself; for example: there are around many wannabe competitors I know perfectly have nothing working really: did you ever see any comment of mine regarding their work? Did you ever read an attack from me to a competitor regarding the fiascos of their stuff? (and believe me: I know everything of everybody).
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Hank Mills

    Hello Andrea,

    I apologize if I’m not controlling my passion about this topic quite as well as I should. I think the lies of the cynics and competitors (which I read everyday), are making me a bit more angry than usual. Out of jealousy and envy, they are trying to mislead the world about the biggest breakthrough of this century, and it infuriates me.

    I completely realize all decisions are yours to make. Being on the “outside” looking in, I just wish there was more I could do to contribute towards making the world accept the reality of this technology. If additional tests are not appropriate, I will respect your decision completely and totally.

    If there is anything I can do to help you in anyway, please let me know.

    Sincerely,
    Hank Mills

  • Hank Mills

    Bernie Koppenhofer,

    I am in no way interested in changing the minds of the “super skeptics.” Their opinions don’t matter, because they are nothing more than cultists who are unwilling to consider evidence of phenomena that does not fit into their world view. Many of the most skeptical individuals are not true “skeptics” at all, but competitors and individuals with specific agendas.

    I’m only interested in pulling many of the “honest skeptics” off the fence, and changing their minds. There are many decent and respectful individuals out there, who are simply not yet convinced. Perhaps I don’t have that problem, because I’ve probably spent close to a thousand hours this year reading about, researching, and writing about this technology. For me, the evidence is clear. However, there are others that need an additional push, and they can be on our side!

    Also, a test with a CONTROL E-Cat would be far different than any other test yet performed. The issue would NOT be the total quantity of energy produced, but the difference between a system without hydrogen, and one with hydrogen. The use of a CONTROL is a widespread tool of the scientific method, and so far it has not been utilized in a SINGLE test of the E-Cat.

    From what I understand, there is currently ONE customer so far. This customer has ordered a total of 13 plants. If you want Rossi to make money so he can have more resources to deal with his competitors, I think bringing countless potential customers (who are open minded but may still have some level of doubt) would be a good thing.

    One problem we have right now is Rossi’s current customer is probably not going to share information with us, at all. We all know the reason why. I agree that test data from customers would be great, but I don’t expect that to happen anytime soon — unless we do something to convince potential customers (who are honestly skeptical) that the E-Cat works.

    We already know the E-Cat works, but to be blunt, not everyone is convinced, yet.

    They will be. There is no doubt about that. The question is if we want them to be convinced sooner or later.

    I hope sooner.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Hank Mills,
    A lot of work has to be done, but we are approaching. Just have to work without distractions.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Bernie Koppenhofer:
    Yes, I agree perfectly.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Hank Mills: RE: Comparison Test

    I see no reason to make any more tests as long as 1MW plants are selling. It is much more important for Leonardo Corporation to refine the manufacturing process,improve the reactor and above all make money. The more money Mr. Rossi and his company makes now the better prepared they will be to meet the competition that is sure to pop up from many different places with many different agendas. This is a very small company, I think Mr. Rossi said 50 employees, tests have to be a huge distraction. By my count this would be the 8th test, I don’t think an 8th test will change the minds of the super skeptics. A customer telling the world the e-cat works will silence them or at least muffle their attacks.

  • Hank Mills

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    You stated,

    Dear G.Singh:
    No, this is just what we achieved so far with acceptable stability. We are approaching the solution.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    The fact that stability is the limiting issue right now, is one thing that tremendously excites me about your technology. My understanding, is that power density is a non-issue. You have already produced such high temperatures, you have melted the nickel powder in a reactor core. That requires around 1600 degrees Celsius! Also, on this very blog, you stated a 50cc reactor core could produce a maximum safe output of 10kW! That is a phenomenal output.

    To me, this signifies that the *only* limitation right now with the E-Cat technology is STANDARD engineering issues. For example, designing the best heat sinks with maximum surface area, finding the best cooling liquids for the primary circuit, finding gaskets that are leak-proof, finding the best geometries for pressure vessels, etc. All of these issues can be sorted out by engineers, such as the one that conducted the test on the 28th.

    It’s so obvious why your competitors are jealous! You did not simply discover a practical cold fusion technology, but hit the JACKPOT. Your combination of nickel powder isotopes, catalysts, frequencies, and so fourth are the equivalent of winning the lottery (but in your case is the result of years of hard work and research). Other researchers who have not had such success, are bound to be disappointing. Those of poor character and who do not have proper ethics, are bound to lash out against you, out of envious frustration.

    What is even more significant, is you are producing such high outputs of energy with light hydrogen (not deuterium) and the inexpensive common element nickel (not palladium or platinum), as fuel. This makes your technology extremely economically viable.

    I’ve said it before, but it deserves to be said again. Congratulations on not just discovering a practical cold fusion technology, but one that is both powerful and economically viable. The best of both worlds!

  • Hank Mills

    Dear RH,

    You stated the following.

    To Hank Mills:

    Your suggested experiment would have no value.
    At this point, the only thing a customer would be interested in is to confirm that the E-cat he is about to purchase generates enough excess heat to justify his investment, not that it creates more energy than a non-working one.

    You hope the customer would release the data for such an experiment. For me it would be amply enough if he just confirms that the E-cat works as advertized. Who cares if a E-cat without hydrogen in core does not work?

    While Rossi has customers then there is no need for public tests.
    He should just concentrate on refining his product and be ready with a household model when he has secured his invention with patents.

    The experiment would indeed have value, because it would prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat technology produces massive excess heat. I personally think the evidence provided so far (even with no control utilized) proves the technology works exactly as claimed. However, not everyone is convinced, including some “honest” skeptics that simply want to see incontrovertible proof of the technology. The evidence so far simply has not been quite convincing enough, in their opinion (not mine). A test utilizing a “control” would change their minds, because the results showing excess heat would be so obvious and clear to see. It would be as simple as seeing one unit producing no output (after a couple minutes), and another unit producing a huge output for HOURS. The DIFFERENCE is the key result, in such a test with a control.

    Simply put, the use of a “control” is a key tool of the scientific method. It is utilized in many fields including engineering, biology, and medicine. It is utilized because it offers many benefits, and the ability to determine what happens when certain variables are changed. In this case, an E-Cat with hydrogen, verses an E-Cat without hydrogen. If we want to convince the great scientific minds on our planet, I think using one of the most important scientific tools (the control) would be a good thing to do.

    I sincerely believe there are potential customers of one megawatt plants that are “on the fence” because they are not yet quite convinced of the reality of the E-Cat technology. I’m a fairly open minded person, but even I can see how some people of a more skeptical nature would want to see incontrovertible evidence that the solution the world’s energy crisis is upon us. Not just any solution, but one that produces energy in a clean, safe, and *extremely* cheap manner. A single test utilizing only two individual modules (no need for using two entire 1MW plants) could be performed in a single evening, and would present the CLEAREST and most OBVIOUS evidence of the E-Cat yet provided.

    You seem to be already 100% convinced the E-Cat works. That is great, because I am too! But not everyone is so convinced. And I’m not just talking about Rossi’s competitors, detractors, and the snakes. I’m talking about folks who could give the go ahead for orders of one megawatt plants to take place.

    Making plants and shipping them out to customers is important. Working on the home units is also important. However, what I’m suggesting could help generate more orders, so Rossi could ship out plants to even more customers. Also, it could be performed in a single afternoon taking up relatively little time, for a significant reward.

    To summarize, I see the advantages of a test utilizing a “control” E-Cat as follows…

    1) The ability to use a fundamental tool of science to provide the great scientific minds on this planet with the most incontrovertible evidence yet.

    2) The opportunity to eliminate the last shreds of doubt in the minds of *honestly* skeptical, potential customers. This could result in more orders for E-Cat products. (I’m not talking about the competitors and cynics here.)

    3) The ability to produce super-clear test data, that would refute all the false and ridiculous issues the snakes are pushing out on the net. For example, steam quality, thermal inertia, water over flow, etc. It would take these “tools” of information warfare out of their hands, and expose them as liars.

    If I was a wealthy man (which I’m not), I would purchase an E-Cat plant in a heartbeat. I’m sure you would too, because we are both convinced of the reality of the technology. That is not the case for everyone though, and there are potential allies and customers that could be brought to Rossi’s side if such a simple test was performed.

    I’m already dreaming of solid state E-Cats that are producing electricity with no moving parts, E-Cat devices powering space craft, and the use of the technology to allow human kind to colonize space. However, we are not there yet. I think we can get there sooner if we bring as many people to the side of the E-Cat as possible, sooner rather than later.

    Hank Mills

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear G.Singh:
    No, this is just what we achieved so far with acceptable stability. We are approaching the solution.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • G Singh

    Dear Mr Rossi,

    You offer hope to the world with your invention more than politicians can ever accomplish. Congratulations on achieving 450 Celsius primary fluid and stable reaction.

    If I may ask, is this then the target temperature for the customer’s needs or is something else desired?

    I may be wrong but I had heard that a primary fluid with a boiling point at the needed temperature would act as a buffer to a runaway reaction as long as you could keep 50% or so of it from boiling and the walls between the reaction and primary fluid were thin enough to allow good heat transfer.

    Here is wishing you the best with all your efforts.

  • RH

    To Hank Mills:

    Your suggested experiment would have no value.
    At this point, the only thing a customer would be interested in is to confirm that the E-cat he is about to purchase generates enough excess heat to justify his investment, not that it creates more energy than a non-working one.

    You hope the customer would release the data for such an experiment. For me it would be amply enough if he just confirms that the E-cat works as advertized. Who cares if a E-cat without hydrogen in core does not work?

    While Rossi has customers then there is no need for public tests.
    He should just concentrate on refining his product and be ready with a household model when he has secured his invention with patents.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Hank Mills:
    Thank you for your insight, intelligent as usual. I will think about it.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Hank Mills

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    I respectfully disagree with you that *everything* else is a trap. You are absolutely correct that there are traps out there. Everyday I read more lies and propaganda from your competitors, who are desperate to attack you. Their jealousy is becoming more and more obvious. As an example, I read a post by one of the creators of the Widom-Larsen theory belittling the E-Cat, yourself, and those that have said positive things about your work. If such individuals could find a way to steal your technology, they would do so in a heartbeat. It is not paranoia to believe that, it is simple fact. Industrial espionage is a hard reality in this world.

    However, not everything is a trap. I know for a fact there are many good people out there who support what you are doing. It is simply that most of the time, the snakes hiss louder. Although it is absolutely and 100% your right to never allow another public test again, not everyone who has requested one is trying to set a trap for you. Of course I’m certain many such requests are indeed traps, because to steal something it can help to get physically close to it. A test can give a snake such an opportunity.

    But there are others who want to see a public test done, because they think the right test could bring the “middle of the road” fence sitters (honest skeptics) to your side. The tests that have been performed so far should provide plenty of evidence to any reasonable person there is a massive amount of excess energy produced. However, I will also admit there is a test that has NEVER been performed, that should have been — if you would have given your consent of course. It would have been the most convincing test of all, and I think if performed early in the first months of January, would have helped bring out some of the fence sitters.

    The test I’m suggesting would have been one with a “control” E-Cat (no hydrogen in the core), in addition to one with hydrogen. The evidence it would have provided would be even more crystal clear, irrefutable, and cynic proof. I’m absolutely certain what the results would show in such a test. Long after the control E-Cat without hydrogen had stopped producing output (the temperature of the output water being the same as the input), the E-Cat with hydrogen would be continually producing heat for hours. Literally, one would be performing wonders producing massive excess energy, while the other would produce nothing.

    Since there will be no more public tests, my hope is that a customer will request for such a test, and after the sale has been made that the same customer will release the data. If one customer would do this, I think you would automatically gain many additional supporters. Also, you would be destroying the lies of the snakes and cynics.

    Thank you for all the work you are doing.

    Hank Mills

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Andrea Pellini:
    Today the enemies are more sofisticated, they don’t kill the person, kill the character, as they are trying to do with very sofisticated systems. This is why I focus exclusively on the technology, he plants, the market: all the rest around is just a trap.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • La ringrazio di cuore per il suo contributo all’umanità, spero vivamente che tutto vada nel migliore dei modi, le faccio i miei sinceri auguri.
    Spero abbia considerato il fatto che la sua invenzione destabilizzerebbe il potere delle compagnie petrolifere ed i paesi produttori che potrebbero pensare di martirizzarla come Mattei. Spero vivamente che abbia pensato di prendere delle precauzioni perchè il mondo non può permettersi di perdere un personaggio come lei.
    Anche M.De Riso e Beppi Minozzi le hanno scritto alcuni consigli in proposito.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Ilario Pezzo:
    I think in a couple of years the household items will be in the market. The 1 MW are already.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • ILARIO PEZZO

    Questo periodo che va dalla sua straordinaria scoperta ad oggi mi crea molta ansia.
    Non vedo l’ora di poter usufruire di questa fantastica tecnologia perchè vivendo
    in una piccola realtà di montagna,il problema di riscaldamento ed elettricità
    sono una costante.
    Se possibile mi starebbe a cuore sapere quanto ancora io ed il resto del mondo
    dovremmo pazientare e in che modo sarà effettuata la distribuzione.
    Grazie per tutto quello che sta facendo.
    Ilario.

  • Dear Andrea
    I have put my name down on a domestic unit.
    From what I have read from you Blog the domestic unit 5kW
    will have two E-cats and I think you may be going to put out two versions 10kW and 5kW.
    If as I have read the 400watt input per E-cat gives a COP of 6.
    I look forward to recieving my unit in 2013 be it either version.
    But by then you will be running E-Cats in series and driving generators.
    So we will have produced electricity and heat,from a square mtr cube.
    You will have stopped the globa warming in it’s tracks.
    No more carbon trading and exorbadent green taxes.
    I Salute you Sir.

  • There is great interest regarding your visit to Massachussetts, and meetings with MIT, etc. Thank you for you for taking the time to personally participate in this forum!

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Itali A. Albanese:
    Yes, you are right, but we prefer be conservative.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Davide Monaco:
    We are selling now the 1 thermal MW plants. As for the 10 kW E-Cats we are only collecting a waiting list, to prepare a portfolio of orders for when the production will start, but it will take time, because we must have all the necessary certifications and all the patents granted, before we start the distribution of small units. Anyway, the assistance will be granted by our agencies and the dimensions should be cm 40 x 40 x 40, moreless. The design has not yet been defined.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • The market is fermented, everyone wants to ECAT, every day could raise tens of orders, I might know in what terms will the distribution of nickel+ and more or less the size of a domestic appliance?

  • Italo A. Albanese

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    In a commercial perspective it is very honest for you to insist on COP 6, but I am very confident that the heat form the first e-cat of the series can be used (partially, at least) as a starter for the following ones. Don’t you think so?

    Best regards,
    Italo A.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Italo A. Albanese:
    1- WE STILL GUARANTEE 6
    2- yes
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Dario:
    We are close.
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

  • Dario

    Egregio Ing. Rossi,

    mi scusi, ma sono troppo curioso ! A quanto e’ arrivata la lista dei 10.000 ?
    P.S. Se in 1.000 hanno fatto l’Italia, in 10.000 si puo’ fare la rivoluzione energetica ! :-)
    Dario

  • Italo A. Albanese

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    1) With series-connected e-cats you should need less electric energy, because the the e-cats after the first will use an already hot fluid. What COP do you expect from series of two, tree and four?
    2) According to the answer you gave to Brian Josephson on Focus, the University of Bologna should start working on e-cat very soon, am I right?

    Best regards,
    Italo A.

  • Lucio Martini

    I read the news, steam at 450 ° C, this means that if you do a heat exchange at 30 ° C with a hypothetical Carnot cycle is equivalent to a thermodynamic efficency is 58%, while a feasible Rankine cycle the efficiency could easily exceed the 50%. This means that from 10 kW Heat thus produced at least 5 kW of electricity, this means that in addition to 3 kW of power that need at my house there are2 kW advance could also illuminate the garden and the street in front of the house, competing ENEL! If the exchange happen at 60 ° C (I think of home heating in winter) with the Rankine cycle would be above 46% getting more than 4.6 kW of continuous electrical power to compete ENEL. I imagine that you can confirm the above, in which case I’ll BELIEVE THAT I PUT MYSELF IN LIST to get one! Per aspera ad astra! Thank you and best wishes of good work.

    P.S. E lo stato italiano continua a dormire!

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Italo A. Albanese:
    4 in series
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Italo A. Albanese

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    Did you get 450 Celsius from just one e-cat or from many of them connected in series?

    Best regards,
    Italo A.

  • Joseph Fine

    Dear Andrea and Patrick,

    That is good news. 450 degrees C is 842 degrees F. That should not only warm the cold-blooded reptile(s) but cook them. Maybe, I will get to hear that Steam Calliope after all.

    Joseph

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Massimo:
    I hope within 1 year, maybe sooner.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Patrick from Sidney:
    Thank you!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Patrick from Sydney

    Dear Andrea,

    That is excellent progress. To keep the theme, music to our ears :)

    Buon lavoro,
    Patrick

  • Massimo

    If the e-Cat right now is able to produce steam at 450 Celsius is really a great breakthrough!
    This means that the current thermoelectric plants could be converted in order to use e-Cat as heat generator with big investment saving.
    Actually, in thermoelectric plant, the steam is heated up to about 540 Celsius. With a lower temperature the efficiency would be a little less but even up to 35% and maybe higher.
    This is really great!
    Dear ing. Rossi, when do you think we will see the first e-Cat based thermoelectric plant ?!!

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Patrick of Sidney:
    Actually, we have found a breakthrough with a primary fluid with wich the reactors remain stable when we make steam at 450 Celsius. We are working on it together with our Customer. I am learning very much from him, and in particular I am learning from the person who made the test of the plant on October 28th. This person, now retired, is an engineer who used to test for military concerns thermic plants and missiles, so that he has a tremendous experience in thermodynamics. Here is to learn really and, honestly, when it turns to learn I am pretty fast. This collaboration is accelerating the development of the technological declinations.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.
    p.s. Tom & Doug are great musicists, you knew that?

  • Patrick of Sydney

    Dear Andrea,

    I listened to your exquisite interview by Tom and Doug, on the 11/11/11.

    Apart from saying that you like playing drums and jazz, you mentioned that on that day, you had a breakthrough in generating electricity that brings significantly closer the goal itself.

    Would you be so kind to give us your fans some more detail, be them technical, or timeline wise?

    Wish you all the best,
    Patrick

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>