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

3,496 comments to Cold nuclear fusion

  • Andrea Rossi

    Mr Mattia Rizzi:
    When a stupid question is put, the stupidity stays in the source, not in the address to which it is sent. I gave the usual answer that I give to any question regarding the operation of the reactor, without even read the question with attention: I work 16 hours per day, and have not time to waste; anyway, I never heard the word “unobtanium” , that, looked carefully, seems to derive from “unobtainable”, but, sincerely, I didn’t even read it carefully: I saw an exotic word that could have been a commercial trade mark of some product.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Giuliano Bettini: I abree with you. But working plants will answer with facts to those expectable issues.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Giuliano Bettini

    @Dear Andrea, Koen.
    About the “war”.
    In fact, I never thought of this. But if it is true, I begin to think that the war could reasonably be carried out with these moves:
    first move: it is a scam, does not work;
    second move: yes it works, but is not yet ready to be sold;
    third move: yes it is ready, but it is dangerous, is harmful to health.
    Giuliano Bettini

  • Il mattia rizzi la stà leggermente prendendo in giro , sul blog di passerini ,per aver risposto ad una domanda se il catalizzatore fosse l’unobtanium …

    Saluti

  • David Roberson

    @Alex Thank you for directing me to the CERN CLOUD experiment. Now I am not too concerned about the excess heat associated with burning coal compared to E-CAT heat generation. It is interesting that my simple question would have actually helped reveal the misconception if it could have been answered. So, heat from E-CAT devices or coal burning are pretty much on an even basis regarding global warming! Neither one matters much.

    Mr. Rossi, the cost savings associated with your invention will make an enormous improvement in the lives of people all over the world. Do all that you can to make it available as soon as possible. It will be a wonderful day when the price of oil collapses to a level that makes sense and that is proportional to its cost of production. We have been slaves to the oil producers for too long.

    @Burt, you are right, this is not the place to argue about the reality of man induced global warming. I think that CERN has pretty much settled that issue in the last few days. I will not bring it up again if you do not. As you should be aware, my only interest in the subject was to compare The E-CAT heat generation to other current forms of electricity production.

    Cheers to Mr. Rossi and his E-CAT!

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Koen Vandewalle:
    Yes, the war is started, for now financing a small army of snakes to discredit the work, aiming to discourage investors. This move has been strategically wrong, therefore a waste of money, because we have structured our policy in a way that anyway we will hit the market in alliance with very strong Partners. But the biggest Partner will be the Universe of our Customers. Even if, accidentally, something would happen to me to forbid the continuation of my work, a structure is ready to go on anyway.
    You are right, I expect a toughest action against us, but a man with my past is not easy to be impressed.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Fabio Barbariga:
    1- I am not Professor.
    2- I cannot give info regarding the catalysts
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Jimmy Edwards:
    The patents are still pending. Nothing is changed, so far, on this issue.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Mr. insight wrote
    ”But it is not sure at all that the LENR phenomena, and E-Cat in particular, need new Physics, because solutions for physical systems come from Schrödinger equation that has hamiltonian operator inside.”

    Dear Mr. Insight,
    in spite of Schrodinger equation works very well, however it works not because of the reasons you believe.

    Beyond cold fusion, many other phenomena require a New Physics.
    For instance, hydrine hydrides produced by BlackLight Power require a new hydrogen atom.
    In another words, the existence of hydrine hydrides shows that current hydrogem model of atom proposed in Quantum Mechanics is wrong.

    So, the question is the following:
    can we get a satisfactory theory so that to explain cold fusion, by taking as a point of departure the wrong hydrogen model of atom proposed in Quantum Mechanics ?

    I recommend you to read introduction to Quantum Ring Theory, in this Rossi’s blog:
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=462#more-462

  • Jimmy Edwards

    Prof. Rossi,

    Several months ago you indicated that the release of the catalyst information at the launch of the one megawatt plant depends on the progress of your patent. This is very fair, because without such patent protection, sharing such confidential info could be risky. Now, several months later, do you think enough progress has been made on the patent, that it would be safe for you to disclose the catalyst (along with the full theory of the Ni-H fusion reaction), upon the launch of your one megawatt plant?

    Jimmy Edwards

  • Fabio Barbariga

    Dear Prof Rossi,
    i think k that using heavy elements like unobtanium or others may boost up the fusion process. Am i right?
    Best regars,
    dott. F.Barbariga

  • Koen Vandewalle

    Dear Andrea,
    do you know if the silence about your invention in mainstream media is organized ?
    A lot of important (and powerful) people should already be informed about your realizations now and they may need some time to make some moves before mainstream informs the masses. This may be necessary for stability. A bit like preparing for a war. Please tell us, is there already a war going on for your new fire ?
    Kind regards,
    Koen

  • Alex

    Bill Nichols,
    very well said.
    You have practically supported what I had posted on climate chnage. Furthemore, what you wrote re cold fusion is all correct. Fleischman and Pons were assasinated by the politically motivated science clubs. The reproducibility of their table-top experiment was intentionally flawed by introducing impurites in the palladium.
    I just hope that these two geniuses are given their due.
    Ing. Rossi is in a position to prove the corruption that has taken over the scientific method by his development of the greatest energy source after humans made the first fire.

  • insight

    Dear Mr. Wladimir Guglinski,
    I hope that new Physics will come from E-Cat so new phenomena can be studied and discovered.
    I will be glad if old principles will be changed and prove themselves not absolute or universal.
    I know for sure that scientists cheat and deceive themselves, in cosmology for example where they should not say “90% matter and energy are of an unknown form” but should say “we see that our theories are able to understand 10% of phenomena so now we go home so money can go to LENR studies” :-).
    But it is not sure at all that the LENR phenomena, and E-Cat in particular, need new Physics, because solutions for physical systems come from Schrödinger equation that has hamiltonian operator inside. This operator can always be tuned adding or changing some terms of it. When the hamiltonian is tuned enough the Schrödinger equation is able again to find a good solution, and predict new phenomena too. As far as now it proved to be a good tool. It has not to be rubbished too early. Hamiltonians can be also time-dependent so many further physical systems can be described by it.
    Different physical systems have different hamiltonians. For example, Compton effect is scattering, it has S matrix, and so it is well described by p (momentum) wave functions, that is probability distribuition in p, not x. Everything is taken in account. Instead, x wave functions are suitable for bound states like atoms. Furthermore, Compton scattering is caused by a photon going onto an electron, so it is very different from billiards.
    I ensure you that enlightened scientists doubt of everything, as the E-Cat story and LENR literature proves, but these enlightened scientists know deeply current theories and know their defects and weaknesses, or hidden paradoxes. They know also their strengths, so they do not deceive themselves and do not dream as far as they have not some result to show.
    I was going not to answer you again but you do not deserve to be ignored because it seems that you are a E-Cat supporter, like me. Still I hope you do not reply again to me.
    Regards

  • Burt

    There are plenty of forums to discuss if climate change is real or not. Please don’t do it here….

  • Bill Nichols

    @Alex, David Roberson…

    As an Atmospheric Scientist, worked heavily in the Climate Change field for almost a decade. Here’s a question to consider…

    If all the laws of nature apply to Climate Change (they do)…why has there been discord on Climate Change for now over 2 decades?

    Could it be dogma and/or special interests (including politics?) replacing sound scientific principles?

    Science: It comes down to experiments (tests) that observe, measure…compile data that confirms or conflict any theory.

    That is how Galileo was proven correct, up through Einstein on relativity, and is still is no different today.

    Climate Change (or any science) is not as complicated as some may tell you. I agree with Einstein…we should be able to explain the concept to the average person (really) that they can grasp.

    Finally, models are just hypothesis, which are a type of opinion. They are not observations of the natural world. Please keep that in mind.

    A corollary to LENR and Mr Rossi’s work…exposed to anomalous heat data in early 1990’s that couldn’t be discussed away. The government hierarchy was invested in other areas. I knew it was real because the data was well beyond any error bar of measurements. The problem was reproducibility.

    Offer there are similarities to Climate Change and in the LENR phenomena w/r/t entrenched dogma. This has always been the case with new or different ideas.

    That is what I would ask readers here and Mr Rossi to consider.

    The October test, will be the answer.

    If Mr Rossi’s test is a success, it will reinforce my thought that by the end of this century (or earlier)…it may be possible to manage the weather on our planet because of the core principles of energy…heat and temperature. Think holistically.

    Hope that helps w/r/t Climate Change.

    All the Best,

    Bill Nichols

  • L

    @wladimir
    How do you explain the single photon double slit experiment without qm “probability distribution”
    With all due respect you are wrong. QM may be inaccurate in some cases but it.is certainly not wrong.
    Thats like saying Newton was wrong because Einstein proved it. Newton was close Einstein was more accurate.

  • Alex

    Mr. Roberson, it is not for me to decide or say that the theory of man-made global warming is a scam. I have a degree in science and \i am able to understand most of the reports that came out and are coming out on climatology. The predictions, based on computer models, that the planet will warm up have all failed. But there has been so much (peoples’ tax) money invested since the early ninetees after some scientists said that the planet is warming due to anthropogenic CO2, that the governments of the world cannot accept the truth. They would all look like fools.
    Only this week, CERN has confirmned Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark’s theory that solar activity is the main driver of climate change, but mainstream media, journalsists and politicians do not want us to know this revelation, because there are so many reputations that would otherwise be lost.
    google Henrik Svensmark, Jasper Kirkby and CERN and you will get there.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Joseph Fine:
    I said “Currebunt” ( future, second coniugation, third plural snake; of course not snakes do run, they creep; “tempora” run)
    Warmest Regards,
    A.R.

  • Joseph Fine

    Maybe: serpentes currunt

    A current (or run) of snakes, hope they are not electric eels.

    J.F.

  • Joseph Fine

    Mala tempora currebant serpentes?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Enzo:
    OK, you will have satisfaction before the end of September.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Enzo

    Dear Dr Rossi
    I have been following your story since January with mixed feelings of skepticism and hope.
    In this blog many people ask questions about the progress of your work and I think it would be to satisfaction of many (including me) if you could post pictures of the various type of ecats you are building and testing in your laboratory and/or farms.
    Thanks.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Jack:
    Mala tempora currebunt serpentibus.
    Salve tibi,
    A.R.

  • Dear Mr. Rossi

    I’m very sorry if I try to ask you some potentially confidential information. But rumors says that the 14th July meeting at the Marshall Space Flight Center could be related with the september test in US. So could NASA and ECat be good friends in a near future ?

    Can you confirm this information ?

    Best regards

    Giacomo Guidi

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Goumy:
    Yes, we will release photos.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Paolo:
    The success arrived after repeated tests starting from the intuition of an effect.
    Thank you for your kind considerations,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Paolo

    Grazie per la sua esauriente risposta e anche perchè risponde a tutti con molta gentilezza.
    Ho visto l’intervista di Focardi, dove dice che dopo due mesi di lavoro con lei le cose si sono ribaltate completamente e che da un fattore 2 che poi ritornava ad 1 convertendolo in elettricità, siete passati ad una resa molto ma molto superiore..Ero curioso di capire se lei si è basato su numerosissime prove e riprove finchè siete stati baciati dalla fortuna che giustamente premia gli audaci o se è frutto della sua intuizione che a un certo punto ha preso il sopravvento..
    Mi chiedevo inoltre, senz’altro molto ignorantemente se lei crede, che il processo del protone dell’idrogeno che si aggiunge al nichel per diventare rame, valga teoricamente anche per tanti altri elementi che si trasmuterebbero in quello superiore cedendo energia. Perchè se è così lei ha aperto una breccia, su delle possibilità inimmaginabili. Complimenti veramente e spero tanto lei possa contribuire a dare una svolta a questa scienza a volte così ottusa che uccide l’intuizione. Un suo fan

  • A. Goumy

    Dear Mr Rossi,

    If secrecy constraints for you and your Customer are not too strong, are you planning to take pictures during the “tests closed doors” of the 1 MW power plant, and make them public? As we saw only the individual modules up to now, it would be of great interest for your Readers to have an idea of what this power plant looks like.

    Best regards,

    A.G.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Paolo:
    I confirm, as always said, that the photons produced inside the E-Cat are thermalized inside. We make continuously measurements of radiations outside the reactor, and never found values above 0.2 microSievert/h.
    The nature of the process, after years of tests I made, are now well known to me, and there are no reasons to emit neutrons, high energy photons. The shielding has been perfectly calculated, also with the help of Sergio Focardi. The measurements of radiations have always been made by experts, who usually check the radiations in all the sites where they can be produced (cyclotrones, Hospitals, and so forth).
    Of course the fact that we have chosen to make small modules instead of big reactors is aimed to safety issues: in particular, I am a galileian-approach-guy, so that I am sure only of what I experienced repeatedly; therefore, I am sure of the E-Cat as they are, because I have thousands of hours on those, while I have no experience with big reactors, so far. Besides, there is no reason to get bigger reactors, because to make a big building you can use small bricks. Of course I got my risks at the beginning of the work, when there were no certainties at all…this is why I never wanted anybody working with me. Now all the safety data are well known.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Paolo

    Buongiorno, volevo sapere se prima di questa corsa precipitosa per produrre questa eccezionale scoperta ( anche se ne capisco le ragioni ), avete verificato completamente il rilascio di altre emissioni oltre alla radiazione gamma schermata dal piombo, tipo neutroni o altro . E’ indispensabile che diate sicurezza a tutti, visto che il fenomeno è nucleare e non ancora compreso. Potremmo avere a che fare con qualcosa di estremamente pericoloso, anche perchè mi immagino che poi tanti proveranno a modificare qualcosa. La sua scelta di collegarne tanti piccoli in serie, mi fa capire che anche lei non si vuole arrischiare con uno solo grande. Mi dia delle rassicurazioni per favore. Quando è stato scoperto il fuoco, prima si son bruciati.. Saluti e buon lavoro

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear David Roberson:
    Thank you.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Greg:
    The tests closed doors for the US Customer will start in september. As for the other issue, which I want not to deal publicly, the problem has been resolved.
    Warmest Regards,
    A.R

  • David Roberson

    @Alex, Thank you for the interesting information. Now I am truly confused about the future climate changes expected. Are you suggesting that the entire man caused global climate problem is a scam? Why is the carbon capture or offset credits industry not eliminated for the reasons you list? Am I missing something important in understanding? Is the study you mention common knowledge?

    I guess that Mr. Rossi’s E-CAT invention might be the savior of humanity if a long term cold spell actually does cause crop failures, etc. It may be possible to use the E-CATs in indoor growing environments if the worst case scenario occurs. It has been my belief that we are just one missing growing season away from mass starvation as is.

    Mr. Rossi, keep up the excellent progress! The end of October is rapidly approaching and I can hardly wait until your product begins mass production.

    I viewed the interview of Dr. Focardi by Steven Krivit with Mr. Rossi translating. Both Dr. Focardi and Mr. Rossi answered the questions proposed by Steven in an honest, and direct manner. I fail to see why Mr. Krivit did not understand they both were sincere. I question why he came away with such a negative reaction.

  • Greg

    Dear Dr. Rossi,

    because you have originally planned the delivery of the 1MW power plant to Greece in October, it should be complete by now. I am sure that the US Customer is already testing it as I write.

    Thank you in advance.

    Greg

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Daniel:
    Thank you for the info,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dea Daniel Jonsson:
    Yes,
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

  • Peter Heckert

    Mr. Rossi,

    thank you for your clear answer!
    Anyway, it was partially meant as fun.
    The best fun in my life for me however, is the moment when we can really put to use this energy and and then see the open mouths of all these clever mainstream scientists 😉
    Best,

    Peter

  • Daniel Jonsson

    Dear Mr Rossi,

    Thank you for your fast reply yesterday, much appreciated. I have another question if you don’t mind. I have noticed that you use highly purified hydrogen gas. Is that because, even small impurities in the hydrogen gas will make the energy-catalyzer to stop producing energy?

    Best regards
    D.Jonsson

  • Daniel

    Hi Rossi, I hope your machine works.

    I read somewhere that you were looking for a simple conversion to electricity.

    A local company in my home town manifactures the Sterlingengine in the link below. It can extract 9kW of electricity out of 26kW of thermal energy. The heater should be formed as a tube so I thought of your reactor.

    http://www.cleanergyindustries.com/production.html

    This is maybe not the best conversion ratio but I believe it is cheap, simple and small.

    Best Regards
    Daniel

  • Guru Gurovic

    Folks,
    big change in Mr. Inventor Agenda:

    “I want to have ready an E-Cat able to give heat, cold and el. power to everybody”

    This statement is indicating that this cheap clean energy will be buyable not only for Big Boys (Status Quo Industries), so also for common folks for homeowners & etc.

    Big shift in strategy.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Mr. insight wrote:
    “Maybe you believe that electrons and protons are like “balls”. No, they are not: they have to be considered “quantum states”, that is, probability distribution of matter”.

    Dear Mr. insight,
    you are wrong.

    Electrons are like a ball, yes.

    Because electrons collide like billiard balls, as Compton experiments proved to us.
    Only balls can collide like billiard balls.

    “Quantum states”, or “probability distribution of matter”, cannot collide like billiard balls.

    Compton experiments (which proved that electrons are like balls) are not a theory. They are experiments.

    “Probability distribution of matter” is only a theory. It’s NOT an experimental result.

    Probability distribution of matter has been proposed as a theory because the quantum theorists did not succeed to explain why an electron like a ball does not fall within the nucleus.

    In another words, the quantum theorists rejected the experiments made by Compton, so that to save their theory, according to which the electron is not like a ball.

    But the scientific method prescribes that any experiment must prevail over any theory. If the theory does not fit to an experimental result, the theory must be rejected. To keep the theory, by rejecting the experiment is not according to the scientific criterium.

    However, instead of to realize that “probability distribution of matter” is an unsatisfactory concept, refuted by Compton experiment, the quantum theorists decided to do just what scientific method prescribes do not to do: they neglected the Compton experiment.

    In short: as the Compton experiment shows that electrons are like a ball, a theory of the atom must consider the electrons in its electrosphere just as they are: like balls.
    Since from the foundations of Quantum Mechanics is impossible to explain why electrons like a ball do not fall into the nucleus, there is need to change the foundations of QM. It’s not acceptable to change the shape of the electron detected experimentally (by proposing that electron is a probability distribution of matter, instead of to consider it like a ball) only because Quantum Mechanics cannot explain why they do fall into the nuclei (this behavior is a betrayal to the scientific method).

    The false fundamental principles of Quantum Mechanics are responsible for the appearance of several unacceptable paradoxes in Modern Physics.
    That’s why Bohr proposed some strange postulates. That was a desperate attempt he proposed with the aim to explain the paradoxes, so that to find an interpretation philosophically reasonable for the strange quantum theory.
    One of the Bohr’s strange postulates is the Principle of Complementarity, according to which sometimes a quantum particle can behave as a wave, and sometimes it can behave as a corpuscle.

    However a new experiment published in Science has showed that Bohr’s Complementarity Principle is wrong
    http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3295&mode=nested&order=0&thold=0#13592
    So, to consider that electron is a probability distribution of matter is a fallacy.

    The physicists enjoy to cheat themselves.
    Instead to realize that some principles of Quantum Mechanics are wrong, they cheat themselves looking for absurd solutions, so that to save the theory.

    I thought the reality of cold fusion would change the behavior of the physicists, and they would finally realize that Physics needs new foundations.

    Unfortunately, I see that physicists will continue to deceive themselves, because they will try to explain cold fusion with these current theories full of false principles.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Peter Heckert:
    We are using and have used the E-Cats to heat rooms. As for the use of them to make heat and air conditioned, we already are ready, as for the production of electris power we are close. One big problem (pressure) has been resolved.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Italo A. Albanese:
    This means your idea was good.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Georgehants:
    I think so, yes.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • georgehants

    Dear Mr Rossi,
    When you publish your report on the theory behind the E-CAT will it, if you are correct, lead to other possible applications, or new science.

  • Italo A. Albanese

    Dear Andrea Rossi:
    I fear that with my “water trap” I just “discovered warm water”…
    See http://www.spiraxsarco.com/resources/steam-engineering-tutorials/pipeline-ancillaries/separators.asp

    Best regards,
    Italo A.

  • Alex

    To Mr. Roberson et al asking for information regarding atmospheric CO2:
    The resident time of CO2 in the atmosphere has been calculated as 15 years.
    The anthropogenic portion of atmospheric CO2 i9ncrease is just 3% approx.
    One can easily find peer-reviwed papers on the above.
    Meanwhile, CERN have just published their resukts on the CLOUD project, confirming Svensmark’s theory that the major forcing on the climate is not CO2 but solar variability impinging on Cosmic Galactic Radiation that seed clouds (Sulphur Dioxide), thus varying the albedo, driving climate into global cooling/global warming variations along the millenial scale. We have had 4 coolings and five warmings during the last 4500 years and solar scientists are now predicting a global cooling phase that could be as bad as the Little Ice Age that endeed 200 years ago.

    My apologies for introducing this thread in Ing. Rossi’s blog, but someone had to clear up the matter.
    This new revelation on climate not being really dependent on CO2 variability does not reduce Ing. Rossi’s great achieveent by one single value. Rossi’s e-cat is just the beginning of a new energy Renaissance. It is to energy what Columbus was to the new world. Columbus had only discovered an island, but that was the gateway to a great continent.
    The e-cat is the gateway to a new world driven by cheap energy that will pull the poor out of their misery. What is actually happening now is that energy is bcoming costlier every day, driving the poor to death by hunger and the poverty line reasching more asnd more people across the world. The North African revolution currently going on was initiated by the prohibitive costs of foods that are becoming dearer and dearer just because evrything is driven by energy and energy is getting costlier. The people could not take it anymore, and it was the straw that broke the camel’s back.

  • Peter Heckert

    If this all works with quantum physics, how can we know, the energy is still there when we go to use it?
    You know, quantum physics is quite funny, as soon as we try to observe an object, is changes its behaviour.
    Could it be, the energy is virtual and will vanish as soon as it is put to serious use? 😉
    Has this ever been tried?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Rick Gresham:
    We are testing other solutions than water, to raise higher temperatures in a closed circuit and then exchange heat with water to make steam at temp and press enough high to make electricity: I want to have ready an E-Cat able to give heat, cold and el. power to everybody. We are arriving.
    Warmest regards,
    A.R.

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>