by E.N. Tsyganov
(UA9 collaboration) University of Texas Southwestern
Medical Center at Dallas, Texas, USA
Abstract
Recent accelerator experiments on fusion of various elements have clearly demonstrated that the effective cross-sections of these reactions depend on what material the target particle is placed in. In these experiments, there was a significant increase in the probability of interaction when target nuclei are imbedded in a conducting crystal or are a part of it. These experiments open a new perspective on the problem of so-called cold nuclear fusion.
Introduction
Experiments of Fleischmann and Pons made about 20 years ago [1], raised the question about the possibility of nuclear DD fusion at room temperature. Conflicting results of numerous experiments that followed, dampened the initial euphoria, and the scientific community quickly came to common belief, that the results of [1] are erroneous. One of the convincing arguments of skeptics was the lack in these experiments of evidence of nuclear decay products. It was assumed that “if there are no neutrons, therefore is no fusion.” However, quite a large international group of physicists, currently a total of about 100-150 people, continues to work in this direction. To date, these enthusiasts have accumulated considerable experience in the field. The leading group of physicists working in this direction, in our opinion, is the group led by Dr. M. McKubre [2]. Interesting results were also obtained in the group of Dr. Y. Arata [3]. Despite some setbacks with the repeatability of results, these researchers still believe in the existence of the effect of cold fusion, even though they do not fully understand its nature. Some time ago we proposed a possible mechanism to explain the results of cold fusion of deuterium [4]. This work considered a possible mechanism of acceleration of deuterium contaminant atoms in the crystals through the interaction of atoms with long-wavelength lattice vibrations in deformed parts of the crystal. Estimates have shown that even if a very small portion of the impurity atoms (~105) get involved in this process and acquires a few keV energy, this will be sufficient to describe the energy released in experiments [2]. This work also hypothesized that the lifetime of the intermediate nucleus increases with decreasing energy of its excitation, so that so-called “radiation-less cooling” of the excited nucleus becomes possible. In [5], we set out a more detailed examination of the process. Quite recently, a sharp increase of the probability of fusion of various elements was found in accelerator experiments for the cases when the target particles are either imbedded in a metal crystal or are a part of the conducting crystal. These experiments compel us to look afresh on the problem of cold fusion.
Recent experiments on fusion of elements on accelerators
For atom-atom collisions the expression of the probability of penetration through a Coulomb barrier for bare nuclei should be modified, because atomic electrons screen the repulsion effect of nuclear charge. Such a modification for the isolated atom collisions has been performed in H.J. Assenbaum and others [6] using static Born-Oppenheimer approximation. The experimental results that shed further light on this problem were obtained in relatively recent works C. Rolfs [7] and K. Czerski [8]. Review of earlier studies on this subject is contained in the work of L. Bogdanova [9]. In these studies a somewhat unusual phenomenon was observed: the sub-barrier fusion cross sections of elements depend strongly on the physical state of the matter in which these processes are taking place. Figure 1 (left) shows the experimental data [8], demonstrating the dependence of the astrophysical factor S(E) for the fusion of elements of sub-threshold nuclear reaction on the aggregate state of the matter that contains the target nucleus 7Li. The same figure (right) presents similar data [7] for the DD reaction, when the target nucleus was embedded in a zirconium crystal. It must be noted that the physical nature of the phenomenon of increasing cross synthesis of elements in the case where this process occurs in the conductor crystal lattice is still not completely clear.
Figure 1. Up – experimental data [8], showing the energy dependence of the S-factor for sub-threshold nuclear reaction on the aggregate state of matter that contains the nucleus 7Li. Down – the similar data [7] for the reaction of DD, when the target nucleus is placed in a crystal of zirconium. The data are well described by the introduction of the screening potential of about 300 eV.
The phenomenon is apparently due to the strong anisotropy of the electrical fields of the crystal lattice in the presence of free conduction electrons. Data for zirconium crystals for the DD reactions can be well described by the introduction of the screening potential of about 300 eV. It is natural to assume that the corresponding distance between of two atoms of deuterium in these circumstances is less than the molecular size of deuterium. In the case of the screening potential of 300 eV, the distance of convergence of deuterium atoms is ~510ˆ12 m, which is about an order of magnitude smaller than the size of a molecule of deuterium, where the screening potential is 27 eV. As it turned out, the reaction rate for DD fusion in these conditions is quite sufficient to describe the experimental results of McKubre and others [2]. Below we present the calculation of the rate process similar to the mu-catalysis where, instead of the exchange interaction by the muon, the factor of bringing together two deuterons is the effect of conduction electrons and the lattice of the crystal.
Calculation of the DD fusion rate for “Metal-Crystal” catalysis
The expression for the cross section of synthesis in the collision of two nuclei can be written as
where for the DD fusion
Here the energy E is shown in keV in the center of mass. S(E) astrophysical factor (at low energies it can be considered constant), the factor 1/E reflects de Broglie dependence of cross section on energy. The main energy dependence of the fusion is contained in an expression
that determines the probability of penetration of the deuteron through the Coulomb barrier. From the above expressions, it is evident that in the case of DD collisions and in the case of DDμcatalysis, the physics of the processes is the same. We use this fact to determine the probability of DD fusion in the case of the “metal-crystalline” DD-catalysis. In the case of DDμ- catalysis the size of the muon deuterium molecules (ion+) is ~5×10ˆ13m. Deuterium nuclei approach such a distance at a kinetic energy ~3 keV. Using the expression (1), we found that the ratio of σ(3.0 keV)/σ(0.3 keV) = 1.05×10ˆ16. It should be noted that for the free deuterium molecule this ratio [ σ(3.0keV)/σ(0.03keV)] is about 10ˆ73. Experimental estimations of the fusion rate for the (DDμ)+ case presented in the paper by Hale [10]:
Thus, we obtain for the “metal-crystalline” catalysis DD fusion rate (for zirconium case):
Is this enough to explain the experiments on cold fusion? We suppose that a screening potential for palladium is about the same as for zirconium. 1 cmˆ3 (12.6 g) of palladium contains 6.0210ˆ23(12.6/106.4) = 0.710ˆ23 atoms. Fraction of crystalline cells with dual (or more) the number of deuterium atoms at a ratio of D: Pd ~1:1 is the case in the experiments [2] ~0.25 (e.g., for Poisson distribution). Crystal cell containing deuterium atoms 0 or 1, in the sense of a fusion reaction, we consider as “passive”. Thus, the number of “active” deuterium cells in 1 cmˆ3 of palladium is equal to 1.810ˆ22. In this case, in a 1 cmˆ3 of palladium the reaction rate will be
this corresponds to the energy release of about 3 kW. This is quite sufficient to explain the results of McKubre group [2]. Most promising version for practical applications would be Platinum (Pt) crystals, where the screening potential for d(d,p)t fusion at room temperature is about 675 eV [11]. In this case, DD fusion rate would be:
The problem of “nonradiative” release of nuclear fusion energy
As we have already noted, the virtual absence of conventional nuclear decay products of the compound nucleus was widely regarded as one of the paradoxes of DD fusion with the formation of 4He in the experiments [2]. We proposed the explanation of this paradox in [4]. We believe that after penetration through the Coulomb barrier at low energies and the materialization of the two deuterons in a potential well, these deuterons retain their identity for some time. This time defines the frequency of further nuclear reactions. Figure 2 schematically illustrates the mechanism of this process. After penetration into the compound nucleus at a very low energy, the deuterons happen to be in a quasi-stabile state seating in the opposite potential wells. In principle, this system is a dual “electromagnetic-nuclear” oscillator. In this oscillator the total kinetic energy of the deuteron turns into potential energy of the oscillator, and vice versa. In the case of very low-energy, the amplitude of oscillations is small, and the reactions with nucleon exchange are suppressed.
Fig. 2. Schematic illustration of the mechanism of the nuclear decay frequency dependence on the compound nucleus 4He* excitation energy for the merging deuterons is presented. The diagram illustrates the shape of the potential well of the compound nucleus. The edges of the potential well are defined by the strong interaction, the dependence at short distances Coulomb repulsion.
The lifetime of the excited 4He* nucleus can be considered in the formalism of the usual radioactive decay. In this case,
Here ν is the decay frequency, i.e., the reciprocal of the decay time τ. According to our hypothesis, the decay rate is a function of excitation energy of the compound nucleus E. Approximating with the first two terms of the polynomial expansion, we have:
Here ν° is the decay frequency at asymptotically low excitation energy. According to quantum-mechanical considerations, the wave functions of deuterons do not completely disappear with decreasing energy, as illustrated by the introduction of the term ν°. The second term of the expansion describes the linear dependence of the frequency decay on the excitation energy. The characteristic nuclear frequency is usually about 10ˆ22 sˆ-1. In fusion reaction D+D4He there is a broad resonance at an energy around 8 MeV. Simple estimates by the width of the resonance and the uncertainty relation gives a lifetime of the intermediate state of about 0.810ˆ22 s. The “nuclear” reaction rate falls approximately linearly with decreasing energy. Apparently, a group of McKubre [2] operates in an effective energy range below 2 keV in the c.m.s. Thus, in these experiments, the excitation energy is at least 4×10ˆ3 times less than in the resonance region. We assume that the rate of nuclear decay is that many times smaller. The corresponding lifetime is less than 0.3×10ˆ18 s. This fall in the nuclear reaction rate has little effect on the ratio of output decay channels of the compound nucleus, but down to a certain limit. This limit is about 6 keV. A compound nucleus at this energy is no longer an isolated system, since virtual photons from the 4He* can reach to the nearest electron and carry the excitation energy of the compound nucleus. The total angular momentum carried by the virtual photons can be zero, so this process is not prohibited. For the distance to the nearest electron, we chose the radius of the electrons in the helium atom (3.1×10ˆ11 m). From the uncertainty relations, duration of this process is about 10ˆ-19 seconds. In the case of “metal-crystalline” catalysis the distance to the nearest electrons can be significantly less and the process of dissipation of energy will go faster. It is assumed that after an exchange of multiple virtual photons with the electrons of the environment the relatively small excitation energy of compound nucleus 4He* vanishes, and the frequency of the compound nucleus decaying with the emission of nucleons will be determined only by the term ν°. For convenience, we assume that this value is no more than 10ˆ12-10ˆ14 per second. In this case, the serial exchange of virtual photons with the electrons of the environment in a time of about 10ˆ-16 will lead to the loss of ~4 MeV from the compound nucleus (after which decays with emission of nucleons are energetically forbidden), and then additional exchange will lead to the loss of all of the free energy of the compound nucleus (24 MeV) and finally the nucleus will be in the 4He ground state. The energy dissipation mechanism of the compound nucleus 4He* with virtual photons, discussed above, naturally raises the question of the electromagnetic-nuclear structure of the excited compound nucleus.
Fig. 3. Possible energy diagram of the excited 4He* nucleus is presented.
Figure 3 represents a possible energy structure of the excited 4He* nucleus and changes of its spatial configuration in the process of releasing of excitation energy. Investigation of this process might be useful to study the quark-gluon dynamics and the structure of the nucleus.
Discussion
Perhaps, in this long-standing history of cold fusion, finally the mystery of this curious and enigmatic phenomenon is gradually being opened. Besides possible benefits that the practical application of this discovery will bring, the scientific community should take into account the sociological lessons that we have gained during such a long ordeal of rejection of this brilliant, though largely accidental, scientific discovery. We would like to express the special appreciation to the scientists that actively resisted the negative verdict imposed about twenty years ago on this topic by the vast majority of nuclear physicists.
Acknowledgements
The author thanks Prof. S.B. Dabagov, Dr. M. McKubre, Dr. F. Tanzela, Dr. V.A. Kuzmin, Prof. L.N. Bogdanova and Prof. T.V. Tetereva for help and valuable discussions. The author is grateful to Prof. V.G. Kadyshevsky, Prof. V.A. Rubakov, Prof. S.S. Gershtein, Prof. V.V. Belyaev, Prof. N.E. Tyurin, Prof. V.L. Aksenov, Prof. V.M. Samsonov, Prof. I.M. Gramenitsky, Prof. A.G. Olshevsky, Prof. V.G. Baryshevsky for their help and useful advice. I am grateful to Dr. VM. Golovatyuk, Prof. M.D. Bavizhev, Dr. N.I. Zimin, Prof. A.M. Taratin for their continued support. I am also grateful to Prof. A. Tollestrup, Prof. U. Amaldi, Prof. W. Scandale, Prof. A. Seiden, Prof. R. Carrigan, Prof. A. Korol, Prof. J. Hauptmann, Prof. V. Guidi, Prof. F. Sauli, Prof. G. Mitselmakher, Prof. A. Takahashi, and Prof. X. Artru for stimulating feedback. Continued support in this process was provided with my colleagues and the leadership of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, and I am especially grateful to Prof. R. Parkey, Prof. N. Rofsky, Prof. J. Anderson and Prof. G. Arbique. I express special thanks to my wife, N.A. Tsyganova for her stimulating ideas and uncompromising support.
References
1. M. Fleischmann, S. Pons, M. W. Anderson, L. J. Li, M. Hawkins, J. Electro anal. Chem. 287, 293 (1990).
2. M. C. H. McKubre, F. Tanzella, P. Tripodi, and P. Haglestein, In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2000, Lerici (La Spezia), Ed. F. Scaramuzzi, (Italian Physical Society, Bologna, Italy, 2001), p 3; M. C. H. McKubre, In Condensed Matter Nuclear Science: Proceedings Of The 10th International Conference On Cold Fusion; Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA 21-29 August, 2003, Ed by P. L. Hagelstein and S. R. Chubb, (World Sci., Singapore, 2006). M. C. H. McKubre, “Review of experimental measurements involving dd reactions”, Presented at the Short Course on LENR for ICCF-10, August 25, 2003.
3. Y. Arata, Y. Zhang, “The special report on research project for creation of new energy”, J. High Temp. Soc. (1) (2008).
4. E. Tsyganov, in Physics of Atomic Nuclei, 2010, Vol. 73, No. 12, pp. 1981–1989. Original Russian text published in Yadernaya Fizika, 2010, Vol. 73, No. 12, pp. 2036–2044.
5. E.N. Tsyganov, “The mechanism of DD fusion in crystals”, submitted to IL NUOVO CIMENTO 34 (4-5) (2011), in Proceedings of the International Conference Channeling 2010 in Ferrara, Italy, October 3-8 2010.
6. H.J. Assenbaum, K. Langanke and C. Rolfs, Z. Phys. A – Atomic Nuclei 327, p. 461-468 (1987).
7. C. Rolfs, “Enhanced Electron Screening in Metals: A Plasma of the Poor Man”, Nuclear Physics News, Vol. 16, No. 2, 2006.
8. A. Huke, K. Czerski, P. Heide, G. Ruprecht, N. Targosz, and W. Zebrowski, “Enhancement of deuteron-fusion reactions in metals and experimental implications”, PHYSICAL REVIEW C 78, 015803 (2008).
9. L.N. Bogdanova, Proceedings of International Conference on Muon Catalyzed Fusion and Related Topics, Dubna, June 18–21, 2007, published by JINR, E4, 15-2008-70, p. 285-293
10. G.M. Hale, “Nuclear physics of the muon catalyzed d+d reactions”, Muon Catalyzed Fusion 5/6 (1990/91) p. 227-232.
11. F. Raiola (for the LUNA Collaboration), B. Burchard, Z. Fulop, et al., J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys.31, 1141 (2005); Eur. Phys. J. A 27, s01, 79 (2006).
by E.N. Tsyganov
(UA9 collaboration) University of Texas Southwestern
Medical Center at Dallas, Texas, USA
Dear Piero:
As I answered already, prices are different place by place, the sole constant is the COP.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Redazione NextMe.it:
1- no radiations have been detected outside the E-Cats in thousand hours of operation
2- we will disclose the theory regarding the physics of the E-Cat after the product will be in the market: as you know, we will put it in the market at a price that will make useless any reverse engineering.
3- we made repeatedly tests
4- we are working also on the electric power production
5- NASA is not in contact with us
6- About the university of Bologna I am under NDA, as well as they are.
7- I do not think the E-Cats can produce new matirials. They can only produce thermal energy.
8- The E-Cat will be sold at a price between 500 and 900 US$.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Giovanni Guerrini:
Yes, but remember that also the E-Cat which make thermal energy are important to decrease the demand of fossil fuels and, indirectly, to lower the price of electricity, as a logic consequence.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mats Heijkenskjold:
Yes, we have also this turbine on our desk. Anything coming from the genius of Tesla has to be taken very seriously.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Italo A.Albanese:
I confirm: we are close to the production of electric power, mainly for industrialapplication.
But we do not work to fight the snakes, we work to satisfy the Customers.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Helmut H.:
Not only MIT, but many others. Many copies derived from our patent application have been made, this is why the competition is on the market: who will be able to produce the best at the best price will win.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
@Redazione NextMe.it
“We know that some of the criticisms of your invention are moved by the scientific community by virtue of a poor reproducibility of the experiments.”
Regarding reproducability: according to http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html currently at the MIT a LENR process is running at a COP of over 700%!
Since Mr. Rossi met with representatives from the MIT and two other universities in Massachusetts, i speculate there is a connection with the successfully running experiment.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I am very happy to read about your progress in electric energy generation. I hope you can present very soon a working electric generator, it will shut up every “snake” or “clown” discussion about e-cats. By the way, 260° could be enough for electric generation. It is about the same temperature Enel uses in Larderello for the geothermal plant, and much more than the U.S. Raft River geothermal project.
Best regards,
Italo A.
Dear Mr Rossi,
May be you know, but have you heard of the Tesla turbine? Patented nearly 100 yaers ago by the same man who invented the AC-current.
At the moment I found no commercial manufacturer, so it is no solution to-day. But may be in the future.
The turbine is very simple in construction and could be manufactured to what I think a low cost. It is suitable for low power with a high effiency. There are reports of 95% for the turbine itself, (not the total effiency).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_turbine
Good luck with your work;
Mats Heijkenskjöld
Dear Dott Rossi,your announcement about electric power,makes this day a very good day.I think that to make varied sizes plants,could be a good idea for many reasons.In first it could allow a fast creation of a producing energy net.When this will happen the price of enegy will begin to fall,so is very important that price of these plants makes possible a fast return of the investiment,so banks will be more favourebly disposed to give money for this technology and customers will not be worried for a return of investiment extension.
Warm regards G. Guerrini
Buongiorno Signor Rossi, l’E-cat potrebbe cambiare le sorti energetiche del pianeta, ma molti dettagli, per ovvie questioni di proprietà intellettuale, non sono state rese note. Tuttavia sappiamo che la prova di una reazione nucleare in corso è la produzione di raggi gamma schermabili con piccoli spessori di piombo. Tale schermatura si trova all’interno dell’apparecchiatura per consentirne un uso domestico o per questo si dovranno fare degli update?
E’ noto che la reazione viene innescata scaldando l’idrogeno con un semplice resistore. A quale temperatura avviene la fusione dei nuclei? Inoltre, quando avviene l’arresto del processo? Può essere “comandato” in qualche modo?
Sappiamo che alcune critiche alla Vostra invenzione sono mosse dalla comunità scientifica in virtù di una scarsa riproducibilità degli esperimenti. E’ dovuta alle condizioni sperimentali usate oppure ad un sistema ancora da perfezionare?
Quando pensa che l’apparecchiatura potrà produrre energia elettrica oltre al calore? Sarà un problema affrontato da chi investirà nel progetto? In poche parole, E-cat non provede di per sé la conversione energetica?
La Nasa fino a pochissimo tempo fa sembrava credere fortemente in tutti i processi di fusione nucleare a bassa energia (tra i quali il Vostro), ma ultimamente sembra aver fatto dei passi indietro. Si è fatto un’idea sul perché di questo apparente dietro-front?
L’Università di Bologna, come è noto, si è ormai tagliata fuori da tutto. Inizialmente era stata coinvolta e poi per altri problemi si è ritirata, oppure l’iniziativa in effetti non l’aveva mai coinvolta direttamente?
Il nostro giornale ha recentemente pubblicato un articolo riguardante la possibilità di E-cat di produrre minerali “nuovi” da materiale diverso (nel Vostro caso nickel + idrogeno per ottenere rame), al di là delle questioni energetiche, sulle quali immaginiamo ci sia il maggiore interesse. Ha mai pensato a questa possibile applicazione? La ritiene possibile su larga scala?
Un’ultima domanda sui costi: può farcene una stima grossolana?
La ringraziamo e le auguriamo un buon lavoro.
Dear dr. Rossi
You’ve recently answered this way to a blogger:
Andrea Rossi
February 22nd, 2012 at 6:33 AM
The amount of electric power in kWe necessary to the E-Cat is 1/6 of the thermal enrgy in kWt produced.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
A blogger, an engineer (I’m not!), made this analysis on your statement:
if COP formula is COP=kWt/kWe and not talking about your device in self sustain mode, he says the daily power consumption for a 10kw Ecat would be 1.7Kw (12 hours operation/day) with a cost/day calculated in about 4 euros.
If this evaluation is right, is it a great deal or a breaktrough or just a good saving money? Or he’s simply making a mistake?
Hoping You the best
Have a nice (working) day.
Dott.Rossi
Estimating the average cost of a seasonal natural gas boiler € 1300 – 1500 when we had to place the cost of 10 kW thermal e-cat 1.666x 12h x € 0.22x30ggx6 = € 788.8 will cost quite high, if I must add for hot water in summer the half (6 h per day) I will have € 1100 a year. I ask you if could not be timed only 4 hours of power a day at 1.66 Kw, and at other times have a consumption of 200 W so we have 1.66x4HX 0.22×180 =€ 262 and 0.200x 8hx0.22×180= € 63 total = € 325 maybe € 450 per year with hot water. I hope that it was quite clear, however also a cost of € 788 vs 1300 without hot summer water, with people who believe the nearly free energy is not attractive, but the cost € 450 Vs 1300 it is . Regards
Electric power cost to operate an E-Cat:
If an E-Cat only operates with a COP of 6, and that is what it does continuously, how does it compare to natural gas? This analysis uses my prices in North Texas.
1 million BTU of gas is now under $3.00 wholesale. Let’s say that at residential retail, that is $7.00/MBTU. An efficient furnace can burn it with an efficiency of 80%, so the cost 1 MBTU of useful heat is $7/.8 = $8.75.
1 MBTU of electricity is 1,000,000/3412 or 293 KWH.
At 12¢/KWH, 3412 BTU, 1 MBTU of electricity costs 293*.12 = $35.17. With a COP of 6, the cost of electric power to operate the E-Cat is $35.17/6 = $5.86.
At a large industrial installation, gas can be purchased at a cost much less than at the residential price. If a COP of 6 is the best it can do, it’s not very cost-efective.
If this can’t be improved, and get the E-Cat to operate continuously in self-sustain, it won’t be very cost effective for heat in places where nat-gas is available. That is, until E-Cats are coupled to generators and then they can self-sustain electrically.
I did place my pre-order and DO NOT want to cancel. I can hardly wait for mine to arrive.
Dear Charlie Sutherland:
We are working very hard on this issue. I can say you, based on the last weeks improvements, that for the industrial plants we probably are very close to the production of electric power: if we reach 260 Celsius the efficiencies will be around 30-33%, and we will be able to make power plants of 25 MW. For the domestic things will be more difficult, but we will get also this target, sooner or later.
Your considerations, anyway, are right.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
It may not be possible to use an off-the-shelf turbine or conventional steam engine with the 30kw e-cat. Present devices rely on higher pressures and temperatures. Your unique requirements could be satisfied with specific designs. The efficiencies may not ever reach those utilizing the higher pressures and temperatures, but that is really not a problem since you have created greater efficiencies in creating heat.
Dear Daniele:
All the tech is in an escrow to which will have access some persons just in case.
F.T. process has nothing to do.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Giovanni Guerrini:
I agree,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
The economy in Europe and in USA is in crisis for a lot of causes.One of these is the cost of energy,especially in countries as Italy that buys energy by foreign,sending a lot of money in other countries.Then,there are the costs that global warming gives and will give.L.e.n.r. could create job and could give growth at all the industrial system.These are the reasons because I think the world is ready.Then,we could avoid a war against Iran,and find a pacific solution for nuclear weapons,in fact these would lose the strategic motivation.Did the steam machine starts the industrial revolution?I think no,somewath I think that steam machine was invented when the world was ready for that revolution.Today is the same thing,when people have a problem,someone finds a solution.
Warm Regards Giovanni Guerrini
I should say Davide vs. Golia rather than Don Chisciotte. Am I optimist? Probably,but I think that the world is ready for this revolution.
Regards G Guerrini
Dear A. Rossi,
do you remember the stories of E.Mattei or E.Majorana?
If your e-cat will change the world as we know, i think you will be soon into great danger. Are you worried for your own safety? How many people really know the secret of your catalyzer in the world? Have you took any precautions for your incolumity? I can understand the economic reasons behind your choice, but ,at this point, is there any possibility to share this secret so important for the mankind?
In the quest of this catalyzer how much did weighed you your knowledge about Fischer–Tropsch processes?
Warm regards,
Daniele.
Dear Omega Z:
No, I did not.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Charlie Sutherland:
Thank you for the info.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
The Elliott Group might have a small steam turbine that could fit your 30kw e-cat’s output parameters.
I’m curious, Have you tried a form of Sinta Forge with low heat to form the nickel powder into the most desired shape & porousness for your lattice for the hydrogen loading.
Dear Marvin Ostrega:
We have contacts.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
Have any big electrical companies, ex. Con Edison, approached you about the E-Cat to invest or out of curiosity? They must have deep pockets and have huge R and D programs? They might help you out. They could cut through the red tape on huge electrical E-Cat Plants. Just a thought.
You may wish to review the link below as it seems to provide a possible energy interface for your ECATs from a major industry supplier.
http://www.lennox.com/products/solar-ready/#intro
Substitute the solar panels for your ECAT as a heat source. It sounds like the manufacturer has a product tailored for you.
Dear Pizarro:
Cervantes is one of my favourite classic writers. But I an not fighting windmills, if this is what you ment with your innuendo, I fight for an energy that is useful.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Have you read Don Quixote, Mr. Rossi? … If you have not I recommend it
Dear Dylan Monies & Michael Brown:
1- please google ” Nyteknik october 6th 2011 report”
2- energy saving with apparatuses which do not pollute
3- twelve to eighteen months
4- starting from an idea, try thousand times adjourning the theory on the base of the experience( Galilean Methodology)
5- no
6- yes
7- I allowed
8- about 600-800 US$
Thank you for ethernal gratefulness. It is the first ethernal thing I got in this life.
Warmest Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi
We are doing a project on your cold fusion generator for school because we have always been interested in cold fusion. We have a few questions that if you answered would help us out a ton.
1. Could you give us a simple explanation of how your generator works?
2. What do you think the effect on society will be if you begin mass producing it?
3. How long do you think it will be before it is ready for widespread use?
4. Could you explain the process through which you invented it?
5. Are there any hazards that might be involved with everyday use?
6. Have any major retailer attempted to buy the plans?
7. Why have you not allowed any fellow scientists to verify the process?
8. When or if you mass produce your generator how much will it cost for the general public?
If you answer all or a few of these we would be eternally grateful.
Sincerely, Michael Brown and Dylan Monies
Dear Charlie Sutherland:
Thank you!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
I have contacted a couple more folks. There has got to be somebody out there who can help you put this thing together.
All the best.
Charlie
Dear Mike Messick:
Your pre-order has been accepted.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
I would like to pre-order 1 10kW e-cat.
Best of luck in your endeavors!
-Mike.
Alaska, USA
Dear Charlie Sutherland:
I am very interested to these technologies, at a condition: that this wonderful People send me real offer for devices ready to be bought and coupled with the E-Cats. We need real offers, urgently.
Warmest Regards,
Andrea
Dear Mr. Rossi,
I called Mr. Green for more information about his steam engine. He said his engine was at best only 24% efficient. It did have lots of moving parts to contend with.
If it is not asking too much, I forgot to ask for input water temperature and flow rates on the 30kw e-cat.
Charlie Sutherland
Dear Charlie Sutherland:
Too prototypical.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
2 kg*cm^-2 is about 196,133 Pascals or 28 PSI (More or less). Atmospheric pressure is 101,000 Pascals. That is not high pressure, about the same as an under filled automobile tire.
Joseph
Dear Mr. Rossi,
I found this website. http://www.greensteamengine.com/ Let me know what you think about these little steam engines.
Charlie
Dear Mr. Rossi,
Many thanks for the information.
Charlie
Dear Charlie Sutherland,
the maximum T and P we can get right now from a module containing 3 reactors is:
T < 200° C
P < 2 kg x cm^-2
As I said, we are working strongly, also with our Customer, to raise these data.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
If you can tell me, without revealing too much, the estimated steam pressures and temperatures available from a single 3 reactor 30kw unit under varying power settings (if there is more than just one setting), I could figure out what can be done with it.
Many thanks,
Charlie Sutherland
Dear SynergetX-HP.nl:
To answer properly to your question should be unavoidable give information that we deem confidential. Of course we give to the certificator all the necessary information to grant absolute safety.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Charlie Sutherland:
Sorry, I had not understood. We have to test this employ, I am not able to answer now.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
I understand that the e-cats only produce thermal energy and do not yet produce electricity. I may have not been clear on this.
I was asking if one of the 3 reactor 30kw units made for the 1mw generator can produce steam sufficiently energetic and at enough pressure to operate a propeller screw.
Thank you for your time.
Charlie Sutherland
Dear Mr. Rossi,
Asking this publicly in hope you clarify the public understanding of particular part of the process without addressing the inner working of the reactor and hoping to give you a hint on how to create electricity more efficient via a private email follow-up:
In reference to http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/02/rossi-says-e-cat-is-absolutely-safe-no-gamma-rays-emitted/
Is it correct to conclude that the heat of the eCat is mainly generated within the “nickel-powder/secret sauce” phase and is from there transferred through means of conduction (via the hydrogen) toward the heat exchanging surface and thus the much thought off mechanism of thermalization of gamma-rays by shielding lead is minimal to zero?
Could you elaborate how it came about that initially the thermalization of gamma-rays have been communicated as main source of heat?
It will be of big importance in process of obtaining certification that the gamma-ray issue is addressed in correct manner and is accepted as well controlled.
Dear Charlie Sutherland:
As you know, for now we are able only to supply thermal energy, but, again, every day we make a step forward to the production of electric power.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Another idea….
Home heating is a good use for the e-cat, but I want to live on a boat.
I’m getting on in age and would like to figuratively sail off into the sunset, or in my case, into the dawn toward Europe.
I would like to include – in my necessary equipment – a three reactor e-cat 30kw unit similar to those presently powering the 1mw generator. This unit would be used for space heating, to desalinate the sea water, and to directly power a low pressure turbine to turn a single propeller screw when sails are inadequate or dangerous to use. A box of replacement power sticks could get me around the world.
Until you come up with an electric generator, solar cells and standard wind generators and batteries would provide any electric power needed for the e-cat and lighting and communication.