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 Claudio Caprara:
Soon you will be satisfied.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Dear Dale G. Basgall:
Yes.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Koen Vandewalle:
Inside the reactor temperatures are around 1500 °C. The stability depends on other factors I can’t talk about.
We speak of kWh/h when indicate a measure of energy, while speak of kW when indicate power (k means 1 thousand, W is the initial of the inventor Watt, so has always to be written with capital “W”).
Good point about the snakes: the more they vibrate (like strings) the more they are worried about our work.
Formula: F= en^3 x w x i^-1
wherein:
F = frequency of the oscillation of the snake
en = envy, whic is a cubic exponential
w = Joules/kg of the snake: expressing the temperature raise of his body when thinks to our work
i = smartness intensity
Warm regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
Dear Andrea,
It is astonishing how much personal energy and courage you seem to have every day. Is it discipline or is it belief ? Although, the last days there is some fatigue and fear sensible in your answers and responses. I hope you have a good support there.
I assume that there are very negative reactions towards you and your team, and also other problems that have to be resolved, but on the other hand the opponents seem to be knowing and understanding very well what you are achieving and in a certain way they also have a sort of hidden respect for you and your work: They would not do so much effort if they really believed you were unable to succeed. There does not exist any church for non-believers.
Other thing now:
Have you reached increased temperatures (500°C) already in a more stable mode now?
When speaking of self sustaining, do you mean that once it is fired it then works until a critical amount of Ni is changed into Cu and then has to be replaced ? Or is it just for a certain period like a cycle of events that depend on some states of the Ni ? I ask this also because I find it inspiring that you always speak of kWh/h instead of simple kW.
Best regards,
Koen
Dear Mr. Rossi ; your work on the E-Cat is one of the most exciting things in my life right now and has been since I saw your first video. It must be difficult to accomplish work and be the leader who dictates what is really going on with the technology. Even with a small mechanical invention the reduction to practice can be challenging to say the least. Thanks for sticking through this and I feel sure your efforts will promote this E-Cat into success. Do you have plans to hire mechanic type people for your factories in the US?
Sono d’accordo con mario , anche se lei riceve molte email e post , la tua invenzione non è degnamente considerata dai media. Faccio parte di quelli che credono nella sua validità e anche una semplice dimostrazione con un ecat di fronte ad una webcam potrebbe aiutarmi a scioglere qualche dubbio.
I agree with Mario, even if you receive many emails and post, your invention is not considered worthy by the media. I belong to those who believe in its validity and even a simple demonstration with an ECAT front of a webcam may help dissolve some doubt
a Roma per stimolare un calciatore si dice …. A Rossi Facce sognà .
warm regards
Dear Mr. Rossi,
I have a question for you concerning the E-CAT and electrical generation. One of the earlier posters mentioned the possibility of having a direct conversion of gamma ray radiation into electrical energy. You have mentioned on several occasions that one of the primary heat generation mechanisms is due to the rays being captured and turned into heat within the device. Is it possible to quantify the relative amount of energy contained within the gamma rays as compared to the direct heat generated by other means?
It would be interesting to see the maximum electrical energy converted from the gamma rays as a first mechanism followed by a standard heat engine. I am wondering what level of total efficiency such a dual process could achieve.
Maybe some of the other experts following this journal would be able to offer suggestions as to this possibility.
Dear Italo:
Thank You,
Useful instruction for the use of this blog.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Nisto:
I know very well what I risk, but I came in this world with nothing, all I had came from God, I can accept everything, fighting for the reason of my life.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Dear Ing. Rossi,
unfortunately I do not understand much about physics but I can’t stop myself thinking to the impact of the new technology in the long run starting from the benefit to the environment and the unworthiness of oil-wars.
Maybe energy-wars could have a commercial nature or for controlling the nickel extraction bun surely the hot areas will be different and more decentrated as nickel is present in many countries around the world
Besides I suppose that the LERN process could work, after studying it deeply, with other elements so that many more countries will be able to invest in it.
Another possible consequence is that big worldwide companies will reduce their turover while others will grow up. Similarly could happen to many rich and poor countries.
With a cheaper energy, lands which are not interesting now, will become exploitable (deserts?) because the producion of drinking water will become possible at low costs.
And I also think to the importance of a new input to our optimism for the coming future, hopefully a better morality.
But the question remains the same: how is possible that the people and the countries who are going to loose a part of their supremacy are apparently so indifferent to what is going on?
I don’t expect a reaction like Giordano Bruno or Galileo but the enemies seem to me, as far as I know, vacant not considering Mr.Krivit & company a real opposition.
I remember what happened to and Italian called Mattei who was breaking the trust of the big oil companies and his plane was bombed.
I am really afraid of their power, avidity and disumanity and I wish you to complete safely his test and become soon unassailable before that they can harm him.
A great help could come by the mass-media but…. we all know who are paying them.
Please go on Ing.Rossi.
AN
Dear Ing. Rossi, in your blog http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/
there are tens of thousands of messages and informations about your work and links, suggestions, proposals, requests and so on.
I mean, it really is almost impossible or very very difficult to find something if one person wish to recall again some message.
But it is possible inserting in yor blog a very simple search engine, powered by Google, to search everything INSIDE all pages and sections of your site.
Simple HTML statements like these could probably solve the problem:
I have inserted this search engine in my web site about E-Cat,
http://www.favorscake.com/E-Cat/ecat-01.html
and it works very well!
Italo
Dear Enzo:
I do not remember to have worked with my very good colleague Brian Ahern. But I worked in the USA with so many People and in so many places, that it is not impossible. I just do not remember. I worked in 1997 with a person whose name is Brian Ahern, he was a manager of Home Depot and we studied the possibility to make a household apparatus to turn wastes into energy, but I do not know if is the same person.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mario:
Thank you for your useful suggestions,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Caro Ing. Rossi,
Facciamo tutti il tifo per il successo della sua straordinaria impresa.
Il mondo è finalmente arrivato ad un punto di svolta.
Mi permetto di darle un consiglio per accelerare la strategia commerciale: se lei organizzasse una dimostrazione “idiot proof” con un piccolo e-cat, avrebbe già vinto la battaglia del mercato e l’attenzione dei media la proteggerebbe da azioni malevole.
Molte aziende aspettano solo questo passo per comprare da lei nuove centrali termiche ORA. Non permetta agli snakes di fare confusione tra la complessità ingegneristica dell’impianto da 1MW ed il risultato da lei già ottenuto.
In bocca al lupo!
Mario
Dear Dr. Rossi,
in a comment on his blog Daniele Passerini has revealed that you worked with Brian Ahern before 2007.
Can you confirm that?
If yes, what kind of work did you do with him?
Thanks
Dear Sebastian:
The tests will ast 2 months, the scientists will have full access to all but the reactors.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
I’m sorry, but the last sentence should read:
Will this test be run for a long enough time (e.g. 18 hours like the one earlier this year) under continuous surveillance by the scientists?
(How long will the scientists be visiting the test facilities?)
Thanks
Dear Mr. Rossi
I have a question regarding the upcoming test by the invited scientists. Will this test be run for a long enough time (e.g. 18 hours like the one earlier this year) ?
Thank you very much
Sebastian
Dear Bertil Nilsson:
1- No
2- Yes, we do not produce electric power, yet.
Thank you for your attention,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Emidio Laureti:
I hope within 1 year. We have resolved already meny problems.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear
A.Rossi
since January 2011 we hope that E-Cat can produce the electric energy that need to PNN (Propulsione Non Newtoniana )of ASPS Associazione Sviluppo Propulsione Spaziale http://www.asps.it
http://www.asps.it/Presentazione.wmv
http://www.asps.it/Ott05.mpg
http://www.asps.it/qct05.mpg
Can you say us when in your opinion might be in the market an electric converter based on E-Cat ?
Good luck
p.s. malgrado il nome non siamo serpenti 🙂
Dear Andrea Rossi,
You say you have some problems and work hard to solve them. May those problems delay the end October tests/demonstrations or are they of minor character?
You tell us E-Cats are running in self sustained mode some time. Do you still use an energy input for electronics and pumps?
I very much look forward to pics end September of the work with 1 MW plant, will be very exciting.
Thank you for your great work!
Bertil Nilsson
Chuck,
Thanks for the link.
Have to buy a lot of new textbooks.
Or maybe just one.
Covariant regards,
Joseph Fine
Dear Anthony Guzzo:
I reside and work in the USA. No intention at all to return in Italy, but for holydays or R&D with Bologna University. We do not produce electric power, so far, but heat. Gossips are not my business.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hi dr. Rossi, a few questions. Why the plants are not made in Italy? I think a sub set of e-cat (less than 300) lower than 1 MW are ready, and which logistics solution that is better than near your home? To cut the gossips because it does not install one of these sub-sets for a simple lighting? good job and we look forward with excitement to the event in October. Regards Anthony Guzzo
Sir;
Excellent work and I look forward to late October.
To Insight and Guglinski, I direct them to http://www.aias.us and the linked blog of Myron Evans who, with his associates, have refined the Einstein-Cartan-Evans(ECE)theory which has turned accepted physics on its head.
The future is now and there for all to see.
Dear Bruce Fast:
The plant will be delivered within October, as I always said.
The pictures will not show confidential issues, of course. I have to convince nobody,I have to deliver within contractual terms.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear H. Visscher:
The 1 MW plant has been sold to the Customer, who will do with it what he will deem opportune.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear A.Goumy:
If the Ecat work or not will be evidenced by our Customers. Thank you for your attention,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Georgehants:
1- About 1990
2- I was convinced that it was possible
3- 1998: got the first burst of energy, in the USA
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
May I ask you,
1, In which year did you begin to research your E-CAT.
2, What convinced you to begin the research.
3, In which year did your experiments first convince you that the effect was genuine.
Best Wishes.
Dear Mr Rossi,
Thanks to the “ecatnews” site, I discovered yesterday on Daniele Passerini’s blog, the English transcription of a radio interview given by Sergio Focardi in April of this year; unfortunately, I did not see it before. I find this interview very interesting, as it gives a scientific insight of the E-Cat development, coming from one of its main actors. Despite this interview, I must confess that, while remaining hopeful, I am still not entirely convinced that your invention works as well as you say: there have been a lot of words, but not so much irrefutable facts, which is really a pity from a scientific point of view.
I found two particularly interesting topics in Prof. Focardi’s interview. The first of them, is the refusal by ArXiv to publish your paper, even though they are known to be open-minded, which led to the creation of this “Journal of Nuclear Physycs”; it is very hard to agree with such a behaviour, especially when the author is a high level nuclear physics professor. The second one is the absence of neutrons when nickel is used, while they are present with other materials: am I right if I infer that other materials than nickel would allow heat production, but should be avoided for safety reasons?
If all this is true, it seems to me very fascinating from a philosophical point of view: the track is very narrow, and looks more like a treasure hunting in a hostile environment than a highway trip.
Best regards.
A.G.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
As I understand you will do a presentation of the 1MW plant in late October. Is it also then that the device will be sold to your US customer and be taken into service by him? If so, has the device been UL-tested and approved as that the transaction is legitimate? (As I understand all electrical devices need to be UL-tested and approved before it is allowed to be sold in the US)
Thanks
H. Visscher
Hello Dr. Rossi.
On August 27, Enzo wrote:
“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.”
You responded, “OK, you will have satisfaction before the end of September.”
Later John L. Miller assumed that you intended to release the 1MW plant early.
It is your intention to publish some pictures by the end of September that will convince the world that you are on track for your October launch, yes?
(nickelpower.org explores the technical, economic and social ramifications of Andrea Rossi’s e-cat Cold Fusion reactor.)
Dear Alessandro Ferrari:
Thank you for your interesting insight,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Steven Ouellet:
We are working on this issue. Our plants already work for most time in self sustained mode.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr Wladimir Guglinski:
I take the occasion of this comment of yours to inform our Readers that in September will be published your very interesting paper, that finally got green light from our Peer Reviewer.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Gerard:
Thank you, we have to work hard and fast: our Country needs jobs.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hello Dr. Rossi,
Congratulations on the upcoming E-cat site launches. I have been following the developing E-cat saga, with great anticipation and interest since January. Your technology has the potential to greatly improve life on the plant, as well as our pockets. Continued success.
Best regards,
Gerard
Brooklyn NYC
Mr. insight wrote:
“I found “ether” word as accepted reality in your paper so I can dismiss it without regrets”.
Dear Mr. insight,
your first sentence is a good example of your misunderstanding of fundamental physics.
The aether is a concept that the own Einstein tried to bring back to physics, after 1916, and he was convinced that general relativity requires the aether concept.
Probably your confusion is because you are thinking about the aether as if it should be the same luminiferous aether of the 19th Century.
http://www.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/ep3-24.htm
So, dear Mr. insight, your understanding of fundamental physics is very poor, and it’s a waste of time to discuss such matter with you.
Hi Mr. Rossi,
Recently, I enjoyed a concise interview with Mr. Levi where he mentionned he unplugged the electrical power during a test (in january if I’m right). He said that you told him not to cut the power suddently, it could turn the system unstable.
Would you like to develop on this issue a little bit more? Is it something that will be adressed in the future?
Thank you so much, Steven Ouellet
Dear Mr Rossi
I know you are focused on October 1MW plant delivery and research about electricity production is working on something that can reach market as soon as possible but maybe for the future better e-cat electricity production can emerge.
E-cat works on gamma ray thermalization and heat converted to electricity.
Given e-cat nuclear reaction its gamma ray specra should be characterized by some narrow peaks.
Have you ever investigated direct photovoltaic gamma ray conversion?
A wafer of decreasing gap semiconductors should do the job if gaps are tuned on main e-cat reaction peaks.
It’s additional heat-based conversion because all not convected energy can be thermalized and converted to electricity with the usual thermodynamic process.
I’m not an expert on gamma ray photovoltaic conversion but some article claim very high efficiency when gap is well tuned on photon energy.
This article http://iopscience.iop.org/0268-1242/23/8/085001 claim a >=50% efficiency.
These are only random thoughts, I agree now you need to concentrate on 1MW plant deadline.
My best wishes for October lunch.
Warm Regards,
Alessandro
Dear John L. Miller- George:
Sorry, but there is a misunderstanding: the start up of our plant in the USA will be during the last week of october, as always said.
Probably we will set up concerns also in California.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
A couple of your more recent posts have referred to the customer test of the 1MW unit as occurring in September instead of the last week in October as before. To me this is GREAT NEWS in every regard, but raises more than a few questions.
1) Are you and the customer really moving the test date closer?
2) Does this have any meaning towards when members of the ‘interested public’ like myself may ask for an appointment to see E-Cats for ourselves?
3) Does this mean that folks with business proposals should contact you any sooner than you have indicated in the recent past?
4) Would you entertain the idea of setting up a second E-Cat manufacturing plant in California? California is a global hub for high-tech innovation and Northern California is a well-recognized early adopter of green technologies. E-Cat production would find a natural home here with talented workers and lots of customers close at hand. I’m sure that you would find that California would ‘roll out the red carpet’ for you and your E-Cats! And you will probably have your choice of actors vying to play ‘you’ in the movie to come out about your history-making energy devices.
Warm Regards,
JLMGeo
Dear Wladimir Guglinski,
I found “ether” word as accepted reality in your paper so I can dismiss it without regrets. But I do not like your paper because it develops an entire system without being strictly logical (except when it is good for you) and without the proof of experiments. It is full of general statements, most of which just state the superiority of your theory against others. You cite important hystorical figures and their early approaches to the topic. It is like quoting Freud nowadays in psychology. I think your models could not resist any real experiment. But the theories that scientists in these days are struggling to demonstrate are far more fantasy, and at a more subtle level, so I keep a low profile on this. I think that they and you are two different facets of the same thing, just they make more damage to science than you.
So I just await the disclosure of the E-Cat internal secrets so that bona-fide scientists can start developing more robust hypotesis about what happens inside it. I will be glad if new physics phenomena, even ground-breaking ones, are discovered. But it will not be a “New Physics” created by a hero.
Dear Daniel Jonsson:
I cannot give info about this issue.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Luca T:
Of course yo refer to Mattia: I agree, but some joke is allowed.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Mr Rossi, there are some buffoons posting here on your site.
They are not simply disturbed people but these guys are trying to trash your site by filling it with nonsense.
Don’t waste your time by responding to these childish puppets.
Best regards
L
Dear Mr Rossi
I must thank you for taking your time answering questions here on your website.
I have a few more questions that I am thinking about and hopefully you could help me answer them.
Is the catalytic reaction (the heat producing process) always starting around 60 degrees Celsius? If not can you control when the catalytic process starts.
If I understand it correctly when the catalytic process starts, it starts very fast, within 1 min the catalytic process is at 95 % of maximum effect. Is this correct?
Best regards
D.Jonsson
Dear David Roberson:
Thank you!
Warm Regards,
A.R.