*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 4*He** 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+D4*He* 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 4*He** 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 4*He** 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 4*He* ground state. The energy dissipation mechanism of the compound nucleus 4*He** 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 4*He** 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*

Andrea,

The poetic sounding article, ‘Mighty Mite – by Steven Wright’ was published in the January 2012 issue of the journal, ‘Mechanical Engineering’. It deals with the subject of Super-critical CO2 (S-CO2) Turbines and prototype development. A brief excerpt from the article may be of interest.

” An S-CO2 Brayton-cycle turbine could yield 10 megawatts of electricity from a package with a volume as small as four to six cubic meters. ”

http://www.barber-nichols.com/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/images/supercritical_co2_turbines.pdf

Assuming that non-technical issues can be handled, it is possible there may be a candidate system for prototype testing.

Supercritical regards,

Joseph

[…] Rossi a questo punto sembra imputarsi sulla diversità delle tecnologie, affermando sul blog del Journal of Nuclear Physics: “ATTENZIONE: QUALCUNO sta mettendo in giro la voce che sia stata RUBATA LA NOSTRA TECNOLOGIA e […]

A.R.

Errata:

Case III produces more heat than Case II (i.e., 680 kW-th vs 560 kW-th), but does NOT produce more heat than Case I (i.e. 960 kW-th).

I apologize for using both roman (I, II, III) and arabic (1,2,3) numbers for Cases.

The numbers in the table (and earlier comments) are extrapolations from previous discussions, not experiments. Actual results may differ.

Summarizing:

CASE Input kW-e Output kW-Thermal Output kW-Electric Remarks

I 160 960 0 Heat only

II 160 500 400 Max Electric Out

III 40 680 280 Mixed Input

IV 0 720 240 Zero Input

Joseph

Dear Dr Joseph Fine:

No, the costs are not changed.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Dr Joseph Fine,

Thank you for your suggestions, very interesting,

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Andrea,

Some comments on possible formats/configurations of 10 kW E-Cats at an output temperature of 600 degrees C.

As before, the Coefficient of Performance (COP) is 6. COP is defined as the ratio of output thermal power produced to required (average) input electrical power.

Each cluster or ‘Clowder’ of 6 E-Cats, of 10 kW each, requires an ‘average’ of 10 kW-e input power (for heaters). The cluster continuously produces 60 kW thermal power.

About 50% of the time, each E-Cat will be in self-sustain mode, i.e., when input electrical power is not required. Each module is in self-sustain mode at different times. Both within a cluster and in the entire system.

Consider 16 clusters of 60 kW-Thermal each. That is, each cluster requires an average input of 10 kW-e. The 16 clusters, require a total of 160 kW-e to produce 960 kW-th or total output of 0.96 MW-th.

Case I is for Pure Thermal Power (PTP) production.

Input is 160 kW-e and output is 960 kW-th. (COP = 6)

Case II is for Maximal Electrical Power (MEP) Production.

Generating efficiency is assumed to be 5/12 = 41.67%. (For mathematical convenience.) Each cluster of 16 E-Cats produces 60 kW-th input and each cluster generates 25 kW-electric. Case II uses a total average power of 160 kW electric to produce a maximum of 16*25 = 400 kW-e. The electrical power gain is 2.5 (i.e., 6*5/12 = 2.5).

Average electrical power is 400 kW-e and continuous thermal power is 960-400 kW = 560 kW-th (if all heat is recoverable).

Case III is a mixed configuration of 4 Clusters requiring input electrical power and 12 clusters of essentially infinite COP.

Each of the 12 ‘infinite COP’ clusters feed back an average of 10 kW of the 25 kW electrical power generated, which reduces demands on external power.

The numbers are somewhat interesting. There are 960 kW of thermal power produced.

However, the 12 clusters (total 72 cores) produce 12*25 kW = 300 kW of electrical energy, and then 120 kW of the available 300 kW are fed back to the cluster inputs to permanently self-sustain production of a remainder of 300 – 120 = 180 kW-e.

The 4 clusters with external power inputs use 40 kW to produce 4*25 kW = 100 kW-e.

In Case III, a total 40 kW-e input produces a total of 100 kW-e + 180 kW-e = 280 kW-e.

Or, the 40 kW-e input produces 280 kW-e output. This is an electrical power gain of 7. The net heat produced is 960 – 280 = 680 kW-thermal. (Much more heat than in Cases I or II).

There is also Case 4, where ZERO external electrical power is required!! Each of 16 clusters feed back 10 kW thereby using 160 kW of the generated power. The total generated power = (5/12) * 960 = 400 kW-e but the net available power = 400 – 160 = 240 kW-e. This is 40 kW-e less than in Case 3 because it replaces the 40 kW of external power. The heat production increases by 40 kW as well.

If there is access to external power, Case 3 produces electrical power gain of 7 versus Case II with a power gain of 2.5. While Case 2 produces 10/7ths or 40% more electrical power, it requires 4 times or 400 % of the electrical input.

That’s all I can come up with right now. I’m worried I’m running out of ideas!

Best regards,

Joseph

Dear Joseph Fine

I have visited the sites that you have indicated that are really interesting. But we are still very … very far from complete replacement of the conventional accumulators of energy storage. It would take capacitors with value of many… many Farad yet. Now, we must see what will they do with this new technology, combining the nanocable in series-parallel.

Warm regards

F.T.

Andrea Rossi,

The high temperature E-Cat uses a reduced charge/amount of Nickel and Hydrogen and is physically smaller as well.

Is there a reduction in the cost of heat and electricity from the new E-Cat and, if so, by how much? The earlier estimate was that electricity would cost about 1 cent per kW-Hr. And heat would be a fraction of the cost of the electricity e.g., about 1/3 cent per kW-Hr. If the costs have gone down, is there more budget available to install the best control equipment, turbine/generator equipment, electrical switchgear etcetera. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switchgear Does this mean, “the faster it (E-Cat Technology) goes, the faster it goes.”

Joseph

Dear Antonella:

I agree,

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Andrea,

Since a few days I followed your advice and I am completely ignoring what pseudo-skeptics say, I just stopped worrying, I want to believe that they can’t do any harm to you and the Cat.

Anyway…

>When our plants will be working in public sites the media will report the facts.

Please keep speaking to us this way!

Dear Bernie Koppenhofer:

I think that we have to work and to make plants which work properly. The media articles are a consequence of what happens in reality. When our plants will be working in public sites the media will report the facts.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Mr. Rossi: Do you think there is a major media blackout of LENR technology?

Andrea,

Thanks to GeorgeHants’ for his comments on E-Catworld.com.

Rice University, unintentionally, has developed a new super-capacitor technology.

It is a Copper / Copper Oxide /Carbon(Graphene) three layer micro-wire / (or nano-cable) array that can store energy.

http://news.rice.edu/2012/06/07/nanocable-could-be-big-boon-for-energy-storage/

http://www.futurity.org/science-technology/copper-core-nanocable-may-store-more-energy/

Perhaps, this (someday) can furnish energy to start your power plants, or smooth out its operating variations, …..if these potential “nano-cable” (super)capacitors or “batteries” are kept charged.

Plus, copper produced in power plant operations can be turned into more nano-cable capacitors. (Although, that’s a very small amount of copper!)

Joseph

Dear Bernie Koppenhofer:

The certification process is in course in Europe and in the USA, with major certification companies. The process is for obvious reasons under NDA. Outside interests did not appear so far and we trust in our Certificators and their correctness.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Mr. Rossi: I think it is important that you publish as much information as you can about the certification process to keep the process as transparent as possible. I will be very surprised if “outside interests” will not try to influence the certification process.

Andrea, @ All Readers,

/////////////////////

WARNING: Advertisement

/////////////////////

This Modeling and Simulation product may be of interest. I received this ad a few days ago and am forwarding it to anyone interested. (Or to the SPAM robot.)

It may be useful for modeling the Energy Catalyzer and/or Turbine Generator system.

Wolfram / Mathematica & System Modeler Software

————————————————

(Also, the links mention “MODELICA” software.)

http://msgcache.wolfram.com/wolfram-insider/system-modeler/2012/05/584201205/

http://www.wolfram.com/system-modeler/

http://www.wolfram.com/system-modeler/industry-examples/energy/#

Sorry for sending ADVERTISING to the readers.

I have MATHEMATICA and have used WOLFRAM products in other applications.

Joseph

Dear Koen Vandewalle:

Yes, it is possible.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Dr Joseph Fine:

You bet they are!

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Andrea Rossi,

Do you plan that the dimensions and the connectivity of an E-Cat cores are to be standardized as we have AA-size, C & D-size batteries, Metric gauge, E27 and E14 light bulb fittings, A0 – A1 -A2…. paper size, dimensions of CD – DVD – BluRay,… etc ?

I also ask this because custom made batteries and fittings are a 10 to 100 times more expensive to end-customers. Also the recycling is more difficult. Cheap and clean energy may become very expensive and waste producing this way. Everyone can see how much it costs to the world to use different languages.

It could be usefull to publish the “dimensions, connectivity, performance and data-sheet” of the different E-Cat cores. This way, the manufacturers of heating or other devices can already start the designing of E-Cat driven applications. And why not: the homebrewers.

Personally, I do not believe in closed or confidential standards. It is mostly the nonsense and the lies that are told by the salesmen and marketeers of the competition, that makes the public distrust new and unfamiliar technology. Most of the lies are about confidential or unknown matters. Everyone trusts the sun. Although there are many stories about the invisible radiation coming from her.

Kind Regards,

Koen

A.R.

Thank you.

Your list of tasks is long and keeps growing. I hoped some of my suggestions were useful.

Keep on keeping on.

Joseph

Dr Joseph Fine:

You are right, but I can guarantee that our considering your suggestions works.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Andrea Rossi,

Considering is one thing. Doing is another.

Kilowatts, Megawatts and Gigawatts of success.

Joseph

Dear Giovanni Guerrini:

Yes, I confirm that I think that to fund somebody who does not invest all his money in his invention and that does not make anything able to produce real work is a waste of public money.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Dr Joseph Fine:

We are considering this configuration.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dott Rossi,non vedo l’ora di vedere le sue macchine sul mercato ed in opera anche per sentire vari degli attuali osteggiatori dire” l’avevo detto io che funzionava!”..e sbellicarmi dalle risate…

Come dice sempre Lei sarà il mercato a fare i giochi,finanziamenti pubblici,incentivi….e chissenefrega,disse il mago alla strega!

Cari saluti G G

Greg, A.R.

With all the ‘groups of modules’ in shutdown, of course, there is no produced electric power that can be fed back. That is, getting the entire system started requires external power. Once the system starts up, it is the electricity – not heat – which is fed back to start/drive the other e-cat modules.

Since each group/(clowder) of six cats produces an average of 15 kW and ‘only’ needs an average of 10 kW to get started, it may be possible to start two groups. Then, one can use that power to start up the other groups, et cetera. As there is no operating manual, starting up or shutting down is expected to be more involved than running continuously. What could be so difficult about shutting down? I’m sure there must be something to consider. (e.g. the turbine/generator).

Thanks,

Joseph

The Italian Newspaper “IL DEMOCRATICO” has published an interesting article:

http://ildemocratico.com/2012/06/12/fusione-fredda-scilipoti-porta-il-dibattito-a-palazzo-marini/

Dear Dr Fine

One factor which you may have overlooked is the temperature required to ‘ignite’ the e-cat. Although it is realistic to provide heat from other e-cats to ‘warm up’ another, the temperature supplied from the other e-cats may not be sufficient to get the new e-cat to ‘ignite’

Separate resistive heating can always be driven to the higher temperatures, and so may be absolutely necessary in every single e-cat

GL

Dear Pietro F.:

Yes, the power consumption is the same for the high temperature (600 C°C) and low temperature (110 °C) E-Cats.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

La rigrazio per la cortese risposta.

Una curiosita: la potenza elettrica di entrata é la medesima per i due tipi di reattori (110/600 c°)?

Grazie

Pekka, Daniel, A.R.

Of course, you are right.

As an alternative, use a thermal-to-electric conversion factor of .4166, with a power gain of 2.5.

So, each group of six 10 kW modules requires an “average” electrical input of 10 kW. That same set or “clowder” of 6 cats produces .4166*60 = 25 kW, of which an “average” of 10 kW can be fed back to the input. (But, it sometimes needs 20 kW!!!)

That is, a net of 25-10 = 15 kW is available for further use, with apparently zero power input. Each clowder (of 6 cats) may sometimes require twice the average power of 10 kW (and zero kW in self-sustain mode). Assuming an average of 15 kW is available from each group or “clowder” of 6 modules, it is much easier to scale up.

If 120 modules are organized in 20 “clowders of 6 cats”, the average power production is 20*15 kW = 300 kW-E. That reduces the need for a plumbers nightmare of steam turbines et cetera. Each clowder will sometimes need 20 kW at the input, rather than 10 kW, (in self sustain mode, it needs zero input). The system has to be able to provide for this. Designing in extra groups/clowders (@ 15 kW output each) can help meet peak input power demands.

Best regards,

Joseph

Dear Pietro F.:

We will publish the tests made on the high temperature reactors.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Joseph Fine, Andrea Rossi:

It looks to me that Joseph’s proposed staging arrangement, while correct, might be more complicated than necessary. As soon as the generator produces more electricity than what is required for input, one has an infinite COP system which produces electric and thermal power with zero input. At 600 C, I wouldn’t be surprised if one could do it already at 10 kW scale, because a converter efficiency of 16.7% (27% of ideal Carnot 63%) would suffice, if batteries are used to cover input power fluctuations. Larger scale would improve turbine efficiency and increase the electric versus thermal output ratio, but no longer change the COP which is already infinite.

regards, /pekka

Buongiorno sig. Rossi,

ho letto le novità riguardanti la concessione del brevetto, spero abbia presto notizie positive.

Ha intenzione di organizzare una dimostrazione pubblica dell’ecat “high-power” prossimamente? sarebbe un bel regalo per i suoi fans.

@Joseph Fine,

You wrote: ‘Case II: Multi-Stage/Cascaded

A 4-stage design with the same 227-10 kW modules could be organized having 10-Stage 1 units, 24 Stage 2 units, 57-Stage 3 units and 136 Stage 4 units. That is, 136 Stage-4 10-kW output units produce 544 kW-Electric with a total first stage electric input power demand of only 16.66 kW and a power gain of 544/16.66 = 32.6; that is, the 544 kW of electric output are produced using only 16.66 kW of electrical input.’

My answer: Theoretically you’re right, but practically, you need a turbine and an alternator after each stage (4 stages in total), and so the investment cost probably will be too high? 😉

A.R.

And, with 45% – 50% conversion efficiency, the advantage of the second configuration is more pronounced.

Joseph

Dear Dr Joseph Fine:

Your proposal of assembly will be studied carefully tomorrow.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

A.R.

The newest “Cat-under-test” (CUT), AFAIK (as far as I know), uses a single 10 kW module and is operating at 600 degrees C with the potential of a ~40% electric conversion efficiency.

So, with a COP of 6, a 1-MW plant requires continuous (or average) input power of 166.67 kW-e and can yield an output of 400 kW-e. Electric power output divided by electric power input has a gain of 400/166.67 = 2.4.

A preliminary back-of-napkin design suggests that a multistage system could be assembled as follows.

Case I: Straight-through/Parallel

227 10-kW modules yield a total of 2.27 MW-Th and produce 908 kW-e, requiring an average electrical input of 378 kW-E (227*1.666 kW = 378 kW-E) for a single-stage power gain of 2.4 (908/378).

Case II: Multi-Stage/Cascaded

A 4-stage design with the same 227-10 kW modules could be organized having 10-Stage 1 units, 24 Stage 2 units, 57-Stage 3 units and 136 Stage 4 units. That is, 136 Stage-4 10-kW output units produce 544 kW-Electric with a total first stage electric input power demand of only 16.66 kW and a power gain of 544/16.66 = 32.6; that is, the 544 kW of electric output are produced using only 16.66 kW of electrical input.

While you obtain less electrical power out of the second design, you need much less input power. Of course, you consume more reactants as well.

As in some cautionary statements, “your results may differ”.

Joseph

Dear Koen Vandewalle:

I can assure you that Prof. Joseph Fine IS NOT me (he,he,he…) even if most of times I agree with him.

Anyway, the diffusion of the technology will resolve the problem.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Joseph Fine: Our Patent system is broken, and the geniuses in Washington just overhauled it! But it is the only system we have. The way I see it Mr. Rossi has played the patent game brilliantly so far. His sale of his 1mW system is going to be huge in the patent wars ahead.

Dear Joseph,

Dear Andrea, (sometimes I think Joseph IS Andrea, last days)

Even the most secret patent cannot prohibit others to think.

When the guy next door comes home from his work on the land, and he has found a nugget of gold, a lot of people will buy a shovel I think. Certainly the people who do not have luxury or ambundance yet . Can you blame on them ? It may be survival instinct. It may be greed .

I really hope that Andrea can launch the commercialisation and spread of his work. Everything has been disclosed already. A little encrypted 🙂 anyway. It is a huge responsability towards mankind that deserves the deepest respect.

Dear Joseph Fine,this is an age of transformation and confusion…but is very interesting too.

Regards G G

Dear Joseph Fine:

Good question indeed.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

The heaters may be producing the catalyst(s), if nickel is the fuel or may be producing the fuel, if nickel is the catalyst. The grant of a patent/(or patents) would be the way to find out. Otherwise, the only users of the technology would be those with rights to any secret patents. Does anyone think that the E-Cat might be economically significant? Of course. Does that mean it should be a secret patent? Good question.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-05-30/widening-secret-patents-seen-as-costing-inventors-rights

Joseph

Dear Ing. Rossi and dear Dr. Fine,

In past I tought that it was possible to consider the effective COP greater of 6 taking into account an intermittent electrical power consumption and the self-sustained-mode period.

I asked for clarification to Ing. Rossi that on the contrary confirms many times only 6 as effective maximum COP available from E-Cat.

From the above now I think that COP of 6 should be due to the intermittent electrical power consumption, example 3.33kW with average duty cycle of 50% (i.e short term period, few minutes OFF and few minute ON heating the resistors) to produce 10KWh of thermal energy that means that 1.66kWh of electrical energy has been used.

As consequence 10kWh / 1.66kWh we get an E-Cat COP of 6 as Ing. Rossi correctly said and this is, let me say, the “normal” operation of E-Cat.

It remains to me not clear why considering E-Cat operation for a long period in only “self-sustained-mode” (two hours continuative max) in which it works completely without any electrical energy input, why I should not consider an average COP greater evaluating this parameter on 24 hours of testing in which E-cat (as hypothesis) works 22 hours in “normal” operation and 2 hours exclusively in self-sustained-mode. In formula an additional gain of 24/22 respect the “normal” mode.

I thank in advance if, with a bit of patience, You would explain to me clearly and in detail why, to help me well understanding on this important matter.

Kind Regards

Franco

Thank you,it is a wonderful machine!

Regards G G

Dear Giovanni Guerrini:

The same as during the drive.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Right,the question is:what is the output power in self susteining mode?

Regards G G

If I don’t mistake,it is 1,66 kWh el with output 10 kWh t,but I don’t know when it self sustains if output is the same with the heater on.

Regards G G

Franco, Andrea,

I don’t know the input electrical heater power. But, if you need 3.333 kWh (electric) at a 50% duty cycle to produce 10 kWh (Thermal), that is a COP of 6. Or, if you use 1.666 kWh-electric continuously to produce 10 kWh-Thermal, that’s also a COP of 6.

But, if you need only 1.666 kWh with heaters on, and 0 kWh with the heaters off, and you still get 10 kWh (thermal) continuously, I claim that is a COP of 12. This is probably not true, but it would spectacular if it were. (Since it might be possible to drive two 10 kW cores with a single 1.666 kWh input – if you can guarantee that one set of heaters can be switched off (Core A) while the other set (Core B) was switched on. This is purely wishful thinking, of course.

J.F.