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 Infg. Rossi,
I do not know if you havebeen asked the following question or similar:
The 1 MW plant is being constructed to be guaranteed for a 6/1 power output to input ratio. This is only the beginning and I am sure that in due time, future e-cats will be built to run on self-sustaining mode. My question is:
Would the first e-cats, designed and built for a continuous 6\1 ratio be able to be retro-fitted with controls and other parts so as to be able to be converted into self-sustaing mode?
Wishing you all the success possible,
Best regards,
Alex
Dear Dr Enrico Billi:
concentlale, concentlale!
A.
Dear Michel M:
First I have to make working plants: I want not to play foot-ball with the bones of the Others.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear John M.:
We guarantee 1/6.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Sebastian:
The proportion (power density) is the same.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
Very exciting to see the 1MW plant nearing completion!
I have one question:
How big is the reaction chamber of the new E-Cat with which you say it is possible to produce 27kW of thermal energy when putting in 2.5kW? The size for earlier versions was 50ccm (2.5kW e-cat).
Thank you very much!
Sebastian
Dear Mr Rossi,
What is the expected electrical input power required for the 1MW reactor ?
Assuming a gain of ~4, can we assume a continuous input power of 250KW will be required from the mains input ?
Please be careful !
BR/ John M
Dear Dr Rossi,
Why not going on stock exchange in order to fund the activity ?
Congratulations for the 1MW plan !
Michel
PS: (thx to Italo for the video !)
Dear Mr. Rossi,
I came upon this video titled “E-Cat: Rossi’s Cornucopia”. I believe it uncannily captures the feeling of what it’s like to await something that may or may not become true. All we can do is wait.
http://www.e-catworld.com/2011/09/e-cat-rossis-cornucopia-video/
Good luck,
~John
Compared with the coal boilers commonly used here in China, this 1MW boiler seems science fiction! The pipe is not too small? EHEHEH
A VERY BIG NEWS!!
—————–
Here are videos and pictures of the 1 MW plant:
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3264361.ece
Dear Frank Acland:
I am referring to the small units for households too. We are very advanced. Yesterday we made a test with one of them, making hot water, we got a fantastic result. Very satisfied. What we did is make steam, exchange heat with a heating water circuit, condense the steam, recirculate the water. It worked perfectly, stable, with a power of 9 kW, also in self sustained mode. We will test publicly this system together with the 1 MW. Lot of work to do, but we are going through: the toy for the mass market is very close.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Michael Hagen:
Interesting, thank you,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr Enrico Billi:
Yes, at least the E-Cats can be integrated in a power plant.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
(lavolale,lavolale!)
Dear Italo,
I want to answer here to the Readers of the JONP, just I will have to be shorter in the answers and maybe some will arrive later. But this contact is important for me, I learn from it.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Ing Rossi, you’re completely right, we all cannot know and understand all your difficulties and problems.
I think that it should be better if you dedicate all your limited time to your project, avoiding to reply to these messages.
Your PLANT is so important for you and for all of us!!
Thank you Ing. Rossi
Italo
I read recently on “The Wall Street Journal” the Japanese Premier Yoshihiko Noda says “In the long and medium term, we must aim toward a direction of reducing our reliance on nuclear power as much as possible”. By now about 30 nuclear power plants are shutdown on over 50, do you think the older power plant could be converted for using e-CATs?
Dear Mr. Rossi,
In Holland we have new heat-power units, using a Stirling motor (HRe).
http://www.smartpowerfoundation.nl/spf.php?id=9&lang=en#What%20is%20micro%20CHP%20in%20fact
In combination with home heating, this is a good solution.
The technic is already there.
God bless you,
with kind regards,
Father Michael Hagen
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Thank you for sharing information with the public regarding the challenges you face as you bring this technology to market. I am sure your many readers and supporters wish you the very best in this crucial period for you.
I notice you stated that “the E-Cats for the public will produce hot water for heating, not steam.” Could you clarify which E-Cats you are referring to here? The 1 MW plant, or other products you are planning?
Thank you very much for your time.
Regards,
Frank Acland
Dear Koen Vandewalle:
Yes, everything is going on as scheduled, so far. You are right, there are many difficulties, we did not have any financing and are working exclusively with our money, the technology and the process we are using is new, all the different LENR made before are totally different and we have no experience from competitors that can be helpful, honestly: even the ones who got some watt have technologies totally different from ours, as everybody will see when we will disclose the theory, and no experience at all has been made from anybody on reactors producing real amounts of energy, I mean in the range of kWh/h. Now there is a race of guys who try to say that our work derives from theirs, but unfortunately there is no way that there is around something useful, so we have to open our path through an unexplored jungle of difficulties, and the expenses become everyday higher, for unforeseen problems. But , so far, we will be able to respect the scheduled term of delivery for the 1 MW plant, and to anticipate our ability to put in the market an E-Cat for everybody. I repeat that we will be able to produce heat immediately, while for the electric power we should be ready in one year. By the way: the E-Cats for the public will produce hot water for heating, not steam.
This is a very, very hard period, so you all will excuse me if the answers will become more synthetic and late.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
I hope everything works as planned ?
A source of problems with fully working plants are effects like corrosion, wear, loose cables, sticky pumps, software issues etc etc… One can not foresee everything. Is the 1MW machine modular, with interchangeable components that can be replaced while the plant is working ? This could be necessary for long-term use of it. Or is this a real demo-plant to demonstrate e-cat functionality only, which probably will need improvements on the fly, or in worst case will have to be rebuilt (or go to a museum) after some time ? I ask this because I have built several machines, and the last ones never looked the same as the first one 😉 You write that you already replaced the original e-cats with self-sustainers, but you cannot continue to improve everything if you have deadlines. In industry, this is not always a problem, because they have technicians that know how to change a light-bulb, but for small consumer-grade units this may be an issue. You wrote also that you give 20yrs warranty. Is this contractual too for this first machine ? Do you have a plan on how much technician time that will be needed on a yearly basis for maintenance and service (recharge) ? All these things, including every change you make, must be documented too for legal issues and for product certifications etc etc… Pffff. What a job.
I apologize for asking so much information from you. I ask things almost weekly or daily because I’m very interested and I am astonished about all this work that can be done with limited resources by a crew that is able to keep their secrets. Must not be easy.
Kind Regards,
Koen
No, the plant is not yet ready. There has been a misunderstanding. The tests will be done in end October.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Alvaro:
In due time I will answer.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Admired Mr Rossi,
Only 6 weeks to go for the big day but any big announcements before end of next month?
Pictures, exact date of final testing, name of your USA partner… Please Mr Rossi give us something to make the wait a bit sweeter!
Thanks for your great work.
Alvaro
[…] of Andrea Rossi’s 1MW e-cat cold fusion device is currently underway according to posts on the inventor’s blog. In a response to a question Rossi confirmed that the device will which is scheduled to begin a […]
@Jossarian:
I’m interested in the deep space subject because we are developing the novel (invented in 2006) solar wind electric sail propulsion technology (E-sail, http://www.electric-sailing.fi) which will enable fast access to the outer solar system with modest power consumption (few hundred watts), among other things. But far out, that modest power must still be generated somehow; one cannot get it from solar panels.
I think that the E-cat might do just fine in the deep space application, but one important question that should be confirmed is the E-cat operational lifetime. For deep space we would need several years lifetime, when the unit is run with few hundred watts power. If a single E-cat cannot reach that long lifetime (with said few hundred watt power), then one has to use several units, ignited one after other. In the latter case one has to make sure that the nickel powder does not somehow age while the unit lies dormant and waits to be ignited.
Even if Pu283 would be available, using the non-radioactive E-cat would much lower the costs of deep space missions compared to RTGs. In this sense, it might even be considered as enabling technology for scientific missions to the outer solar system: one could do such missions with few hundred million budgets instead of billions.
For deep space probes, mass versus power or efficiency of the electricity generation do not have critical importance. The existing basic E-cat, combined with e.g. Stirling generator, might work almost directly, if the question of lifetime can be settled. The deep space application of E-cats might not be very spectacular in the engineering sense (compared to large-scale ground-based applications), but it would certainly be groundbreaking from the space exploration and scientific points of view.
[…] he was asked, “Could you tell us if independent testing of the 1Mw plant is already in progress.” […]
Dear AB:
Yes,
Warm regards,
A.R.
Gentile Ing. Rossi, in un recente messaggio lei ha dato conferma che sono in corso test indipendenti sull’impianto da 1 MW.
Questo significa che gli scienziati di livello mondiale previsti per il collaudo finale stanno già testando l’impianto?
Grazie per una sua risposta,
Italo
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I wanted to congratulate you on your invention. Is there perhaps going to be a live stream of the 1 MW presentation event?
Best wishes.
Dear Jossarian:
I am not able to answer because I do not know the matter.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Malcom Lear:
Yes,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hi Andrea,
Could you tell us if independent testing of the 1Mw plant is already in progress.
Ciao
Malcolm
Dear Mr. Rossi
I might be the only supporter of your invention in your neighbour country of Slovenia, but i am trying to spread in every day, because i firmly believe in your technology. I’ve been following your progress since january 15th test.
I’ve been always saying that humanity needs need energy source, rotten capitalism is destroying our planet and forcing us into slavery.
E-Cat could start a new era, an era of people not the greedy few who control the world.
I wish you all the best with your invention and in your personal life. You could become the most important person in 21th century and i cannot wait to see your E-Cat purring in my boiler room.
Regards
US senate just canceled DOE funding on Plutonium 238 production. It means that NASA will have to buy Plutonium from Russia for they RTGs:
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/09/11/senate-energy-bill-includes-no-pu-238-funding/
Is this possible to just replace Plutonium 238 inside RTG with E-Cat? Do you considered using thermocouple (Seebeck effect) to produce electric energy from from E-Cat heat?
Dear Bruno Galvan:
Yes,
Warm regards,
A.R.
Gent. dott. Rossi,
io sono molto preoccupato per la crisi economica, e pongo molte speranza sul fatto che la scoperta di una nuova rivoluzionaria fonte energetica, come promette di essere l’E-Cat, possa dare una sferzata all’economia e riavviare un volano che si sta fermando. Inoltre, siccome la crisi economica sembra galoppare, vorrei che questa sferzata potesse avvenire al più presto possibile.
Perché vi sia questa inversione di tendenza credo sarebbe già sufficiente che fonti scientificamente autorevoli dichiarino che effettivamente l’E-cat è una rivoluzionaria fonte energetica, in modo che la notizia possa essere ripresa con la grande evidenza dai media mondiali, molto scettici dopo la vicenda Fleishman e Pons, e faccia già da subito, ad esempio, risalire le borse.
Lei ha sempre mostrato poco interesse per la validazione scientifica dell’E-cat, affermando che l’unica validazione che conta è quella del mercato, che però potrebbe avere tempi molto più lunghi. Per altro, mi sembra di aver capito che ha proposto ad un team di scienziati autorevoli di svolgere dei test in occasione della presentazione del modulo di 1 MW alla fine di ottobre.
My question is the following: at the presentation of the 1 MW module, will also a scientific report be released, written by independent and authoritative scientists, validating and confirming from the scientific point of view the performances of the module that will be declared and showed in the presentation?
Grazie molte e auguri
With any new major technology there is a big shuffle in winners and losers as the products and services change. This technology will be huge as it affects many areas of life.
New products will be invented, new manufacturing methods and plants will be required.There will be an upheaval in job descriptions, but so much new will be required the overall needs will grow. For example, the fuel saved by an ECat will allow the ship owner to expand his business. Buy a new ship, lower his prices.
The revolution will be fun to watch.
Dear Koen Vandewalle:
In due time, they will write.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear John Dlouhy:
My attorney is studying the new America Invents Act the President Obama is going to sign. I think it will affect positively the work of inventors.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Giovanni:
We are not ready to make electric power, as I always said, all our reactors so far produce only heat. Nevertheless, I think that in 1 year we will be able to produce also electric power.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr Rossi
First of all thanks for what you have done up to now; I follow on daily basis all the news on e-cat project and enthusiastic to see all the progress made.
Ref yr today’s answer to Marcos. Perhaps I’m missing something here; does this mean that the 1 MW Power Station planed for the last week of October in USA will produce only Thermal Energy and 1 year later also Electrical? What will happen with the smaller e-cat systems for domestic use, it will be the same? I thought that these units were designed to produce electrical energy too, this will be an enormous breakthrough for this product!
Dr. Rossi
The America Invents Act is about to be signed into law by President Obama. As an inventor, do you see this as a benefit to your endeavor? That is, are there benefits in this legislation that will affect you directly?
My best wishes towards your success.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Did you receive requests from mainstream media and journalists for visiting your 1MW plant and if so, in what order of magnitude and importance ? It is not because they do not write (yet) that they do not read.
Kind regards,
Koen
Dear Ing. Rossi,
everyday I look for any news from e-cat world and it is astonishing to me the silence of the mass media on this topic. Everything seems to be running so smoothly without any official (public) comment from the authorities, Vips, political, commercial and military subjects and any possible power involved in such an important change in the energy-world. Doesn’t matter if pro or contra: they seem to be ghosts.
What does it mean? Aren’t they afraid of this possible “revolution” at 360° which is going to change the international balance?
Are they planning something? What is their possible counter-move? Or are they going to ride the invention in some unexpected way?
I intimately believe that e-cat will work but even letting this question open, undubtedly you are opening a new path bringing the Lenr revolution from the dimension of theory to that of the manufacturing world and the silence around you is quite surprising.
From my side I’m trying to inform as many people as I can because I think that more people are aware of this revolution, more it will be difficult to contrast.
Few weeks to go.
Thank you Ing. Rossi.
Dear Marcos:
We hope within 1 year,
Warm regards,
A.R.
For those who minimize the impact of the E-Cat, I would point again to the Wright Flyer.
I can hear the old voices right now, “Why that contraption is no darn good, it doesn’t even go 1 mile… And slow??? Why a railroad steam engine is faster.”
Yes, the voice of the past is pretty predictable. First, “It won’t work.” Then, “It doesn’t work well enough.”
There are many improvements between the Wright Flyer and a Sopwith Camel, even more improvements to get to the Concorde, and a different set of improvements to get to an Airbus A-380. However, the common root of heavier-than-air aviation remains “That darn thing that would never work!”
I posit that we are at a similar place in history. The first E-Cats will be valuable, but continuous improvements will make plain that a new era has begun.
JLMGeo
Richard Hill
September 11th, 2011 at 8:51 PM
Dear Mr. Hill, the amount of energy utilised for direct heating is very high. The northern countries use a lot of oil and gas for domestic heating during the lon months of winter. Hotels, food processing factories, laundries continuosly need hot water. Meanwhile, once cheap heating is available, it will be utlised for activities that are up till now uneconomical, such as snow melting in airports, roads, roofs, etc. Regrigeration, according to Ing. Rossi is also achievable with e-Cat technology. Hence, this will replace electrical power from the grid that normally is oil/coal/gas/nuclear driven.
I do not think thst one needs to be an economist to deduce that cheaper energy would result in more jobs. Recent history has thought us that a steep rise in the price energy has contributed heavily to the global economic meltdown. Whatever we do, produce or service has an inbuilt portion of energy cost since everything needs energy to be done. hence, lowere energy costs will result in cheaper products and services, resulting in more purchasing power resulting
Ing. Rossi’s great invention, even though initially will be utilised for thermal energy only, will have a great impact on the price of energy since this will start replacing conventional sources (gas, oil and elctric) used for heating. Therefore the demand for convrentional energy will fall, resulting in cheaper rates for conventional energy.
As a consequence, the e-Cat will have a big impact on the costly renewable systems. I believe that these will bethe first to die out, considering their cost and heavy government subsidies that these receive.
I am eager for Octber/November to come, hoping that nothing bad will happen to Ing. Rossi, his business and particulary the 1 MW project, considering that some industries will suffer from his success. On the other hand I am quite sure that Ing. Rossi has done his homework well.
God be with you Ing. Rossi. We shall all be the winners.
A. Rossi wrote: ” I have anyway to consolidate the engineering of this technology”.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
for greatest benefit of mankind and also for your profit, best way is something called “modified GPL” where all core intellectual property is preserved to you, all 3rd party developers have to hold their own IP rights, however they must contribute/disclose to common bulk knowledge base about greater development of E-Cat technology.
Otherwise, one happy developer will retained thei knowledge, squeeze all world, doing uncompetitive strategy in “Intel” style and braking whole sector development for next 20 years. Intel saga is best memento for breaking new tech such as E-Cat. However, ARM platform will destroy half of Intel fortune, but these boys this vehemently denied.
Solution = Modified GPL for all next advancement of E-Cat technology (IP).