Theoretical interpretation
Proton capture by Nickel nuclei obviously requires the overcoming of an electrostatic potential barrier which opposes the process. For Ni58(the more abundant Nickel isotope), the maximum potential energy Vmax occurs at a distance R between Ni and proton nuclei centers equal to the sum of their radii, that is R ≈ 6,1 fm. The Vmax value is given (in CGS units) by the expression Vmax=Zeˆ2/R , where Zeˆ2 is the product of the two nuclear charges: it results in Vmax=1,06*10ˆ-5erg=662 keV. The proton kinetic energy Ke can be easily estimated by the relation Ke=1/2 mvˆ2=3/2 kT, where k is Boltzmann’s constant and T is the temperature measured in Kelvin: also on assuming T=1000 K, Ke is only ≈0,9 eV. According to classical physics, a particle having an energy of about 1 eV cannot overcome such a very high potential barrier. Such an opportunity, in principle, is given by the quantum mechanical tunnel e¤ect: in this case, the incoming particle can penetrate into the nucleus by getting through the potential barrier. The tunneling probability of a single particle colliding with an atomic target has been calculated by Gamow [9]. As shown by Evans [10], such a probability can be approximated as
(7)
where β=v/c is the ratio between the velocity v of the incoming particle and the velocity of light c: in our case, we obtain vˆ2=2Ke/m ≈ 2 * 10ˆ-9 cˆ2, and then β=v/c ≈ 4,47 *10ˆ-5 . Z and z are the charge values of Ni (Z = 28) and H (z = 1).
The tunneling probability becomes, as a consequence, P ≈ eˆ-28537 ≈ 3,5 * 10ˆ-12394, so small to make the capture of a single proton by a Nickel nucleus impossible. Nevertheless we have an experimental evidence of a large energy that can only arise from nuclear reactions between Nickel and Hydrogen, the only two elements existing in our apparatus. Furthermore, other attempts [11-15] have been made with Ni and H, obtaining analogous results, even if in a much smaller scale and without an easy and clear reproducibility.
In an attempt to explain the observed experimental effects, our attention has been attracted by a statement reported in [16] relative to a stellar gas where the electrons tend to cluster into spherical shells around nuclei, at distance rD known as Debye-Hückel radius. The .rst applications of the Debye-Hückel model [17] refer to electrolytic solutions for which it is possible to define a Debye length [18] with the following characteristic: if the distance between two charged ions is greater than rD , their electrostatic interactions are reduced by the presence of other ions attracted by the electric forces.
In our case, the proton-electron system might be shielded by the nuclear Coulomb potential, with the possibility of penetrating the Coulomb barrier.
Shielding effect would also explain the anomalous situation observed since 1938 [19] in nuclear reactions, between accelerated protons and Ni63occurring at 3 MeV, below the expected 4,6 MeV threshold.
The effect of electron screening on low-energy fusion processes has been investigated by Assembaum et al [20]: they report the increasing of the Coulomb barrier penetrability and calculate, for some reactions induced by protons (p+Li7 and p+B11) quantitative e¤ects, that look very relevant, though probably not sufficient to interpret our experimental results .
More recently, in a series of interesting papers [21-23], Raiola et al confirmed experimentally the significant increase of nuclear reactions cross sections in metals due to electron screening.
Sergio Focardi
Andrea Rossi
Caroline Collini:
As the chief scientist of the Team, I am not the right guy to receive that kind of questions.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
I have been since long time a reader of this blog and very interested to the LENR technology of Mr Rossi. When will you be available for public investors?
Caroline Collini
Dear Prof. Gillis (HRG):
I agree perfectly.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Over the past 22 years hundreds of experiments have been conducted in the field of LENR. Yet only recently are we seeing results that may be of practical industrial interest (for example; the exiting results of A. Rossi). Could we perhaps expand upon this excellent foundation by using data mining and predictive modeling software to analyze the existing body of data and automatically extract the hidden physical relationships? Possibly these relationships will lead to further practical combinations of isotopes (beyond the Ni-H system) and reaction conditions? One software platform of potential interest may be the “EUREQA” algorithm, developed by Michael Schmidt at Cornell University.
Dear Mr Stephen Shorland:
The intellectual passport is not good for the technologies. So said me my attorney.
Warm regards,
A.R.
I was wondering if you were yet aware of ‘intellectual passports’? They use the process of copyright to give protection.You use a qualified editor to write a ‘book’ describing your complete invention.Then any infringers can in fact be sent to jail and the protection lasts 50-70 years after your death with no repeat fees,in all countries that subscribe to international copyright law,which is most countries in the world.You can then keep your invention secret (too late in your case) or publish the ‘book’ without risk and accept the business proposals of the highest bidder/most suitable partner.This process would be best for you and best for the World to get this technology utilised most quickly.Obviously,you will do your own research into this possibility.Here is a brief introduction from a non-practitioner but the process is real and I humbly suggest it might be ideal for your purposes: http://pesn.com/2011/03/07/9501781_Intellectual_Passport_Bypasses_Convoluted_Patent_Journey/ Finally,thank you for your years of effort and I hope the ‘intellectual passport’ is a process suitable for you and your colleagues,enabling you you publish your complete invention in a matter of months.
I TAKE THE OCCASION TO ANSWER TO OTHER QUESTIONS ARRIVED TO MY EMAIL ADDRESS:
1- THE AMOUNT OF HYDROGEN CONSUMED DURING THE TEST HAS BEEN LESS THAT 0.1 GRAM. IT HAS BEEN WEIGHTED BY MEANS OF A SCALE WITH A PRECISION DOWN TO 0.1 GRAM, AND NO DIFFERENCE OF WEIGHT HAS BEEN MEASURED BEFORE AND AFTER THE TEST, SO WE ASSUME CONSERVATIVELY A CONSUME OF 0.1 GRAM
2- WE WILL PUT ONLINE THERESULTS OF THE OPERATION OF THE 1 MW PLANT, WHICH WILL BE STARTED UP IN OCTOBER.
IT WILL WORK 24 HOURS PER DAY, FOR 360 DAYS A YEAR, SO WE THINK IT WILL WASH OUT ALL THE STRANGE FANTASIES.
3- WE ARE DEFINING A THEORY BASED UPON THE STATISTICS AND THE ANALYSIS OF THE REACTORS WE CONTINUE TO USE EVERY DAY, FOR OUR R&D
WARM REGARDS,
A.R.
I intended to create you a very small observation just to say thanks over again with the incredible ideas you have shared at this time. It’s quite extremely generous of you in giving unhampered just what a number of us would have marketed for an ebook to get some dough for their own end, particularly considering the fact that you could possibly have done it in the event you decided. Those tips likewise served as a good way to comprehend the rest have the same zeal like my personal own to understand more and more on the topic of this matter. I know there are many more pleasant situations in the future for individuals that go through your blog post.
As a suggestion; consider that the quantum tunneling effect observed is producing a field separation between the bosons (full) and fermions (half) spin particles that comprise the components of the electric field.
Is it possible that this is bringing about a reaction with our planetary inertial static fields?
Is the energy barrier of the static field being overcome by high speed motion (percent of the speed of light) that brings about a relativistic contraction of time, that then shows a clock rate variation in one side of the electric field (half spin fermions?)
Is this A reaction at the ‘plane of the dimension’…Between the 4th and 5th dimension?
Is the energy amplifier drawing its energy from A cosmological energy source? High speed (66,000 miles per hour orbital speed) planetary motion?
Has there been a determination as to whether the machine while operating shows evidence of “Electron (half spin fermions) drag?”
Keep up the good work. We sure need it.
This is actually excellent, thanks for putting this up. I always find your site very educational and helpful. Keep them coming! 🙂
After searching AOL I found your site about A new energy – Theoretical Interpretation Journal of Nuclear Physics . I think both are good and I will be coming back to you and them in the future. Thanks
Thank You For This Post, was added to my bookmarks.
[…] Theoretical interpretations […]
Ms. Nixon:
Thank you for your suggestion. We appreciate it and will take it in consideration.
Warm regards,
A.R.
What do you think concerning adding some more illustrations? No offence, site is really nice. But according to the scientists visitors acquire information much more effective when there are some helpful pics.
Stacy Nixon
Dear Prof. Stremmenos: of course I relate to your comment dated March 13th,
A.R.
Dear Prof. Stremmenos: can you kindly write in more details this your important contribution? We’ll be glad to publish your paper on the Journal Of Nuclear Physics.
Warm Regards,
Andrea Rossi
Thank you, Prof. Stremmenos, for your suggestion. We’ll organize the experiment you suggested as soon as possible and will organize your presence.
Warm Regards,
Andrea Rossi
Oltre alla più sentita compiacenza e le vivissime congratulazioni per il meritato successo, mi permetto di suggerire agli Autori, una possibile verifica sperimentale di questa impostazione teorica.
Spero che questa grezza idea abbia benevole accoglienza poiché negli anni ’90 e più, con il collega Prof. S. Focardi, abbiamo condiviso speranze, pareri e informazioni, lavorando in parallelo nella stessa Università, su questa tematica del caricamento del idrogeno e deuterio su nichel e le trasmutazioni e anomalie termiche parallelamente osservate.
Poiché in base a questa impostazione teorica, il presupposto per il superamento della barriera repulsiva di Coulomb è la schermatura elettronica del protone, in altri termini la densità della nuvola elettronica nella quale è immerso il protone, la domanda che si pone è, se si può modificare in parte “esternamente a piacere” questa densità?… e quindi il rendimento energetico del sistema .
Secondo il mio modesto parere, questo potrebbe ragionevolmente essere possibile almeno per gli atomi della superficie del reticolo cristallino del nichel , se si interviene:
• Modificando nel reattore a piacere, il potenziale elettrostatico (-) del Ni e con appropriati isolanti p.es. ceramica trasformarlo in un’ armatura (-) di un condensatore e di seguito studiando la correlazione del rendimento energetico del sistema con i valori del campo elettrostatico applicato.
• Modificando a parità del potenziale elettrostatico (-) del Ni, la granulometria del campione con conseguente aumento della superficie e correlandola con il rendimento energetico del sistema.
Ambedue queste prove credo, oltre a dare consistenza al ipotesi teorica e non mi azzardo a dire alla determinazione poderale del effetto tunnel, sarebbero utili specie l’applicazione del campo elettrostatico, al controllo del rendimento del reattore, senza il minimo consumo di energia.