How repulsive gravity contributes for cold fusion occurrence

Wladimir Guglinski
Mechanical Engineer graduated in the Escola de Engenharia da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais- UFMG, (Brazil), 1973, author of the book Quantum Ring Theory-Foundations for Cold Fusion, published in 2006

Quantum Ring Theory (QRT) proposes a new model of neutron, a new hydrogen model, a photon model, a model structure for the aether, a model of electron, a model of proton, and a new nuclear model named Hexagonal Floors Model.
Here we analyze the Rossi-Focardi cold fusion experiment by considering the nuclear properties of the Hexagonal Floors Model.

259 comments to How repulsive gravity contributes for cold fusion occurrence

  • Hi Wladimir!

    First of all I would like to say that I do not like to monopolize the conversations by trying to disturbing everyone with the goal to pass my point of view. What I did so far was to send my work to hundreds of Physicists worldwide who work in Research or Education, but until today never received a comment which I found this very discouraging. I believe that I discovered something of great importance (as everyone on this blog) which seems that was hidden under our feet (This information was hidden in the interpretation of the fine structure constant where as you can see there is another velocity of “something” (Aether’s Tangential Velocity) except of the speed of light).

    I suppose that you read the SEPPv3.pdf ( ) since the SEPP.pdf (1st version) which was published in the Journal had some errors and misconceptions that are corrected on the SEPPv3.pdf.

    About your questions:

    i)I believe as also I propose through my work that the Aether’s detection is relative easy. There are three experiments on this work and the first one does not need a set up. I gave the results of this experiment by analyzing arbitrary Earth’s Magnetic Field data with the EXCEL application (The link is also provided to download data and to analyze them by yourself). The setup exist already in nature, where Earth is the rotating frame with its Magnetic Field. An observer on the surface (Magnetic Field Sensor in Honolulu for example) can record Earth’s self rotation as also if the Aether exists will be coupled on the signal of Earth’s Magnetic Field as I show it on my paper. The Aether’s main period is around 111 secs and due to Coriolis effect the second period is around 56 secs. I hope some day soon, someone will do the same. It just needs the EXCEL and to download data from:

    ii)I have some indications (will be given below) that I believe some things in my work are correct. I understand how the establishment likes to ignore even if you are right on something. Today’s Science (even in the past) is mostly manipulated due to human arrogance and profit (Science Business), which a small percentage has to do with pure Science (not influenced from the people who give the money to direct Research). A very clear example is Cold Fusion and what is trying to achieve Mr. Rossi by creating a New kind of Industry (it is not easy (needs guts, but the Internet is a great Enemy as also a huge Ally. The ingenious discovery of Mr.Rossi would not be taken off 20 years ago. From this point of view, Tesla was unlucky although was a genius. If he had the Internet at his time, today we would have flying cars and already starting exploring our Solar System. The influence of some people in strong social or academic positions in the past, had created an alternative future, the today’s, which is not what it should be.

    I am not going to play the game that the establishment likes (tend to ignore). As Thales said “..The TIME is the wisest of all because it discovers everything..” 600 B.C. Do you know what does this mean? It means, even if we do not do anything, in the coming years or ages if a change is time to occur, will occur, want it we or not. In a way more or less we are guided by the TIME itself (It is inappropriate to open such kind of discussion on this blog.).

    Some indications:
    i)Some past experiments that indicate a probable Aether’s Tangential speed of 348 Km/sec:

    ii)The Integral Project claims through an experiment with Gamma Rays change of polarization, that the Quantization of Space is below the 1.616E-35m (Planck Length). They support that is even below the value of 1E-48m. I propose after calculations that the Quantum Length is 6.74E-58m. This result makes all Planck Units invalid (It is proved mathematically as also there are given the new values). The below Link is also integrated on the SEPPv3.pdf:

    iii)I measured the speed of the E/M Wave inside special materials with values even down to 800 m/sec. It is not directly related to my work.

    iv)I proved the acceleration formula of Yuri.N.Ivanov (Rhythmodynamics) through my work, as also by creating motion on a table top experiment of a body without moving parts (I mention this somewhere on my Web Site). This result makes both theories compatible.

    v)Recently I found on the Internet a paper of Wilhelm Weber written back in 1847 (Anti-matter was not even in the vocabulary at that time) where after his experiments with currents, he concludes the discovery of the General Electric Force, which is exactly what I found in my work (Complete Coulomb Force). Very Strange!!

    I search to find reliable Graphic Diagrams for the Nuclear Force/Energy between two protons. You can see my proposal on the Nuclear Force on my Web Site where there are put two different diagrams. One of them is with constant speed of light (what we accept today and simultaneously we discard the existence of Aether. It is like the fine structure constant is equal to 1. This is a mistake of today’s Physics). And the other one is with variable speed of light (varies with distance) which presupposes the existence of Aether (The form of the Fine Structure Constant proves exactly this).

    Thank you for your attention and I apologize for the interference to yours discussion space (because of your paper).

    Best Wishes

    Ioannis Xydous

    Electronic Engineer

    Web Site:


  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Ioannis wrote in May 16th, 2012 at 1:09 AM

    Dear Wladimir,
    I am very glad that there are other people like you who support the existence of Aether. Unfortunately as far as I searched on the Internet there is no theory which shows the presence of Aether in equations.”

    Dear Ioannis,
    first of all, let me say that I had read your article when it was published here in Rossi’s blog, and I found it very interesting.

    But let me remember you that the science advances very slowly.

    The aether is coming back to Physics, but only a new generation of physicists will accept its existence.
    As said Planck, the science advances over the corpses of the old scientists. The present generation will never accept the aether’s existence, in spite of the own Einstein tried to bring it back to Physics, after 1916.

    In the case of your theory, you should have to try to find experiments which confirm the predictions of your theory. Or perhaps you could propose a new experiment, so that to test your theory.

    However, there are two points to be noted:

    1- Is not easy to make experiments with the aether.

    2- Even if one experiment corroborates the predictions of your theory, you dont have to expect an immediate acceptation of your theory by the academics.

    In March-2012 a new experiment made by John Arrington has corroborated the new nuclear model of my theory. Besides, such new experiment shows that the current models of prevailing Nuclear Physics are wrong.
    Nevertheless, the nuclear physicists feign that nothing has changed in the field of Nuclear Physics.

    As I said, science advances slowly.
    And we have to wait the growth of the present new generation of physicists, because they will grow in touch with new experiments which discredit the prevailing theories, and so they will feel the need to consider seriously new revolutionary theories, because they will not accept to betray the scientific method, as the present generation is doing.


  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Balint Morvai wrote in May 14th, 2012 at 3:21 PM
    Dear Dr Rossi,

    “Dear Wladimir Gulinski,

    I am curious: can you explain in a nutshell how you try to reconcile your approach (which I have only very roughly read sorry if the question is meaningless) with relativistic phenomena such as spacetime dilation? the origin of my question it’s that I assume your theory to be an (absolute) ether model.”

    Dear Balint

    My theory is concerning the micro-world. The approach concerning the questions of the macro-world is made by a theory developed by Dr. Cláudio Nassif.
    In his review on my book Quantum Ring Theory in Barnes&Noble, he wrote:

    “I am the author of Symmetrical Special Relativity, which first paper was published by the journal Pramanas in July 2008 under the title: ‘Deformed special relativity with an invariant minimum speed and its cosmological implications’. We, theoretical physicists, develop theories by using the mathematics, some theorems, many axioms, supporting fundamental principles, but there is not a physical reality underlying our theories. Actually one of achivements of the 20th Century is that a physical reality is unatainable in Modern Physics. But Guglinski’s theory just supplies physical models to Theoretical Physics. In his theory are proposed physical models for the photon, the fermions, the neutron, the hydrogen atom, the nucleus, and the aether, and his QRT proposes the fundamental principles from which those physical models work. My SSR and Guglinski’s QRT are complementary. A future consistent agglutination of SSR and QRT will perform a New Grand Unified Theory which, if confirmed by experiments, will constitute the New Physics of the 21th Century.”

    Nassif already published 2 papers in peer review journals:
    – Pramana (2008)
    – International Journal of Modern Physics B (2010), where a third paper is under review.

  • Dear Wladimir,

    I am very glad that there are other people like you who support the existence of Aether. Unfortunately as far as I searched on the Internet there is no theory which shows the presence of Aether in equations.

    I encourage you to check my Web site:

    Massless Aether Tangential Velocity: 348 Km/sec or 3.48E5 m/sec. The Translation velocity of the Aether is zero (Stationary Aether, but spinning)

    There you will see that almost in every formulation, the Aether is present. A new expression of the Planck constant has the Aether inside it, which means the created matter has always charge (charge equation has also the Aether included) and spins with the Tangential Velocity of the Aether (3.48E5 m/sec).

    Matter is the manifestation of condensed Aether.

    Neutrinos have imaginary charge but not real mass. I agree with the idea that Neutrinos are massless and have similar properties with the photons.

    Actually in my work you will read that Neutrinos are Massless Longitudinal Waves (Half Waves) which they have a minimum velocity the speed of light. Inside a field they may exceed the speed of light, but again when they exit they travel with c. This is the cause of the change of flavor in Neutrinos (which point to a frequency shift due to increase or decrease of velocity).

    I agree that exists a fourth Neutrino and in my theory is called Proton Neutrino.

    All four Neutrinos imaginary masses are calculated precisely as also their allowed minimum and maximum theoretical limits.

    In my work everything is calculated and nothing is left into the “air”.

    I will look forward for your comments!

    Ioannis Xydous

    Electronic Engineer

    Web Site:


  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Cures:
    Thank you,
    Warm Regards,

  • Cures

    Ho meditato un po’ sulla risposta del sottosegretario De Vincenti

    La risposta è stata certamente scritta da un esperto del settore fusione fredda, come vuole la logica ministeriale.
    Non può essere diversamente visto che De Vincenti è professore di economia e di fusione fredda non può capire nulla. Chi sta al vertice di un ministero si deve per forza avvalere di esperti per rispondere alle interrogazioni ministeriale di varia natura.

    L’esperto in questione ha colto la palla al balzo per denigrare l’opera di Rossi e ciò si desume dal fatto che ne ha parlato negativamente, nel corpo centrale della risposta, senza convocarlo per accertare la verità dei fatti.

    Se fosse stato in buona fede e lo avesse convocato, avrebbe scoperto che il Rossi ha già da tempo accettato di sottoporre il proprio prodotto ad una verifica indipendente da parte dei dei clienti.

    Ma qui non c’è buona fede. C’è solo la risposta di un concorrente di Rossi che lo vede come un nemico temibile per i propri interessi, finanziari o scientifici che siano.

    Le stupidaggini sulla commerciabilità del modulo Ecat destinato ad uso casalingo, causa radiazioni, sono servite a ignorare le enormi conseguenze di una tecnologia che consente di allestire centrali termoelettriche a emissioni zero in grado di sostituire tutte quelle attuali, convenzionali o nucleari che siano, rendendo il nostro Paese indipendente per sempre da combustibili di qualsiasi genere di fonte estera.

    Cosa non si fa per il proprio tornaconto: si è disposti ad affossare il futuro del proprio Paese in cambio di trenta denari.


  • […] this statement was enough to give Leonardo Corp. pause. Rossi stated that after a meeting, the company decided that “the production will be focused on the USA […]

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Steven N. Karels:
    Warm Regards,

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    I read your interview and your comments on COP. It seems to me the COP of the range 5 to 10 is about right. As with most engineered things, too high an amplification can lead to oscillations or instability. Given a possible electrical energy efficiency of 25 to 30%, a COP of 4 is needed for self-sufficiency. I assume this would result in a system COP of near infinity because the eCat could produce sufficent electrical power to sustain its operation. A COP higher than 10 means to me a lack of control on the main reaction — very little energy is used to control a large energy output.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Matio M.:
    Thank you for your usual intelligent comment.
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Balint Morvai:
    I follow my instinct, usually. That’s why.
    Warm Regards,

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Dietmar wrote in May 13th, 2012 at 3:01 PM:

    The coherent forward scattering is analogous to the electromagnetic process leading to the refractive index of light in a medium

    Dear Dietmar,
    the Mikheyev–Smirnov–Wolfenstein effect, described in the link posted by you,actually suggests that neutrinos are not matter, since they have a behavior similar to that of light.

    I would like to post here again a comment of mine (January 30th, 2012 at 7:16 PM) , in the article Interaction between neutrino flavor oscillation and Dark Energy as a super-luminal propagation


    When Einstein developed his Theory of Relativity, he did not have knowledge on the existence of anti-matter.
    His theory was developed by considering the ordinary matter.
    Therefore, the postulate of relativity (according to which no body can travel faster than light) is concerning to ordinary matter.

    According to my Quantum Ring Theory, the neutrino is composed by [positron-electron].

    In QRT there are two sort of spins:
    1- intrinsic spin- it’s the rotation of the particle about its axis (similar to the Earth dayly rotation)
    2- quantum spin- it’s the rotation of the particle about the center of the helical trajectory traveled by the particle. This is the spin measured in the experiments.

    In the spin-fusion phenomenon proposed in my QRT (when a particle moves about another one) the particle loses its helical trajectory, and so it loses its quantum spin. So, thanks to the spin-fusion, a fermion becomes a boson.

    In the structure of the neutrino, the electron gyrates very close about the positron, and they interact via the spin-fusion mechanism. So, the electron loses its quantum spin, and the neutrino has spin 1/2.
    While the electron gyrates about the positron, the positron gyrates about the center of the helical trajectory.

    As the electron gyrates very close to the positron, we have:

    a) the two electromagnetic fields of electron and positron vanish one each other. However, as there is not a perfect overlap of their two fields, then the electromagnetic field of the neutrino is not totaly null. But it is very weak.
    This is the reason why the interaction of the neutrino with the matter is almost null.

    b) in QRT the particles have two gravitational fields: one composed by attractive gravitons, and another by repulsive gravitons.
    If repulsive and attractive gravity should have the same value of interaction, the resultant gravitational field of the neutrino should be zero, and its gravitational mass should be null.
    But repulsive gravity is a litle weaker than the attractive gravity, and the resultant iis a very weak attractive gravitational fiedl. So, the neutrino has a very weak gravitational field, responsible for its very weak gravitational mass.

    This structure of the neutrino explains why its mass is very small, in spite of it is formed by positron-electron.
    The sum of the masses electron+positrion is 0,5MeV/c²+0,5MeV/c² , but the mass of the neutrino is about 0,04eV/c² only, because the neutrino has its electro-magnetic-gravitational field very near to zero.

    In the anti-neutrino, the positron gyrates about the electron, and the electron gyrates about the center of the helical trajectory.

    According to current theories, there are three sort of neutrinos (or flavors):

    1- electron neutrinos
    2- muon neutrinos
    3- tau neutrinos

    According to Quantum Ring Theory, there are four sort of neutrinos:

    1- electron neutrinos – the intrinsic spin iSp of positron and the intrinsic spin iSe of electron has the same direction of the neutrino motion. So, iSp and iSe have the same direction.

    2- muon neutrinos- iSp of the positron has the same direction of the neutrino motion, while iSe of the electron has contrary direction of the motion. So, iSe and iSp have contrary direction.

    3- tau neutrino- iSp and iSe they both have contrary direction of the neutrino motion. So, iSp and iSe have the same direction.

    4- noum neutrino- iSp has contrary direction of the neutrino motion, while iSe has the same direction of the motion. So, iSp and iSe have contrary direction.

    Obviously the muon and the noum neutrinos have the same properties, and therefore the noum neutrino behaves as it should a muon neutrino. From the viewpoint of their interaction with matter, there is NO difference between them.

    These differences in the structure of the three neutrinos are responsible for their different interaction with matter.
    -> in the electron and tau neutrinos, iSp and iSe are alligned, and so they interact strongly with matter than the muon neutrino, where iSp and iSe have contrary directions.

    In the botton of the page 205 of the book Quantum Ring Theory it is writting the following:
    “In the right side of [4.11] the term [e-]^e-p into the electronic neutrino means that the electron has its intrinsic spin aligned with the positron’s spin, while [e]^e/p in the muonic neutrino means that the electron and the positron have their intrinsic spins in contrary directions”

    Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is applied to the electron (matter). His theory is also applied to the positron (anti-matter).
    However, the neutrino is not matter. But the neutrino is not anti-matter too.
    Let’s call ordinary matter the electron and the positron.

    The neutrino is not ordinary matter. It is actually an exotic combination of matter/anti-matter, and such combination does not follow the laws of ordinary matter.


  • Balint Morvai

    Dear Dr Rossi,

    I would like to ask a personal question: you have mentioned several times, that when the pons & fleischman experiments came to public knowledge you were intrigued by the possibilities but when you tried to replicate them, failed, as many others did. What I would like to ask is, why did you continue looking for a way to produce similar results?
    I am asking this because most of your colleagues ultimately failed, not by failing to replicate the experiments in which probably key factors remained unknown, thus mostly missing, but by simply accusing pons & fleischman of fraud or incompetence and dropping any interest in the issue. This of course is a well known pattern in modern “science”.

    Dear Wladimir Gulinski,

    I am curious to read your book and appreciate that you share your ideas with the public. I am curious: can you explain in a nutshell how you try to reconcile your approach (which I have only very roughly read sorry if the question is meaningless) with relativistic phenomena such as spacetime dilation? the origin of my question it’s that I assume your theory to be an (absolute) ether model. Thank you, looking forward to read your book.
    If for your approach to reanalyze the neutron scatter experiments you should need someone with mathematical programming background (assuming you have them digitalized) please contact me.

  • Mario M.

    Dear Andrea, I would shortly comment the Italian Government position on the E-Cat emerging from the recent answer given from the deputy Minister for the Economic Development you cited this morning on your blog. I saw him yesterday on the Italian TV (I didn’t know him), and he seems to me a serious person. However, I suspect that, due to his economic background and his many serious commitments for the Italian crisis, the real author of his answer is an energy consultant, maybe the same sherpa (ghost writer) working for the ENEL electric company who, in the last weeks, wrote the proposal for a law designed to definitely destroy the photovoltaic sector in Italy. Moreover, the fact that the Italian Government representative cites the Italian law (derived from Euratom guidelines) on apparatus emitting ionizing radiations (which is here:;230) appears quite funny to me, as every physicist knows that: (1) outside the E-Cat the ionizing radiation levels have been measured (see the Bianchini and Villa’s papers) to be the same of the natural background; (2) the old cathodic TV screens and the old radios with thermionic valves were both veeery low emitters of ionizing radiations, so according the way of reasoning of the Italian Government – if they are coherent – they should be considered like nuclear reactors with all the consequent restrictions (haha). I can say more: mobile phones and Wi-Fi apparatus are strong emitters of electromagnetic radiations outside them and these radiations have detectable biological effects. So, ignorance is a big problem for the political class and the consultants in Italy are not independent. Conclusion: the E-Cat is very safe for human health and it is out of discussion because no radiations came out of machine (and it is safe especially compared to the cited examples on the market and not as safe as people believe), but his acceptance is a political, not scientific, matter.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Robert Curto,
    Your comment regarding the cancer research, of course, has nothing to do with our matter, but it has been published hoping the publication can help useful contacts for this very important issue.
    Warm Regards,

  • Robert Curto

    Sorry for the double post, my mistake.

    To all the Readers:
    I want to tell you this has nothing to do with E-Cat.
    But it is for anyone interested in Cancer Research.
    You can Google:
    Kanzius Cancer Research Foundation

    On their site you will find they are developing a new non-invasive, no side effects cancer

    A cancer patient is injected with
    Gold Nanoparticles, which will attach to cancer cells only.
    The patient will go under a Radio Frequency Device, which will heat the Gold Nanoparticles, which will kill the cancer cells.
    They are working with MD Anderson Cancer Center, which has a great reputation in the Cancer World.

    The FDA has to approve the RF Device.
    They hope to start a Clinical Trial next year.

    Ft. Lauderdale, Florida

  • Robert Curto

    Dr. Rossi, you said:
    “production will be focused on the USA alone alone for the first years.”

    Does this mean the second Factory in Europe has been canceled or put on hold or what ?

    It is my opinion that the demand for E-Cats will be very high.
    If this is true, I was expecting
    to hear about Factory number 3,4, etc. in other Countries.

    Instead you will restrict your production to one Country for years !

    Ft. Lauderdale, Florida

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Dietmar wrote in May 13th, 2012 at 10:07 AM:

    “Peter Hagelstein from MIT

    “If a reaction is to involve a neutron transfer with a nucleus, it immediately becomes

    Dear Dietmar
    in general, all the authors that try to explain cold fusion have theories in which they worry to describe the reactions that occur in the phenomenon.

    But in all those theories it is missing to explain a fundamental miracle:

    The “miracle” is just the step which my theory tries to explain


  • Robert Curto

    Dr. Rossi you said:
    “production will be focused on the USA alone for the first years.”

    Does this mean the second Factory
    in Europe has been canceled or put on hold, or what ?

    It is my opinion that the demand
    for E-Cats will be very high.
    If this is true, I was expecting
    to hear about your third Factory
    etc. in other Countries.

    Instead you will restrict your production to one Country for years !

    Ft. Lauderdale, Florida

  • […] Just today, Andrea Rossi made this comment about this interview on the Journal of Nuclear Physics: Dear Frank Acland: Thank you for the […]

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Frank Acland:
    Thank you for the information: your inteeview has been very useful.
    I have just an adjournment: the production will be focused on the USA alone, for the first years. This has been decided in a meeting of today of the Trust that owns Leonardo Corp with me, as the CEO of Leonardo.
    Warm Regards,

  • Frank Acland

    Frank Acland of E-Cat World interviewed Andrea Rossi, May 12, 2012.

  • Elektron-Neutrinos are good for some surprises.

    They change energy and impulse with elektrons at a high electron-density, so may be we can make conditions to caught neutrinos with a lot of elektrons in conductiveband:-)

    “The presence of electrons in matter changes the energy levels of the propagation eigenstates of neutrinos due to charged current coherent forward scattering of the electron neutrinos (i.e., weak interactions). The coherent forward scattering is analogous to the electromagnetic process leading to the refractive index of light in a medium. This means that neutrinos in matter have a different effective mass than neutrinos in vacuum, and since neutrino oscillations depend upon the squared mass difference of the neutrinos, neutrino oscillations may be different in matter than they are in vacuum. With antineutrinos, the conceptual point is the same but the effective charge that the weak interaction couples to (called weak isospin) has an opposite sign.”

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Wladimir Guglinski:
    Thank you: I will pass them along to our specialists.
    Warm Regards,

  • Dear Pekka Janhunen,
    you are right. I noticed this.
    But may be the Neutrino can be changed from Neutrino to Anti-Neutrino and vice versa when it passes the magnetic field of the sun. This would say, that the neutrino has a magnetic moment, so its Spin can flip.
    On the other side I am happy, that here are readers, who take carefully notice on all what is going on in Cold Fusion. Because it is real, there must be an explanation. I think the PEP reaction is a hot candidate,


  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Steve Karels:
    Interesting, thank you.
    Warm Regards,

  • Peter Hagelstein from MIT

    “If a reaction is to involve a neutron transfer with a nucleus, it immediately becomes problematic as to where the neutron would come from. There seem to be no obvious source of real neutrons associated with the experiments; even if there were, real neutrons would lead to all kinds of nuclear emissions and activation of materials, effects not consistent with the experimental reports.”

    My thoughts:-)

    1.) May be there are very slow free neutrons, make all the seen transmutations of elements.

    2.) This I like much more: Imagine, just the PEP reaction like in sun happens in Ni-H reactor

    p + e + p = D + v + 1442 keV

    Via this way, NO free neutrons appear. So, you need only ONE neutron to start the reaction to build the first deuterium atom D like katalysator to start the PEP reaction, warm up :-)

    (I) n + p = D + 2224 keV
    is this start reaction (first neutron n comes from anywhere, like in fission reactor with U-235)

    The 2224 keV are given for a VERY short time to the lattice, with Mössbauer effect.

    Now PEP can start and some other processes with this 2224 keV also,
    for example

    after warm up :-)
    p + e + p = D + v + 1442 keV

    2224 keV + p + e = n + v + 1442 keV

    1442 keV + p + e = n + v + 660 keV

    2224 keV + p = n + e+ + v + 420 keV

    greetings Dietmar

    PS: The reaction, which produces 420 keV cant be seen by Fleischman, Pons, Piantelli, Focardi et alt.
    This would indeed favour the naked PEP reaction. In this appears only 1442 keV, not enough to build a positron,


    PPS: I am quite sure, that things goes on like I described. The only problem is to start the reaction so that PEP can happen.

  • snkarels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    A possible application for eCat:

    (from Wikipedia) – Oil Sands – requires steam temperatures of ~300 to 340 deg C
    Cyclic Steam Stimulation (CSS)See also: Steam injection (oil industry)
    The use of steam injection to recover heavy oil has been in use in the oil fields of California since the 1950s. The Cyclic Steam Stimulation or “huff-and-puff” method has been in use by Imperial Oil at Cold Lake since 1985 and is also used by Canadian Natural Resources at Primrose and Wolf Lake and by Shell Canada at Peace River. In this method, the well is put through cycles of steam injection, soak, and oil production. First, steam is injected into a well at a temperature of 300 to 340 degrees Celsius for a period of weeks to months; then, the well is allowed to sit for days to weeks to allow heat to soak into the formation; and, later, the hot oil is pumped out of the well for a period of weeks or months. Once the production rate falls off, the well is put through another cycle of injection, soak and production. This process is repeated until the cost of injecting steam becomes higher than the money made from producing oil.[32] The CSS method has the advantage that recovery factors are around 20 to 25% and the disadvantage that the cost to inject steam is high.

    With a cheaper steam energy source, more oil can be economically recovered.


  • Andrea Rossi

    We are receiving many comments in Russian Cyrillic: very sorry, we cannot publish them because we are not able to translate and, since none of us, unfortunately, speaks Russian, we cannot control that the text is legal. Please send your comments, links etc. in English: we will be glad to publish them.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Wladimir and Joe:
    I wish too a great success for Wladimir’s book!
    Warm Regards,

  • Joe


    The only way that I can see discreteness in your model is if the repulsive graviton were to have an ELECTRIC CHARGE whose sign would be the opposite of that of the particle’s secondary field. Example: an electron would have a positive primary field and a negative secondary field; and vice versa for a proton. In such a paradigm, secondary fields would undergo Coulombic attraction as usual between proton and electron. But when the primary and secondary fields met, they would obviously repel, but still be forced to overlap to a certain degree – enough to balance the force of attraction between the secondary fields. That region of overlap MIGHT be composed of aether of constant density. But a model containing such BINARY CHARGED FIELDS for individual particles would cause problems for other facets of your model understandably.

    My best wishes for your book’s success,

  • ron kita

    Greetings A.R.- et al:

    In terms of electrostatic gravity has anybody seen the paper by
    Professor RC Gupta: Gravity as a Manifestation of a Secondary Electrostatic Force:

    Also in terms of the helical electron has any searched: Chiral+ Gravity =many many hits some are quite spurious- but that is OK.
    Ron Kita, Chiralex
    Doylestown, PA

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Steven N. Karels:
    Yes, is important what you say. This is an issue in which we can give an important contribution.
    Warm Regards,

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in May 10th, 2012 at 11:16 PM:

    2. I still do not see how your model creates discrete regions of aether density. The electrostatic force varies by the radius squared. And the repulsive gravitons have a continuously decreasing density with increasing distance from the proton or electron. Since both phenomena are non-discrete, their intercourse can only be non-discrete as well. No region of constant density should be created.

    Dear Joe,
    I also do not know how it occurs.

    In my book published in 2006, I have considered a continously decreasing density.

    However now I am suspecting that such decreasing is discrete.

    They mechanisms of interaction within the electrosphere are very complex. That’s why the theorists, along the entire 20th Century, did not succeed to discover them.
    That’s why the problem was solved from the mathematical via only.

    In my hydrogen model the electron moves with helical trajectory.

    Probably a free proton has a continuous decreasing density of aether.
    But when an electron is captured, and they form the hydrogen atom, and the electron moves in radial direction withing the electrosphere, its helical trajectory induces the discrete decreasing of the density, and such discrete density is responsible for the paradoxical behavior of the atom, discoverd by Bohr, as for instance the discrete variation of the electron’s momentum L= nh , n= 1,2,3…

    In my book THE MISSED U-TURN-the duel Heisenberg vs Schrödinger I suggest that Schrödinger Equation is the mathematical solution which describes the behavior of the atom, which works with the mechanisms proposed in my theory, which basically are the following:
    – non-Euclidian space within the electrosphere
    – helical trajectory of electron
    – zoom-effect of helical trajectory
    – radial change of electron inertia with regard to the proton)

    The success of Schrödinger Equation is one among those marvelous coincidences in Physics development.
    He discovered his equation almost 100 years ago, but only now we know the actual meaning of his equation.

    My book will be published in the next upcoming months, in London.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Consider the problem of potable (drinkable) water. Assume water source is nearby the village but is contaminated with disease-borne agents. Boiling the water would kill the agents.

    Assume a 5kW eCat running continuously with an input water temperature of 20 degC. Bringing the water to boiling: Specific Heat of Water: 4.18 J/ (gm * degC)
    Delta temperature = 80 degC
    Heat of Vaporization for Water: 2257 kJ /kg
    Raise 1 kg of water from 20 degC to 100 degC: = 4.18 J / (gm * degC) * 1000 gm/kg * 80 degC = 334 kJ
    Boil 1 kg of water: = 2257 kJ
    Total Energy required: = 2591 kJ / kg
    Amount of Water turned into steam in one hour: = 5 kW * 3600 sec /(2581 kJ / kg) = 18 MJ / (2581 kJ / kg) = 6.95 kg / hour
    Amount of Water per day = 166 kg = 166 liters / day
    Required drinkable water per person per day = 2 liters per day.
    Number of people one 5kW eCat could support = 83 persons
    Steam could be used to provide electricity (5kW @ 30% = 1.5kW electricity)
    Waste heat used for structure heating, etc.

  • Dietmar,
    Your second reaction seems not correct because it would need an antineutrino on the left hand side, not neutrino. Otherwise the lepton number is not conserved.

  • Joe


    1. I thank you for that clarification.

    2. I still do not see how your model creates discrete regions of aether density. The electrostatic force varies by the radius squared. And the repulsive gravitons have a continuously decreasing density with increasing distance from the proton or electron. Since both phenomena are non-discrete, their intercourse can only be non-discrete as well. No region of constant density should be created.

    All the best,

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in May 8th, 2012 at 8:39 PM

    1. In Fig.5-C(a), you show the overlap of the secondary fields which are electric. Since those fields have the same sign, they should repel. Yet, you say that attraction is the result of that overlap. How so?

    I did not find the Fig.5-C(a) you mentioned. I suppose it is the Fig.5-C.
    The secondary field of electron is negative. The secondary field of proton is positive. So, they have attraction (it’s the well-known Coulomb interaction)

    2. And that, as that distance decreases, eventually a point of equilibrium is achieved: F(attractive)=F(repulsive). Such a balance of force can only exist in an infinitesimally thin sphere about the proton.

    Joe, you are supposing an Euclidian space within the electrosphere.

    But the space is no Euclidian. Close to the proton the aether has higger density, and the density decreases with the growth of the radius within the electrosphere of proton.
    The growth of density is not continuous, it is discrete. I think the density varies like the variation of the Bohr’s radius in the hydrogen atom. It is constant between two radii of Bohr, and suddenly it has a step.

    Look at the figure ahead:

    When the two secondary fields of proton and electron interact (attraction), the area of interaction is big, but the density of aether is low.

    When the secondary field of proton interacts with the principal field of electron (repulstion), the area of interaction is small, but the density of aether is high.

    A big area with low density yields a force equal to the force due to an interaction with small area and high density


  • Andrea M. Castellari

    Dear Dr. Rossi,

    I hope you’ll forgive me if I try your patience once again.
    I have been following the developments concerning the “Athenos” apparatus of the IT Pirelli – Rome.
    First of all, I would like to suggest that this would not have eventuated had it not been for yours and Prof. Focardi’s contribution to this field.
    An interesting fact struck me, connected to the Athanos device, which is the use of a “fluidized medium.”
    I am familiar with technologies that use molten salts, both in the field of solar energy, and in those of the “new” nuclear.
    Since I learned of your technology, I thought that the best way to exploit it would be with the use of a fluid medium, although it’s clear that the utilitarian aspects of a solid medium might prevail.
    The idea has occurred to me of using microcrystalline nickel in a molten salt, i.e. at relatively high temperatures, with a controlled concentration of hydrogen and nickel microcrystals.
    Obviously in this case the main challenge is the choice of salt, which must not dissolve the nickel crystals, otherwise the reaction can not be catalyzed, as well as having such density as to keep it in suspension.
    Unfortunately, my knowledge of chemistry is limited, however I think this scenario is possible. For example, zinc chloride might be sufficiently inert with respect to metallic nickel.
    The advantages of this approach are that salts are stable and generally have a high thermal capacity at low pressure, and that the relative concentrations of nickel and hydrogen can be finely controlled on-line.
    This would allow the achievement of relatively high temperatures, at the same time obviating the negative effects due to the destruction of the “fuel” sites, because the fuel itself could be continuously renewed.
    In conclusion, the resulting reactor could be very compact and therefore suitable for mobile applications.

    Warm Regards,
    Andrea Castellari

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Andrea M. Castellari:
    I cannot give info about what happens inside the E-Cat. Anyway, I leave to our readers any comment regarding your considerations.
    Non posso dare informazione concernente il funzionamento degli Energy catalyzers: lascio ai lettori del Journal ogni commento in merito al Suo intervento.
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea M. Castellari

    Caro Dr. Rossi,

    Spero che mi perdonerá ancora una volta se abuso della sua pazienza.
    Ho seguito gli sviluppi concernenti l’apparato “Athenos” dell’IT Pirelli di Roma.
    Per prima cosa, vorrei suggerire che questo episodio non sarebbe accaduto se non fosse stato per il suo contributo e quello del Prof. Focardi in questo campo.
    Un fattore interessante mi ha colpito, collegato all’Athanos, che é l’uso di un “medio fluidizzato”.
    Sono familiare con tecnologie che utilizzano sali fusi, sia nel campo del solare, che in quello del “nuovo” nucleare.
    Avevo giá in mente, da quando ho appreso della sua tecnologia, che il modo migliore per sfruttarla sarebbe stato con l’utilizzo di mezzi fluidi, anche se chiaramente gli aspetti utilitari dei “solidi” possono in certi casi prevalere.
    L’idea che mi é passata per la mente é di usare il nichel microcristallino in un ambiente salino fuso, cioé a temperature relativamente alte, con una concentrazione di idrogeno e di microcristalli di nichel controllata.
    Ovviamente in questo caso il problema principale é la scelta del sale, che non deve sciogliere i cristalli di nichel, altrimenti la reazione non puó essere catalizzata.
    La mia conoscenza di chimica sfortunatamente ha i suoi limiti, tuttavia credo che questo scenario é possibile. Per esempio, il clururo di zinco potrebbe essere sufficientemente non-reattivo nei confronti del nichel.
    I vantaggi di questo approccio é che i sali sono stabili ed hanno generalmente un’alta capacitá termica a bassa pressione, e che le concentrazioni relative di nichel ed idrogeno possono essere “continuamente” controllate.
    Questo permetterebbe il raggiungimento di alte temperature, ed allo stesso tempo la limitazione degli effetti negativi dovuti alla distruzione dei siti “combustibili”, perché il combustibile puó essere continuamente rinnovato.
    In conclusione, il reattore risultante potrebbe essere molto compatto, e quindi idoneo ad applicazioni mobili.

    Warm regards,
    Andrea M. Castellari

  • Herbert Gillis

    Are you saying that C.F. reactions on earth are “driven” by the external 1442 keV photons from the sun? I don’t understand how that would apply to reactions in the Ecat, because the Ecat is shielded with lead.

  • Hi all,
    I have just an amazing idea.
    Cant describe this feeling, when I found something.

    You rememember the PEP reaction in sun?
    From December, when I saw the 660 keV gamma ray, reported by Pons, Fleischman et Al. , I thought this is the key but may be now I find the door for it.
    In sun happens PEP reaction, validated by Borexino in september 2011

    p + e + p = D + v (electronneutrino with VERY sharp 1442 keV)

    This neutrino v reaches earth and also any reactor for Cold Fusion.

    v(from sun with 1442 keV) + p + e = n + 660 keV (VERY sharp gammapeak)

    At once you understand, where all the neutrons in a bottle with 200 bar Hydrogen come from. AND: This 660 keV gamma peak is VERY sharp, because of the SHARP neutrino energy from sun 1442 keV – 782 keV (SHARP, needed to make neutron from proton) = 660 keV (SHARP).

    Tell me, why this not happens,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Steven N. Karels:
    First of all, a general information: I recovered luckily your comment from the spam section, wherein the robot of our blog has put it for some reason…I randomly take a look to some page of spam to check for some comment erroneously put there, and sometimes I get one recovered, but I cannot check all the spam ( we receive hundreds of spammed messages per day), so many good comments are lost. I suggest to the Readers that do not find published their comment to send it to
    so that we can recover it.
    Now the answer: there will be no problems at all to do what you say when the Ecats will be on the market. Everybody will be free to buy an E-Cat and make all the test he wants. We made all the tests we had to make and we have absolutely not time to lose with naysayers who will debunk anyway whatever we will make. We have to work, not to chatter. We have a production to make for our Customers. Naysayers are the last of our problem.
    Warm Regards,

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    I know you have demonstrated eCat before and the critics have found fault with the demonstration, disputed the interpretation of the results, etc.

    With the upcoming residential eCat models, with a much lower output, I would suggest a public test with the following criteria/conditions.

    a. The test be conducted in the US at a place of your choice.
    b. The independent observer provide the “extension cord” from the wall outlet to your system for all consumed electrical power. This “extension cord” would have a separation in the wires to permit Ampmeter monitoring of electrical input power during the test. If possible, it should be a computer monitored, periodic read-out. Part of the pre-test should include the independent observer measuring the current against a known load (e.g., a lamp with known load)
    c. Increase the water flow so that boiling is not achieved. Measure the water flow both by a calibrated flowmeter and the weight over time method.
    d. Monitor the input and output temperature continuously with computer logging.
    e. Conduct the test with continuous monitoring for a sufficient length of time to eliminate chemical energy as a means of explaining the results. Say a month long test?
    f. The independent observer should conduct both pre-test and post-test calibrations of all test equipment to verify their accuracy and that they have not changed.

    Do that and the nay-sayers will be silent or converted.

  • Joe

    Wladimir Guglinski,

    1. In Fig.5-C(a), you show the overlap of the secondary fields which are electric. Since those fields have the same sign, they should repel. Yet, you say that attraction is the result of that overlap. How so?

    2. You claim that the attractive electric force between proton and electron is greater than the repulsive gravitational force when both objects are at a great distance from each other. And that, as that distance decreases, eventually a point of equilibrium is achieved: F(attractive)=F(repulsive). Such a balance of force can only exist in an infinitesimally thin sphere about the proton. And only along such a sphere could an electron hope to travel at constant velocity (no acceleration). Yet, you say that an electron can travel at constant velocity throughout a thick volume of space about the proton (“electrosphere”, you called it). How is that possible?

    All the best,

  • My book “Elementary Antigravity II” on Amazon Kindle reviews cold fusion and gravitomagnetic experiments.
    The two are related and the common solution provides a Newtonian foundation for quantum physics.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Concerning the experimental corroboration of the new nuclear model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory, I would like to repeat here the answer I posted for Eric in the comments of the article on the Avogadro number.

    Eric posted the following comment:

    “Wladimir, Is there a need for a new physics in explaining cold fusion?. Yes I believe you are absolutely correct. Your comments regards John Arrington and experiments sound fascinating. Unfortunately the terminology is way too technical for me to understand yet with the latest diagrams I think I get a grasp of what you are relating to. “

    And my reply:

    Dear Eric,

    I wrote a new article and published it in Peswiki, so that people like you be able to understand the theoretical implications we must infer from John Arrington experiment, and what they represents for current theoretical Nuclear Physics.

    Please see it in the link:

    New nuclear model of Quantum Ring Theory corroborated by John Arrington’s experiment


  • ron kita

    Hexagonal structures and Cold Fusion do correlate.
    Note: Mizuno CF uses phenanthrene which is comprised of 3 hexagonal benzene rings.

    Ron Kita, Chiralex
    Doylestown, PA

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>