Categories

Peer Review

All the articles published on the Journal Of Nuclear Physics are Peer Reviewed. The Peer Review of every paper is made by at least one University Physics Professor.

Hidden and intermediate states of nucleons

by
U.V.S. Seshavatharam
DIP QA Engineer, Lanco Industries Ltd, Srikalahasti-517641, A.P, India
E-mail: seshavatharam.uvs@gmail.com

Prof. S. LAKSHMINARAYANA
Department Of Nuclear Physics, Andhra University, Vizag-530003, AP, India.
E-mail: lnsrirama@yahoo.com


Read the whole article
Download the ZIP file

Abstract
Nuclear planck energy is given by

where Gs is the strong nuclear gravitational constant [1, 2, 3] and is equal to N²Gc.
Here N is Avagadro number and GC is the classical gravitational constant.
In the previous paper [1] it is suggested that there exists 2 kinds of mass units.

They are observed and hidden mass units and their mass ratio is XE = 295.0606338.
XE can be called as the lepton-quark mass generator [1 - 4].
In this paper this idea is applied to the nucleons.

Hidden mass unit of nucleon can be given as

It is noticed that there exists an intermediate hidden mass state in between neutron and proton.
If nuclear stability factor is defined as

hidden mass of the intermediate state can be given as

Observable mass of this hidden intermediate state can be given as

If mec² is the rest energy of electron, this observable intermediate state gains a mass-energy of ½mec²  and transforms to neutron.
By loosing a mass-energy of 2mec²  transforms to proton.

Error is related with

Here Ec and Ea are the semi emepirical mass formula [1, 3, 15, 16, 17] coulomb and asymmetry energy constants.
Finally it is suggested that pairing energy constant of the semi empirical mass formula is

Asymmetry energy constant

Ec, Ea are related with XE as

Volume and surface energy constants are related as

Read the whole article
Download the ZIP file

344 comments to Hidden and intermediate states of nucleons

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Steven N. Karels:
    I cannot comment information regarding the internal operation of the E-Cat.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Henk,

    My own (uninformed) opinion of eCat technology is the “catalyst” material is added during the Nickel preparation phase and “treated” so that cracks in micron-sized Nickel particles form the correct sized cracks for a Nuclear Active Environment (NAE) to form. This would be generally in compliance with Dr. Storms’ theory.

    The “facts” against this concept is the apparent lack of Deuterium or Helium production during eCat operation. So far, Andrea Rossi has been silent on the output materials generated during eCat operation other than to state that Copper is no longer the primary output. Andrea Rossi has not explicitly stated Tritium is not formed. Since it is both highly toxic and radioactive and Andrea has stated that no residual radiation exits, I doubt that Tritium is formed. Any comment Andrea?

  • Joe

    Dr Rossi,

    1. Is the difference between the E-Cat and the Hot Cat one of

    a) scale (same science)

    or

    b) substance (slightly different science)?

    2. When the Hot Cats are in proximity to each other, do they influence each other’s output OTHER than by their potential mutual contribution of heat?

    3. Although not a chemical product, do you think that environmental neutrinos TOO play a role of catalyst inside the Hot Cat?

    4. Since you have a working hypothesis on the functioning of the E-Cats and Hot Cats, have you begun contemplating VERY DIFFERENT configurations for future incarnations of your device?

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Herb Gillis

    In regard to the question raised about how to provide “cracks” in a metal lattice, what about simply plating (such as by electroplating) one metal layer on top on another? This ensures there will always be an interface (crack) at which reactions might be stimulated. One could, for example, plate nickel on nickel (particles), niclel on copper (particles), etc. etc.

  • Andrea Rossi

    THERE IS A COMIC SITUATION IN THE NIAGARA FALLS OF STUPIDITIES FLOATING IN THE INTERNET REGARDING THE E-CATS TECHNOLOGY: THE SAME “EXPERTS” THAT FOR YEARS HAVE EXPLAINED HOW AND WHY OUR TECH CANNOT WORK, NOW HAVE CHANGED REGISTER, AND ARE MAKING A FUSS ABOUT THE SAFETY OF THE REACTORS. THIS GIVES EVIDENCE OF THE FACT THAT THEY ARE NOT IN SEARCH OF THE TRUTH, BUT THEY ARE JUST TRYING TO STOP US AT ANY COST: IN FACT THE TWO ISSUES ARE IN UNSUSTAINABLE CONTRADICTION, BECAUSE THE CASES ARE TWO
    1- OR THE TECHNOLOGY OF THE E-CAT DOES NOT WORK: BUT IN THIS CASE, THERE ARE NOT SAFETY ISSUES, BECAUSE IN THIS CASE THE E-CAT BECOMES A VULGAR ELECTRIC WATER BOILER
    2- OR THE REACTOR IS DANGEROUS AND THE SAFETY HAS NOT BEEN SUFFICIENTLY PROVEN: BUT IN THIS CASE, THAT MEANS THE TECHNOLOGY WORKS AND IS NUCLEAR !!!
    HE,HE,HE…
    WARM REGARDS,
    ANDREA ROSSI

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Guru:
    Of course, yes. You must consider two factoors, among others: inductance and frequency.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Henk:
    I cannot give information regarding the operation of the reactor.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Henk

    Hello Andrea,

    I think Edmund Storms is right in his idea about cracks. Now is the question how you make those cracks in a metal lattice. This could probabaly be done by exposing low-frequency sound to the metal. The energy is absorbed by the metal and cracks will be formed, by low frequency the cracks that are formed are larger, this is probably desirable.

    Metals, like nickel, are in fact very suitable for sound absorbation, by which process cracks are formed. And cracks, according to Storms, form a sort assembly line for LENR reactions.

    See for example: http://factory.dhgate.com/charger/nickel-foam-p38403034.html

    This can mean much more nuclear reactions and much more energy generation!!!

    regards,
    Henk

  • Guru

    Dear Dr. Rossi,

    I have endless admiration for your work.

    Even one more question from completely sci-fi category:

    is too presumptuous to think that your last version of Hot-Cat is directly PUSHING BACK some quantity of electricity ?

  • Steven N. Karels

    Wood versus Thermal eCat for Heat Production

    A common hardwood, red oak, has an energy content of 14.89 MJ per kilogram (wikipedia). A typical heating unit using wood as a fuel might be 70% efficient. This would yield about 10.4 MJ per kilogram of wood consumed. It is also affected by the moisture content of the wood — dried wood can output more energy than wet wood.

    In six months of operation, a 1MW Thermal eCat will generate 1.55 * 10^+13 Joules of Thermal energy. Assuming the 70% efficiency, the amount of wood consumed to release the same anount of energy is almost 1.5 million kilograms or about 1,500 metric tonnes.

    So a single 1MW Thermal eCat can replace the equivalent of 3,000 metric tonnes of carbon loading to the atmosphere per year of operation when compared to wood burning.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Steven N. Karels:
    Interesting application,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Use of Thermal eCats in Maple Syrup Production

    Canada produces 80% of the world’s supply of maple syrup (26,500,000 liters) in 2004 (Wikipedia) with the US around 4,700,000 liters for a combined Canadian/US annual production of around 30,000,000 liters per year.

    Between 20 and 50 liters of maple tree sap are boiled into 1 liter of maple syrup. Temperature range is ambient to +4.1 C over the boiling temperature.

    Assume 2,600 kJ per liter of thermal energy is needed.

    How many 1 MW Thermal eCats would be required to meet the energy needs for maple syrup production?

    Amount of sap to be boiled = (30 million liters * 1 kg/liter * 2,600 kJ) * 1 MJ / 1000 kJ * (20 to 50 liters of sap / liter of syrup) = 1.56 * 10^+9 MJ to 3.9 * 10^+9 MJ

    Production lasts 4 to 8 weeks so assume maple syrup reduction occurs for 2 months or 60 days. Assuming 24 hour operation, this is 1,440 hours

    Average thermal power needed is (1.56 * 10^+9 MJ to 3.9 * 10^+9 MJ) / (1,440 hours * 3,600 sec/hour) = 300 MW to 752 MW

    So between 300 and 752 1 MW Thermal eCat units could meet the Canadian and US maple syrup production needs.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Bernie Koppenhofer:
    1- we have thousands of hours spent with the E-Cats in operation, during which never had radiations outside the reactor.
    2- as you correctly say, the E-Cats and the Hot Cats are intrinsecally safe, because if the temperature overcomes the limit the nickel; melts, the hydrogen pops out, and we have no more powder of Ni reacting with H, therefore the operation stops.
    The “evil force” is working for us: the more they say stupidities, the more we gain credibility: this is exactly what we are experiencing in the market.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Can we all agree it is important to the general public that the E-Cat is perceived as a completely safe nuclear reaction? It is my understanding the nickel simply melts if the reaction gets to hot and
    everything safely stops. Therefore it is my opinion for public relations purposes we must not refer to the E-Cat as becoming “out of control” “over heats”, “uncontrolled”, “reaction becomes unstable”. These terms can easily be used by “the evil force” (: to discredit the E-Cat.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Martin: the industrial plants are already in the market.
    Warm Regasrds,
    A.R.

  • Martin

    Hi mr Rossi,

    If you take a wild guess, when do you expect to see the first e-cat on the market?

    Regards
    Martin

  • Joseph Fine

    Andrea Rossi,

    I just found a new use for the Industrial 1 MW and residential E-Cats.

    Just warm up some “Feridobacterium nodosum”.

    (Cyanobacteria)

    http://www.biodesign.asu.edu/news/asu-scientists-bring-the-heat-to-refine-renewable-biofuel-production

    Arizona State only needs temperatures of 46 degrees Celsius for their strain of Cyanobacteria to produce biofuel. Just add heat to “Feridobacterium nodosum”. The E-Cat can produce 46 degrees C and is the lowest cost heat available for the task (other than leaving it out in the Arizona sun)! So this can reduce the cost of biofuel. Until there are E-Cat cars, of course.

    46 degrees C (Warm) regards,

    Joseph Fine

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Hank Mills:
    No, that configuration is not possible, so far.
    As for the Hot Cat: complete information will be published after the end of the tests.
    Thank you for your continue and competent attention.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Hank Mills

    Hello Andrea, 

    Would it be possible to build an ECAT in which the volume of the reactor core (and therefore the pressure and temperature) could be modulated to help control a self sustaining system? For example, what if you had a hydraulically powered piston that would normally limit the volume of the reactor core, but when certain dangerous conditions are detected it could be activated and increase the volume of the reactor. By increasing the volume the hydrogen pressure would drop along with the temperature of the gas in the cylinder. Each cylinder would need to be made longer to allow for the gas to have space to expand when the piston retracts, but it seems like it would be a decent trade off to eliminate the drive.

    Also, I wonder if you could reconsider posting just a little of the data from the new hot cat in self sustain mode. For example, a simple graph showing temperature over time (an hour lets say) and input power. It would show simply and elegantly that the hot cat tech works, despite what certain parties may say. I think it would be a great way to show that their conclusion was incorrect.

    Data from self sustain mode might be, figuratively speaking, a silver bullet that could pierce the mumbojumbo and expose the truth. No one could deny the significance of a drive-less hot cat radiating kilowatts of power for an hour or longer while not dropping in temperature.

    Thanks.

    Hank

  • A. Louis Tengzelius

    Sir,

    A.R., the Inventor, stays focused and moves toward inspiration after inspiration. Congratulations on your HotCat! The “mumbojumbo” people usually can not be equated to those who quietly work on inspirational projects such as the two quietly achieving positive results on Nickel and Hydrogen processes in this reference:

    http://experimental.site11.com/

    Regards,

    ALT

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Steven N. Karels:
    We are making important contracts.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Greg Leonard

    Dear AR
    I have tried to explain on a different forum why the ‘self sustain’ mode of working is rather difficult.
    I explained it as follows:

    All the indications are that the reaction can run out of control if the temperature gets too high – the result is melted Nickel and no further reaction.

    When the system is being controlled, it is running below that critical temperature. ie. t < Tcrit.
    At temperature 't' there is supplied some input power 'In', and the reaction generates more power 'Rossi'
    The combined power 'In + Rossi' is exactly enough to maintain the temperature at 't'.

    We have a stable situation where the reactor maintains temp 't' and the COP = (In + Rossi)/In.
    It is producing total power of 'In + Rossi' at a temperature 't'

    Now the input power 'In' has to be at a higher temperature than 't' for any power to flow into the device – perhaps 't+200'. There is no way heat at 't' is going to be any good for supplying 'In'.

    If you are prepared to run the reactor at Tcrit + a bit, and rely on modulating the flow of water to keep on bringing the temp back down to just above Tcrit, then you may be in business. The engineering issues, however, are not simple as you would have to get the coolant to every part of the reaction to ensure no local hot-spot goes all melty.

    Much better to run at below Tcrit, so when you remove 'In' power, the whole thing starts to cool and eventually stops generating. By running at the lower temp, there is a much better chance of keeping all parts of the reactor below Tcrit and so safe from damage.

    The indications so far are that the Hot-cat can be running at around 't' = 1000 .. 1200 C. This is plenty hot enough to extract the total power of 'In + Rossi', and deliver it elswhere at above 600 C to drive turbine/Stirling engine and get your 'In' power back + a lot more as useful electricity.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Given your annual replacement cost of 10,000 Euros per year or about $13,000USD and a 1 MW unit working continuously for 8,760 hours per year, I compute a fuel cost of about $1.48 per MWH. Given the cost of electric heat of around $30 to $50 per MWH (for very large customers) I would compute a savings of between $200,000USD and $400,000USD per year. I would therefore see a breakeven time of between 4 and 8 years. Why is the main media silent? Are you seeing increased interest from commercial firms? This seems a no brainer.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Steven N. Karesl:
    the answer is yes, but within the control system algorythm.
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    This may have been asked and answered before — can you explicity state or confirm that when eCat is in a self-sustaining mode (ssm) of operation and virtually no electrical input is used to heat the eCat, do you still have a control parameter to “throttle back” the eCat upon demand?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Steven N. Karels:
    Sorry, this is a confidential information.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    You mentioned running the Hot eCat at a lower COP for safety reasons and because it is a prototype — a unit still under testing. My question – How do you lower the COP? Do you operate under a reduced Hydrogen pressure compared to the pressure associated with a COP of 6?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Wladimir Guglinski:
    As everybody saw, I stayed away from all this mumbojumbo of the Swedish technician that made measurements, but at this point I want to make the following necessary precisations ( too much is too much):
    1- these measurements have been made upon the Hot Cat for few hours and have been very inconclusive. As I repeated hundreds of times, we are making throughly measurements and analysis on the Hot Cat since months, with indipendent third parties. We will finish within November, and then we will publish the final results, and only those results will be precise, because final, because made indipendently from a third party and because made upon a final version of the Hot Cat, ready for the industrialization after all the modifications made during all these tests.
    2- the measurement have raised many perplexities when we tested the instrumentation used by means of a bulb lamp of 60 Watts ( brand new): our instrumentation measured correctly 60 Watts ( 59.7), their measured 200 Watts. Odd, but during a measurement everything can happen. This is why we must make many months of measurements before being sure of the results.
    3- the fact that 60 millions of investments have been retrieved because of this test is ridiculous. We were in contact with those guys who wanted to buy shares of our company ( for an infinitely smaller sum), but the deal was very, very far from a conclusion, because we didn’t yet agree upon key factors, like business plan, budget etc . We were in discussion. They retrieved nothing, because no agreement they had reached with us.
    4- under NDA they asked to come to us to measure the electric power consumption. I had nothing in contrary, one more measure would be useful, and said yes. They came here, and after few hours, when the reactor didn’t yet reach the right power, decided that for them the test was finished.
    5- with full respect for the NDA they gave to a magazine information which by the way was not true ( see point 3) and forgot to mention the fact that a lamp of 60 Watts resulted to consume 200 Watts ( they said it was because the lamp was more luminescent than normal, but when we plugged it to a wall plug the luminosity was the same- witnesses available).
    6- after some day I received a written message ( conserved) in which I was invited to explain particulars regarding the charge, in a suggestive way to help to slow down the attack from them
    7- I simply ignored the whole, for a very simple reason: the Hot Cat does not depend from the four hours they stayed in our factory, it depends from the thousand hours we are spending measuring the prototype in operation. I confirm that the measurements we are making are very impressive, and after the experience with the technician above mentioned we are using more and more sophisticated instrumentation, that will be described in the final report made by the third party that is making the tests, but the results are extremely good (so far, and I underline SO FAR).
    8- I want to repeat another time that our measurements on the Hot Cat are not finished, that we cannot yet talk of a product, until the analysis will not be completed; I also said this in Zurich ( 400 witnesses).
    9- In these months of tests we have modified substantially the reactor and now we have reached results that we will see together soon. Also remember one very basic thing: the final verdict will arrive from our Customers, when also the Hot Cat will be ready for the market .
    In this period, while we are working in our factories across the Atlantic Ocean 16 hours per day and during which thanks to our technlogy we are making jobs, investments and products that will give something useful to the world, we have to stand a Niagara falls of chatters and stupidities, but we have not time to answer. This is why I let the chatters go free around… but too much is too much.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Steven N. Karels
    Interesting considerations, but when you make electricity the heat is not lost, you can co-generate ( and tri-generate too).
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    It still seems like an inefficiency to use electricity to heat an eCat that produces thermal energy that boils water and runs turbines to produce electricity. I wish to bring up the argument that conceptually, a single eCat can produce thermal energy, store that thermal energy someplace and use that thermal energy to control other eCats without intermediate generation of electricity for control purposes. I know the Certifiers do not want the heat from an eCat controlling the eCat for safety reasons. Generating electricity is what, 45% efficent? Half of the eCat energy is lost as waste heat.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    I forgot to put the link in my last comment:
    Ecat Test Failure Leads Investors to stop $10 Million Investment
    http://energycatalyzer3.com/news/ecat-test-failure-leads-to-loss-of-85-million-investment

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    To the readers of Rossi’s JNP

    Ecat Test Failure Leads Investors to stop $10 Million Investment
    The investors had the Swedish National Testing and Research Institute measure ecat output on September 6 in Bologna and apparently found that ecat wasn’t putting out any more energy than it was drawing in electrical power. That would indicate it wasn’t generating power. After seeing these results from an independent tester the investors apparently withdrew.

    Sometimes we do not understand some news.
    After all, as the Rossi’s eCat is able to work in the self sustained mode, as proved in the test made in October 2011 (when it worked along 4,5 hours), then there is no chance to have any controversy on the subject, because in the self sustained mode there is not any electrical power suppling the eCat.

    However, it seems the Hot eCat is not able yet to work in the self sustained mode.

    Perhaps the reason is because Rossi is using a flyback in his new Hot eCat.
    As the flyback needs electric supply, the Hot eCat cannot work in the self sustainded mode, yet.

    In the future, when Rossi succeeds to convert the heat to electric energy, then a small portion of this energy can be used for the flyback power supply, and the Hot eCat will be able to work in the self sustained mode.

    regards
    WLAD

  • Hank Mills

    Hello Andrea,

    I am glad to hear that a test of self sustain mode has been made. That is very exciting, and I hope you show the data to every would be tester that you let inside of your laboratory.

    One thing that I would like to comment on is the difference between self sustain and a closed looped system, at least in my mind. Although I know different people may have varying definitions, I consider a self sustaining system to be one that is intrinsically self powering. For example, an ECAT without a drive. Such a self sustaining system keeps producing output without multiple external apparatuses involved. A closed looped system would be a setup in which a device produces power, external apparatuses or attachments convert that output power into the required form, and via a potentially complex system some of the power is put back into the system in the form of input. An example of such a closed looped system could be a “driven” ECAT producing steam that is converted to electricity via a steam turbine generator.

    I think either type of ECAT would be tremendously exciting and could solve the energy crisis. But a self sustaining system without a drive might be a bit simpler to configure, produce a bit more net power, and be a tad more elegant.

    But again, either one would be awesome.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Hank Mills:
    1- yes
    2- with the hot cat, if we will make electric power, the ssm of the system will be permanent, even if we do not break the drive.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Steven N. Karels:
    The maintainance of a 1 MW thermal plant costs 10 000 Euro per year, considering also the recharges. o difference between Hot Cats and E-Cats are foreseen. The maintainance has to be made by our specialized operators, to respect the reqiuirements of the certification.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Can you tell us the cost for a 1 MW Warm eCat the annual cost to the owner of re-charging/replacement the fuel containers? Any difference for a 1 MW Hot eCat?

    Do you envision this being done by the plant owner’s maintenance crew or by Leonardo Corp personnel or by third-party personnel?

  • Hank Mills

    Hello Andrea,

    Have you tested the re-designed hot cat in self sustain mode yet? For example, a test in which the hot cat remains the same temperature, or increases in temperature, for at least an hour with no input power or drive?

    If such tests have not yet been performed, I hope they are planned.

    Sincerely,
    Hank

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Guru:
    Let’s work, brick by brick.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Avi:
    Yes.
    Warm Regasrds,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Andrew:
    The inquiries are thousands, your equation is right.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrew

    I will totally understand if you decline to answer, my questions are How many 1Mw ecats have you sold?
    and How many enquiries?
    I would expect only 1/1000 enquiries would perhaps result in sale
    Many thanks for your efforts and time to read/answer all these posts
    Drew

  • Avi

    Hi
    Is it possible for universities or academic institutes to buying 1MW plant of the ECAT?

    Thanks

  • Guru

    Yeah i love this game.

    One year back Dr. Rossi carefully told: All sort of energy will be integrating.

    And I oppose: No, Your advanced technology will destroy centralized distribution systems within 8 years.

    it is very important for whole world security – Not delay launching this tech.
    We really don’t want live under radioactive dust flying around Globe after next (preparing) war.
    Early launching of technology = no need of old nuke energy = no excuses for another war.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Steven N. Karels:
    To get commercial info, please contact
    info@leonardocorp1996.com
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Marco:
    The Hot Cat (high temperature E-Cat) we are working upon is on his way toward this target. It will not be easy, but the results we are obtaining in these days (at the moment in the USA) are extremely good.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Neri B.:
    1- the preparation of the Ni powder has an energy consume irrilevant respect the energy that we can get from it, for obvious reasons: we consume chemical energy and produce nuclear energy ( E=mc^2)
    2- Our theory will be released only after our patents will have been granted.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Neri B.

    Dear Andrea,
    i am following a discussion on an italian blog talking about your device.
    Someone is doubting that your chemical treatment (or catalyst or what) of nichel powder is an energy consuming process and this energy is just released in your device with some sort of chemical reaction and “lattice” deformations implying your COP is fake because you have to consider the energy in treatment process.
    Many people agree and i really don’t know what to think.
    Could you please give me an answer to this ?
    What is your estimate time in releasing your theroy and (i hope) experimental data with evidence of gamma/X rays emissions to get rid of these more and more numerous doubts?
    Thank you
    Neri B.

  • Marco

    Dear Andrea,
    I am eagerly looking forward to see the self sustained reactor. This will be the TRUE revolution.
    Your last interview in which you put away the diplomacy about the other form of energy production make me believe that you are VERY VERY close to this step.

    Keep up the good work.
    As a researcher I understand your cautiousness.

    Regards,
    Marco.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    It would be interesting to know the Life Cycle Costs of the Warm eCat industrial unit. I understand the following costs but I could be mis-informed.

  • @Wladimir. Thanks for the videos sir, I will try to create a motor if I havcve the time, great!

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=""> <strike> <strong>