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.

The Quantum Space Theory (QST) could explain the LENR

.
by
F. Santandrea
R&D systems analyst – Labor s.r.l. Rome Italy
E-mail: f.santandrea@labor-roma.it
.
U. Abundo
Physics teacher – Leopoldo Pirelli I.T.I.S. high school Rome Italy
E-mail: interprogetto@email.it
.
.
The QST theory elaborated in 1994 by F. Santandrea, now under revision, contains some topics concerning the LENR recently submitted and appreciated from LENR researchers, QST could giving an unifying point of view on the whole Physics.
For further detailed please refer to the following link QST updated topics:
Ten years later the same basic ideas were independently approached by U. Abundo employing  the tools offered by the J.Von Neumann’s Cellular Automata from a point of view focused on information traveling, please refer to the following link:
The well known Widom-Larsen theory, basically focused on the cooperating behavior of the electrons in condensed matter (tuned with the theory of G. Preparata) may be regarded as a special case, under specific conditions, of what is predictable by the QST.
According with QST, it is naturally predictable the loss of identity of the electrons confined into condensed matter lattice, while the properties of space have priority and permit/control existence and behavior of electrons, so giving a natural coherence to the assumptions of Widom-Larsen.
Into the present new approach to space and particles structure, the latter become just expression of stable resonance frequencies of space; the same electron, particles and generally condensed matter are “electromagnetic objects” constituted of standing waves into the space quantum found by TSQ.
.
.

366 comments to The Quantum Space Theory (QST) could explain the LENR

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Steven N. Karels:
    I did not say that we turned 1 g of mass into energy! I said that we turn picograms. The loss of 1 g of weight was probably due to loss of humidity.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Paul:
    4
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Paul

    Andrea,

    Does thermal crosstalk between hot cats in the 72 hot cat configuration:
    1 – improve efficiency?
    2 – create instability?
    3 – both?
    4 – none of the above

    Paul

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    I guess I am confused. In previous postings, you stated that neither Deuterium nor Tritium was produced. You also said, I believe, that you said Copper production was a minor contributor to energy. Now you have said that 59Ni was not observed nor was any unusual Nickel isotopic observed.

    So we have a large amount of energy released and no observable change in the “fuel” composition. Although your report indicated a 1 gram loss in “fuel” mass. I find mysteries dis-quieting.

  • Joe

    Dr Rossi,

    My questions from 2 comments ago are the following:

    1. Since the relative and absolute amounts of Ni isotopes are hardly affected by 4400 hours of use in the Hot Cat, and since no radioactive substances are created during the reaction process that would necessitate their removal for the sake of safety, how have you reasoned the need for a fresh charge every 6 months? Are the catalysts or H the real reason? Is the creation of unwanted but harmless byproducts – grit – to blame?

    2. Will the third party validation of your claims by respected individuals lend positive pressure to your efforts to have the E-Cat patented?

    3. Are you still doing fundamental research to improve the COP? Or are you working on applications solely, satisfied with a COP of 12 for the foreseeable future?

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Joe:
    I lost it: can you kindly repeat the question to me?
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Joe

    Dr Rossi,

    My last comment was actually addressed to Wladimir.

    But, I did leave a comment to you at the bottom of this page (6) which you probably missed. I am hoping that you will respond to it.

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Joe:
    We do not give information regarding this kind of issues.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Joe

    Wladimir,

    1. In QRT, what is the mechanism that prohibits the creation of a dineutron?

    2. In QRT, what is the mechanism that prevents the collapse of a deuteron?

    3. In QRT, what is the mechanism that allows or prevents the formation of a proton halo?

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Paul:
    I cannot give information regarding what is done or can be done under the cover of the reactor;
    Thank you for your attention,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Paul

    Andrea,

    Based on the photos from the Zurich conference report, it appears the hot cat has 16 reaction chambers and 2 electric heaters. Is there a limit to how many reaction chambers a single heater can control?

    Is that limit 8?

    Paul

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Strange.Things:
    Thank you, Christian.
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Prof. Brian:
    As soon as a plant will have woeked properly, we will definitely invite guests ( you will be sure invited, if I have understood correctly who you are).
    Detailed information will be published.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Brian

    Mr. Rossi

    Congratulations on your contract. By when do you anticipate being able to identify the name of the Hot-Cat customer?

    Also, you mentioned earlier this year that you would be able to publicly identify a customer of the regular E-Cat. Are there any plans to release this information.

    Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.

  • Avi

    Dear Andrea Rossi
    Some of the 1MW units are now in operation in military, So as i understand this, the US gonverment already aware of this revolutionary technology, right?

    Warm Regards

  • StrangeThings

    Dear Rossi,

    Thank you for your tremendous efforts. Keep on , u will succeed.
    Hope ur earlierst new business related partnership is going well.
    I wish u good luck and hope all of us can share the outcome of ur developments.

    Regards ST

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Avi:
    1. yes
    2. because they signed a mammoth contract, giving the certainty of a solid future to our development.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Guiliano Bettini:
    Eventually yes.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Steven N. Karels:
    a. yes
    b. impossible to detect
    c. impossible to detect
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Guru:
    We, obviously, maintain the same level of industrial secret confidentiality with all, no exceptions, for obvious reasons. We answer to all the questions we receive, provided they are not regarding confidential issues.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    You stated that you have never detected 59Ni.

    a. Does that mean that you looked for isotopic distribution (e.g., using an SEM) and saw an isotopic distribution but the 59Ni was not observed?
    b. If you did perform an SEM examination, was the isotopic distribution different after >6 months of operation compared to that before eCat operation, within normal variations?
    c. Did you detect any ADDITIONAL Copper isotopes compared to the distribution of the “fuel” before running the eCat for >6 months?

  • Giuliano Bettini

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    the news about the first 1 MW hot cat in operation within February 2013 is really a big news.
    Do you think that attempts will be made to produce electricity?
    My best regards
    Giuliano Bettini

  • Avi

    Dear Andrea Rossi
    1. Is it possible for any company now to buy 1MW hot cat?
    2. How did you choose the first company you will install 1MW hot cat? because this is big company?

    Warm Regards

  • Guru

    Title: how our small country will suffer fatal losses
    ——————-
    In our small country is ongoing tender for the completion of the nuclear power plant in the volume some 300 billion CZK (16 billion USD) for state majority owned big company which will be decided in the spring / summer 2013. Until now I was in comfort, because everything seemed to be right.
    Rossi publicly announced “we need 2-3 months for some tests etc”. O.K. our government officials can learn through official channels that old-fashioned nuclear powerplants are obsolete and outdated by Rossi’s superior technology.

    But now the situation is such that by summer 2013, no one officially know that giving 300 billion to obsolete technologies are a waste of money. For our small country it will have fatal consequences, fatal damages. I cannot sit idly as our beautiful small country is destroyed by artificial silence and one consequently wrong decision of our officers.

    Dr. Rossi, I have to ask You the question: If I’ll alert our officers that Your technology is superior and nuke plant for 300 billion is fatal mistake, our officers will not take me seriously, because there was not official news, not official validation.

    If I challenge our officers to inquire of You whether Your technology is real, you are willing to answer them or you keep silent?

    Thank for Your attention, Guru

    mail: p607@atlas.cz

  • Guru

    For example: our country state owned business must decide until spring/summer about order for 300 billion into obsolete dirty nuke new powerplant (between Westinghouse and Rosatom).

    So things make sense to delay some publishing. Bravo !

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    QUANTUM FIELD THEORY IS BEING DEVELOPED IN THE WRONG WAY

    Most people think that Quantum Mechanics is a successful theory, and that it’s definitive. But it’s not. The Quantum Mechanics has failured, it has some inconsistences, and the own quantum physicists know it..

    Just because it has failured, the quantum field theorists had created in the 20th Century a new theory, named Quantum Field Theory (QFT) , so that to eliminate the inconsistences of Quantum Mechanics.

    Inconsistences of Quantum Mechanics continue in Quantum Field Theory

    Quantum Mechanics is based on several fundamental principles, as Bohr’s Principle of Complementarity, Heisenberg’s uncertainty, Pauli’s Exclusion Principle, de Broglie’s duality, etc.

    The attempt of the quantum field theorists in trying to eliminate the Quantum Mechanics inconsistences is via mathematics and by keeping the fundamental principles of the theory. So they believe it is possible to eliminate the inconsistence by improving the mathematics of the theory, and there is no need to change the principles.

    For instance, the isospin was proposed by Heisenberg so that to explain why two neutrons do not form the dineutron, because:

    - as there is no Coulomb repulsion between two neutrons

    - and there is the attraction between them by the strong force

    - then it would be expected that two neutrons should have to form a dineutron, but it is known that dineutrons do not exist in nature.

    But Heisenberg’s isospin is a mere mathematical concept, and it cannot explain why two neutrons do not form the dineutron, because only a force of repulsion can separate two neutrons interacting by the attraction force due to the strong force. A mathematical concept cannot create a repulsion force, and so the isospin is an unacceptable explanation.

    However, as the quantum field theorists try to eliminate the inconsistence via mathematics, it seems to be impossible to eliminate the inconsistence of the isospin by improving the mathematics proposed by Heisenberg, because the mathematics cannot create a force of repulsion so that to separate two neutrons attracted by the strong force. It seems there is need to change the physical structure of the neutron considered in standard Nuclear Physics, because only by this way it would be possible to explain the existence of a repulsion force between two neutrons, when they interact in the distance of 2fm.

    Other inconsistence is concerning the de Broglie’s duality. His hypothesis advanced in 1924 says that particles of matter such as electrons have wake like properties. His hypothesis was supposedly confirmed by Davisson-Germer experiment in 1927, and the scientific community had concluded that duality is a property of matter as proposed by de Broglie.

    But there was another different interpretation for the Davisson-Germer experiment, because Schröedinger had discovered a trembling motion of the electron in the Dirac’s electron equation. Schröedinger had interpreted it as a helical trajectory, and so by such new interpretation the duality should not be a property of the matter, but actually it would be a manifestation of the helical trajectory of the elementary particles.

    Heisenberg did not accept the hypothesis of the helical trajectory, because that hypothesis would introduce in Theoretical Physics undesirable conjectures. So, the theorists had adopted the Heisenberg’s proposal of considering the mathematical way (without any physical meaning as Schrödinger had proposed) for the interpretation of the electron’s trembling motion in the Dirac’s equation, and so they had rejected the physical way of interpreting it.

    The book THE MISSED U-TURN

    Now you may have been invaded by a question, and you say to yourself:
    “Suppose that Heisenberg was wrong. Suppose that the electron’s trembling motion in the Dirac’s equation is a helical trajectory as interpreted by Schröedinger. Well, in this case Quantum Mechanics is wrong, and there is a serious inconsistence in the theory, and it is impossible to eliminate it via mathematics. Actually there is need to change the fundamental principle of duality as it was proposed by de Broglie, and to consider that duality is a manifestation of the helical trajectory. Therefore Quantum Field Theory must be developed in a way different of that taken by the quantum field theorists, because instead of trying to eliminate that inconsistence via mathematics, actually it must be eliminated by changing a fundamental principle of Quantum Mechanics”.

    Well, if such question was occurred to you, you’re right. Such question is just analised in my book ‘THE MISSED U-TURN, the duel Heisenberg vs Schröedinger- from Newton to Rossi’s eCat, where it is shown that the inconsistences of Quantum Mechanics must be eliminated by changing some fundamental principles of the theory.

    The book was written so that to be understood by the lay reader, and the Cambridge International Science Publishing decided to publish it. In 16th September 2011 I and the publisher Mr. Victor Riecansky had signed the Agreement for the publication of my book.

    You may see the three pages of the Agreement in the links ahead:

    Page 1
    http://peswiki.com/images/6/67/Pagina1doAGREEMENT.JPG

    Page 2
    http://peswiki.com/images/6/6a/Pagina2doAGREEMENT.JPG

    Page 3
    http://peswiki.com/images/2/2b/Pagina3doAGREEMENT.JPG

    Unfortunatelly some physicists had discovered that my book would be published by that important publishing house of London. And they want people do not take knowledge that Quantum Field Theory can be being developed in the wrong way. That’s why they began to threaten Mr. Riecansky and the publishing house, telling him do not publish the book. And so the publisher had decided to broke the Agreement, and do not publish my book.

    Experiments made between 2009 and 2012

    Between 2009 and 2012 the publication of some new experiments are reinforcing the evidence that Quantum Field Theory is being developed in the wrong way. We may mention the following ones:

    1- An experiment published by Science in June 2011 shows that it is wrong the Bohr’s Principle of Complementarity:

    Observing the Average Trajectories of Single Photons in a Two-Slit Interferometer

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/1170.abstract

    2- Between 1997 and 1999 my paper Anomalous Mass of the Neutron was rejected by many journals of Nuclear Physics. One of the reviewers rejected the paper with such argument:

    ”It is hard for me to believe those dificulties raised in this manuscript will have escaped the scrutinity of all those proeminent particle theorists. For instance, the author proposes a new Planck constant for the uncertainty principle in the femtometer scale. Had this been true, the string theorists should have encountered the difficulty long time ago and even have proposed their own third different Planck constant”.

    But an astronomical observation of June 2011 is suggesting that my hypothesis is right:

    Integral challenges physics beyond Einstein

    http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM5B34TBPG_index_0.html

    3- From the principles of standard Nuclear Physics, light nuclei with Z=N=pair must have spherical shape. That’s why along 80 years the theorists had never supposed that those nuclei could have a non-spherical shape.

    In July 2012, the journal Nature published the paper How Atomic Nuclei Cluster, where the authors propose that light nuclei with Z=N=pair have non-spherical shape, a conclusion inferred from the data collected by the experiments made in the Argonne National Laboratory, published in March 2012:

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7407/full/nature11246.html

    The non-spherical shape of light nuclei with Z=N=pair was predicted in my book Quantum Ring Theory, published in 2006. In the page 131 of the book it is explained why they have non-spherical shape, in spite of they have null electric quadrupole moment (earlier 2012 the nuclear theorists had supposed that null electric quadrupole moment always requires a spherical shape). The authors of the paper published in the journal Nature had used the same argument proposed in my book (so Nature published a plagiarism).

    4- The light nuclei with Z=N=pair (with Z=2, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20) are stable, but beryllium isotope 4Be8 with Z=4 is not.. Along 80 years the nuclear theorists tried to explain such anomaly. Each theorist had proposed a different method.

    Of course, if the fundamental principles of the standard Nuclear Physics should have been correct, there would not be necessary 80 years of attempts, and several different methods.

    Besides, in 2009 a new experiment showed that in the isotope 4Be11 the neutron halo is 7fm far away of the rest of the nucleus. This new experimental finding shows that nuclear theorists are in the wrong way.

    ”’The stability of light nuclei is explained through the new nuclear model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory: ”’

    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Article:Stability_of_light_nuclei_isotopes_according_to_Quantum_Ring_Theory

    5- According to the new nuclear model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory, the nuclei aggregation is not promoted by the strong force. Such hypothesis is corroborated by an experiment published in 2009, when for the first time scientists had measured the size of a one-neutron halo with lasers, and they found that in beryllium isotope 11Be the neutron is far away 7fm from the rest of the nucleus. As the strong force actuates in the maximum distance of 2fm, the experiment shows without doubt that the agglutination of nuclei is not promoted by the strong force.

    Atomic Nucleus with Halo: For the First Time, Scientists Measure the Size of a One-Neutron Halo with Lasers

    https://idw-online.de/pages/de/news301916

    The authors of the experiment say:

    “The strong interaction that holds atoms together can only extend to a distance of between 2 to 3 femtometers. The riddle as to how the halo neutron can exist at such a great distance from the core nucleus can only be resolved by means of the principles of quantum mechanics: In this model, the neutron must be characterized in terms of a so-called wave function. Because of the low binding energy, the wave function only falls off very slowly with increasing distance from the core. Thus, it is highly likely that the neutron can expand into classically forbidden distances, thereby inducing the expansive ‘heiligenschein’. “

    So, the theorists are trying to explain such strange anomaly via mathematics, instead of to accept the obvious conclusion: some fundamental principles of the standard Nuclear Physics are wrong.

    Conclusion

    Recent experiments published between 2009 and 2012 are suggesting that it is not possible to eliminate the inconsistences of Quantum Mechanics via mathematics by keeping the fundamental principles of the theory, as the quantum field theorists are trying to do. Therefore it is wrong the way adopted by the theorists for the development of the Quantum Field Theory.

    A successful theory capable to eliminate the inconsistences of Quantum Mechanics must be developed by considering new fundamental principles different of those proposed in the theory. This is just the way adopted in Quantum Ring Theory.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Tom Conover:
    Thanks to you for your attention,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • tom conover

    Dear Mr. Rossi,

    Thank you, your reply helps very much.

    Warm regards,

    Tom Conover

  • GianLuca

    Dear A.R.
    ammiro sempre più il Suo stile pacato e positivo.
    Keep it up.
    Have good job

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Tom Conover:
    We always maintained the scheduling we said and we always did what we said we should have done.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Gian Luca:
    Allow me to correct you: our patent is still pending. The EPO just asked us more information and our attorneys are working on it. Patents of this kind of complexity are normally subject to many discussions, which can last years.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • GianLuca

    Apprendo del rigetto della richiesta di brevetto europeo con un pò di disappunto.
    Non riesco a capire per quale motivo il comitato si sia espresso in questo modo e non comprendo nemmeno le ragioni di tale posizione. Se la domanda rispetta le condizioni necessarie al fine del rispetto dei diritti di chi la presenta che differenza fa, per l’ufficio brevetti, se si tratta di LENR o di chemical reaction?
    Di raggi Y, X o radon? Di vapore a 100 o 650 °C? Non stanno facendo “la pipì fuori da vaso”? Forse c’è qualcuno che sta cercando “in zona Cesarini” di ostacolare “l’attaccante”?
    Carissimo A.R. aspetto con ansia altre buone nuove entro fine anno. Chissà che veramente il 21/12/2012 non sia il giorno della svolta!!!
    Saluti

  • @Steven,

    1. Sorry, but if you do not measure any radioactivity after 3 hours, you have to divide these 3 hours by 5 (3.13% nucleons still radioactive after 5 half-lives) or by 7 (0.78% of the nucleons still radioactive) to find a proxy (or rough estimation) for the possible half-life time of the nuclear reaction/transmutation that is involved.

    2. And after 5 times the half-life time, you still have 3.13% of the original nucleons that are radioactive, and after 7 times the half-life time this is reduced to 0.78% of the original nucleons.

    Kind Regards

  • tom conover

    Dear Mr. Rossi,

    Thank you for the exciting news about the sale of a hot cat plant, and also for the internal ecat validation report. I know it is not in your control when a third party report will be published, but you must have emailed or phoned the third party as any business person would have to obtained a recent statement from this party as to their latest estimate of a release date for this report. When do they think this report will be produced? If they haven’t checked with them lately, will you please do so for us? Many are saying “delay, promise, delay, new date, delay, new date” and while I personally think great progress is being made, should I continue to plan on this tech becoming available for “We the PEOPLE” within perhaps 2 – 5 years or so?

    The idiot from Forbes is getting under my skin with his sarcasm, and there appears to be a possibly very very long time remaining to wait before the e-cat is vindicated, can you think of any way to soothe this angst? I will continue to believe, because I want to, and even because I must.

    Sometimes, though, all it takes is one tiny mustard seed to move a mountain!

    I hopefully await a reply from you, kind sir. Regardless, keep up the good work.

    Warm regards,

    Tom Conover

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Steven N. Karels:
    First of all, I wish you do not have further damages for this tremendous Sandy event.
    About your question: no, we never detected 59Ni.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dearv Guru:
    Interesting case history.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Guru

    Dear Dr. Rossi,

    what is bad on business model of U.K. company ARM ?

    They develop ARM CPU plus MALI GPU and this IP is sell as licence to some 60 companies as nVidia, Texas Instruments, Qualcomm, Apple, Samsung etc.

    Even your control hardware use this ARM CPU chip. Some companies slightly advance this architecture, some add own GPU.
    Yearly is produced some 2 billions pieces of these ARM chips. ARM don’t own manufactures (in your words: they are “generals without army”).

    Whole world need some 50-150 million E-cat devices of all shapes PER YEAR.

    Your way is way of First Solar (FSLR) company which slowly build own manufactures and all was proprietary and no licence to sell. Dear Dr. Rossi, look at graph/chart of FSLR and you will see your future (with own manufactures added every year and no licence to sell).

  • Steven N. Karels

    Daniel,

    Sorry for the delayed response but Hurricane Sally — loss power, internet down plus some damage.

    You are correct that after 5 half-life times, the residual radioactivity is small (~1%). But you multiply the half-life by five, not divide.

    I did not include the 59Ni as a reaction because so little is produced that it would not affect the power output.

    I used equal probabilities of reaction for all the stable isotopes because I have no information that one was favored over the other.

    To Andrea Ross — Have you seen 59Ni detection in any of your long term (>6 months) spent fuel analyses?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Avi:
    Yes, with an invitation from us. We will select the visitors.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Avi

    Hello
    when it will be possible to visit the hot cat when it will be installed?

    Thanks

  • Pietro F

    Immagino che un anno fa (esattamente un anno!!!), per motivi economici, ha consegnato il primo ecat da un Mw ad un organismo militare, aveva, in quel periodo, grossi problemi finanziari. L’organismo militare contrattualmente aveva richiesto il blocco per un anno di ogni attività commerciale. Ora decaduta questa obbligazione ha finalmente dato il via all’attività commerciale e ha potuto far entrare nel patrimonio della Leonardo investitori privati.

    ..immagino giusto!!!!!

    Buon lavoro ing. Rossi.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Emilio Icaza:
    Yes, Leonardo Corp is very much powerful now. I can already say that the first 1 MW hot cat will go in operation within February 2013. It will not be a military application, therefore selected persons will be allowed to visit it. It will be installed in a big power production and distribution plant.
    This is the new. The plant is made in the USA.
    An extremely important agreement has been signed after the tests of the Hot Cat, which are going on since June in the USA and in Italy.
    The details will be communicated only after the plant will have been working for enough time to be visitable, also to avoid clubs in the wheels.
    That’s all I can say right now.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Adrian Monk:
    I think that Prometeon is preparing the English version, anyway you can contact directly them.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Fabio 82:
    Please contact Prometeon directly: I am in the USA.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Fabio82

    Dear Andrea Rossi
    Prometeon’s site is amazing!
    Good work!
    How many prenotation have you got right now?
    Thank you
    Fabio

  • Adrian Monk

    Dear Dr. Rossi. I see that Prometeon is going online. Can you push for an english version of Prometeon website? :-) The reason I ask you is that I think it will be put on priority if you ask that of them :-) .

  • Emilio Icaza

    Dr Rossi,

    You mentioned last week that Leonardo Corp would not be the same this week. Has that transformation taken place?, and, when will we find out about it?

    Godspeed,

    Emilio

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Neri B.:
    Please read the answer I gave to Luigi Sandri.
    Our patent attorneys are working on this.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Neri B.

    Dear Andrea,
    could you please comment on this:
    http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/10/leonardo-patent-report-publication-scheduled-for-nov-21/

    Are you going to satisfy the requirements and give more information within 4 months?
    What do you think after this communication from Patent Office?
    Thank you for your attention
    Neri B.

  • Joe

    Dr Rossi,

    1. Since the relative and absolute amounts of Ni isotopes are hardly affected by 4400 hours of use in the Hot Cat, and since no radioactive substances are created during the reaction process that would necessitate their removal for the sake of safety, how have you reasoned the need for a fresh charge every 6 months? Are the catalysts or H the real reason? Is the creation of unwanted but harmless byproducts – grit – to blame?

    2. Will the third party validation of your claims by respected individuals lend positive pressure to your efforts to have the E-Cat patented?

    3. Are you still doing fundamental research to improve the COP? Or are you working on applications solely, satisfied with a COP of 12 for the foreseeable future?

    All the best,
    Joe

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>